ADOPTION OF CHILDREN

HC Deb 06 November 1967 vol 753 cc796-804

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings (Burton)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise this subject of the present position regarding the adoption of children. I do so with two aims in mind, first to give this subject a national airing, and this is certainly needed, and secondly to seek assurances that the Home Secretary will re-examine the present position. I know quite well that in this debate I am inhibited; I am inhibited by the rules of order because I cannot on the Adjournment raise questions of new legislation; but I hope that by skating as skilfully as I can I shall keep within the rules of order and at the same time leave the Under-Secretary of State in no error at all as to what I have in mind and as to what I want him to do.

I want to keep a balance. There are three parties concerned in any question of adoption of children or the fostering of children, the placing of children in foster homes. There is the natural mother—and I say the natural mother rather than the natural parent because I shall be referring to the natural mother all the way through—the adoptive parents, and lastly but by no means least the baby.

What I have to say touches only the tip of the ice-berg in relation to the problems which are caused by the present position in the adoption laws. I have here a sample from a large dossier of cases sent to me by the Birmingham Post, which has been conducting an inquiry and a campaign since the spring. In addition, I have managed to compile my own dossier of devastating cases from all parts of the country. I use only two cases out of the many that I have to illustrate the present position.

I was brought into the range of this problem by a tragic case in my own division, Burton-on-Trent, about a Mr. and Mrs. Cocker. I will not go into the whole of the details. There was a girl of 18 unmarried, who had a baby in April of this year. After ten days this baby was put out to a foster home and remained there until 3rd July when it was taken to the Cockers with a view to adoption. On 17th July, 14 days later, forms of consent and adoption forms were signed. This went on until 27th September, when the case worker in charge advised the adoptive parents that when it came to the court within a few days it would be a matter of form. Then, to everybody's amazement, at the last moment the natural mother changed her mind and, in the end, the baby was given back to her. One can understand a natural mother's feelings—at least I hope that we can as mere men—the devastating worry and anxiety at the position she finds herself in; but the court returned the baby to her and left behind a devastated couple—the adoptive parents.

The second case I will mention is from another part of the country, but it is more devastating still. In the first case we have the devastation of the adoptive parents, the child almost literally not entering into consideration; but in the second case we have a couple, about 40 years of age, who wanted to adopt a nine months old baby and who got the opportunity to do so. After six weeks the natural mother wanted the baby back, quite naturally, and the baby went back. But listen to the chequered career of the baby itself. After the birth the mother wanted the child adopted, so there came the first change of home for the baby; it was put out to foster parents until adoption could be arranged. Some weeks later the mother changed her mind and got the baby back. This was the second change. Then a month later she changed her mind again and wanted adoption, so the baby went back to the adoption society, and for the third time it was put into a foster home pending adoption. Then comes the potential adoption, and five weeks later the natural mother changes her mind again and takes the baby back, but it has to be put out to foster parents before the final take over by the natural mother. Here we have a devastating case where a child in nine months had six homes.

Under the present system of the law, where the child should be of paramount importance, in these two cases, and in many others, the child has been the last one to be considered. One could go on giving case after case.

I want to consider the law as it stands under the 1958 Adoption Act. If the Under-Secretary of State casts his mind back to the 1926 Act, he will recall that it contained the vital words: the welfare of the child The emphasis was on the welfare of the child. Those words did not appear in the 1950 Act. In this Measure the natural mother was considered to be of paramount importance, and consideration of the child seemed to fade into the background.

Section 7 of the 1958 Act says: the order if made will be for the welfare of the infant. Unfortunately, as the history of scores of cases shows, the welfare of the infant is not being regarded as of paramount importance, and if I were to say no more I know that I could rely on the second case to which I have referred to prove my point.

People may say that this sort of thing happens in a minority of cases and that the big adoption societies handle about 20,000 cases a year. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the statistics of what are called "snatch-back" babies, where the child is taken from the foster parents and returned to the natural mother. "Snatch-back" is a horrible phrase, but it is the jargon in adoption circles. People may say that this sort of thing happens in a minority of cases, but numerous instances of it are reported in the Press, and since this debate was announced hon. Members on both sides of the House have given me details of cases known to them.

Perhaps I might read a letter from the adoptive father in the second case which I quoted. I cannot make the point as well as he does. It is a heart-rending letter in which he says: I think all recognise that every allowance must be made for the emotional stress to which the natural mother is subjected and the law must protect her interests which may become clear to her only after a lapse of time. On the other hand, I do feel that the interests of adoptive parents warrant more recognition and protection than they receive under the law as it now stands. It must be remembered that most adoptive parents" —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but he is transgressing the rules of order if he is suggesting changes in the law of the land, because that involves legislation.

Mr. Jennings

I thought that I was skating skilfully round that because I was quoting from a letter, but I shall content myself with saying that the writer says that if the child is taken back at the last moment the effect can be "utterly devastating".

I want, now, to say what I think should be done. If I had anything to do with this I would ensure that the county court judge or the magistrates had absolute discretion to make or refuse to make an adoption order, and to direct that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance.

I am almost certain that I am not transgressing the rules of order if I read from a judgment on past legislation, in 1952, by Mr. Justice Devlin—as he then was—who, commenting on the 1926 Act, said, That gives an absolute discretion and, in exercising their powers under a section so worded, the justices would no doubt be right in regarding as the matter of paramount importance the welfare of the child. He then went on to refer to the 1950 Act, and said: However that may be, it is plain that the test is no longer the welfare of the child. The way the 1958 Act is working out in practice means that the welfare of the child is no longer of paramount importance.

Alternative to the first proposition I have outlined, I would ensure that the natural parents of a child cannot be invited to sign a form of consent until the child is at least three months old, but that the form of consent will then be irrevocable. Every case I have investigated has proved to me what a woeful lack there is of case workers. I know one adoption society that has had 500 cases in a year, with one part-time worker. Very often these unfortunate girls who get into trouble need case workers' advice and sympathy during pregnancy and not necessarily only after the baby is born. We should try to increase the number of case workers.

I now look for an assurance—and I am confident that I will get it—that the Home Secretary will investigate and re-examine the whole problem of the adoption and the fostering of children. This is the first shot in a Parliamentary campaign this Session. I say this is the kindliest way possible, but I shall use every legitimate Parliamentary practice and device to see that this subject is nationally reconsidered. I shall use Question Time; I shall use the Ten-Minute Rule procedure, and if I am lucky on Wednesday in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills I shall endeavour to introduce a Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is all very well. The hon. Member is entitled to do that, but it is an abuse of the Adjournment Motion to advocate changes in legislation.

Mr. Jennings

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying what I intend to do under certain circumstances, and if I am lucky in certain steps in the House, legitimately and within the rules of order I shall be entitled to table what Motions and Bills I see fit. This is the subject I shall raise.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence, and to the Under-Secretary for answering the debate. I trust that I have left him plenty of time to give me the assurances I have asked for.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)

I am interested to hear of the campaign the hon. Member proposes to launch, but does he accept that in any case in which a natural mother, for one reason or another, is not able to keep the baby no amount of rearrangement of the law can make the situation wholly satisfactory for that baby, and that however industrious he is with his campaign he will agree that the situation underlying the situation that he is trying to remedy is one which itself brings about inevitable suffering?

Mr. Jennings

Yes. The hon. Member is getting back to moral values and conduct, and legislation cannot affect them.

I have tried to show that the problems result from the ill-working of the 1958 Act and therefore we were trying to remedy that Act. With the help of hon. Members who have approached me, I hope to form an all-party group to keep this matter alive. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence, and to the Under-Secretary for being here, and I hope that he can give me the assurances which I seek.

11.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne)

It is nearly ten years since our last general debate en adoption, yet the subject is important and bristles with problems. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) gave some graphic illustrations of the hardship which can be involved, and we are grateful to him for his balanced and constructive approach.

I will deal first with the general scene. In 1959, there were just over 15,000 adoptions in Great Britain. The numbers have been growing and, in 1965 there were over 23,000. The hon. Member concentrated on the smaller number of cases of an adoption order not going through because the natural mother changes her mind and reclaims the child. We all know of these cases and have come across instances of great hardship. Even in the Home Office, in the relatively short time that I have been dealing with the Children's Department, I have found that this kind of case gives rise to more correspondence than any other.

The figures are small, the most reliable proportions being under 2 per cent., but the possibility exists in many adoptions right to the moment when it becomes final. This possibility creates anxiety in the minds of the prospective adopters over months when they and the child should be settling down together with as little tension as possible. It is obviously a serious problem, and if there is any way of reducing the chances of the mother changing her mind all parties concerned would clearly benefit.

There are ways of dealing with this by considering the practice. Most people will agree that one of the most satisfactory adoption services should be to make available to those thinking of having their child adopted proper advice about what this involves and the other possibilities open to them. In many cases this means giving help and advice to a young, unmarried girl who discovers that she is to have a baby. No one can force advice on others and girls in this position may be, quite naturally, reluctant to seek advice. But if it can be given as early as possible, with practical guidance on the alternative possibilities, such as how she can cope if she keeps her baby, what fostering arrangements might be made or the alternative of adoption, she would then be in a much better position to reach a firm decision after the birth.

She should, of course, have continuing advice and support right up to that final moment. There would then be much more chance that, when she makes a decision, she will keep it. The hon. Member will agree that this is one of the important questions of practice which should and could be looked at.

A big problem is that the resources of the various adoption agencies are not unlimited, and the rising number of adoptions means that they are fully stretched. The voluntary adoption societies which arrange a considerable proportion of all adoptions depend on voluntary help and the number of caseworkers available varies greatly from society to society. The staff of local authority children's departments and of our own training programmes have been expanding fast, but the relative scarcity of social work resources means that all those with responsibilities in child care have to establish priorities.

The number of local authorities acting as adopting agencies has been growing, and about half the children's departments now act as such, despite their important and growing statutory responsibilities. Of course, I hope that this trend will continue. It is not only a question of help and advice to mothers. The other aspects of this work are also important, and this means considering the inquiries which must be made into the stability of the prospective adopters.

Whatever one does, there are certain inherent difficulties, as the hon. Member for Burton has recognised. After the birth of a child, the mother may be suffering from the effects, and it is in her interests and in the interests of the child that she should not be expected to take an irrevocable decision before the birth of the child. It is also agreed that the child should be with the adopters for a certain period before irrevocable steps are taken by them.

One must have safeguards for both adopters and child, and there is general acceptance, from all our inquiries, that there is a need to avoid rushing into a decision about adoption, on the part of the mother or the adopters. This means that the period of uncertainty is bound to be long. Whether it needs to be as long in all cases is not certain.

The hon. Member said that it was undesirable to tilt the balance too much away from the welfare of the child and towards the rights of the natural mother, and that perhaps more consideration should be given to the adopters. I think we would agree that, whatever changes are thought desirable, it is a very difficult balance to strike, because none of us would want any party to an adoption to be injured. With the vast and growing number of adoptions it will be impossible to avoid hard cases and we must face this fact.

The question which arises is whether, in addition to improvements of practice, other measures can be taken to reduce hard cases to a minimum. This problem exercised the hon. Member for Burton, other hon. Members, children's authorities, magistrates, doctors and social workers. I should like to assure the hon. Member that we are ready to examine all proposals for resolving any of these difficulties. We would welcome the views and suggestions of those with experience of adoption and its problems. It must not be looked at as one problem in isolation. Any consideration of how to improve this or that aspect of adoption is difficult without looking at adoption as a whole. There are, I think, three main related areas for investigation.

First, we need to improve our knowledge. We know far too little about what makes for successful adoption. My Department is sponsoring research into this. The National Bureau for Cooperation in Child Care published at the beginning of this year a survey of existing research. The bureau is also conducting a study designed to throw light on the factors making for successful adoption. In addition, we have a statistical project designed to provide more comprehensive figures about the operation of the existing law than are now available, including figures of cases where an adoption does not go through because of a change of mind on the part of the child's mother.

Secondly, there is the change in the practice of adoption societies. The Advisory Councils on Child Care of England and Wales and of Scotland established at the end of last year a Joint Committee charged with the task of preparing a memorandum of guidance on adoption practice, intended mainly for local authority workers coming new into this work. Its memorandum is likely to cover such matters as the service which an adoption agency should provide for natural parents, including the alternatives to adoption to be considered; the assessment of prospective adopters; the study of the child; the process of placing a child in a new home; the administration of a case work service; and the structure of an adoption agency. Third, there is the law, which it would be out of order to discuss tonight. The results of the research I have mentioned and the studies of the Joint Committee set up by the Advisory Councils will, however, be relevant to the question whether there should be changes here and I hope that these results will begin to become available before too long—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member appreciates it is just as out of order for the hon. Member as for any other Member of Parliament to discuss matters which would involve changes in the law.

Mr. Taverne

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am just saying that we are gathering a lot of information. Earlier this year, as a first step, we asked local authority associations and the voluntary adoption societies of Great Britain to collect information about the operation of the present system, and forward any suggestions for improving it, apart from the question of law, they might wish to make.

We welcome any information and proposals which all those who have relevant experience of adoption wish to put forward, and when the time comes for a formal review, full consultations will take place with all concerned. That will be an essential of the review. I am glad of the chance to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are taking a serious look at adoption in all its aspects in order to see what improvements may be possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.