Disruption: Breakdown following court orders Special Guardianship, residence or adoption Judith Masson MA PhD Professor of Socio-legal Studies, University of Bristol ISS Conference Melbourne April 20161

Presentation 1.Outline the orders for permanency available in England and Wales Adoption Special guardianship (since 2005) Residence (now Child Arrangements) 2.Outline the changing use of these orders for children in OOHC (LAC) 3. Examine the different breakdown rates and reasons for them ISS Conference Melbourne April 20162

N children leaving care for adoption, Special Guardianship or residence orders (E) ISS Conference Melbourne April 20163

Use of Special Guardianship In child protection proceedings to secure care by relative (alternative legal arrangement: CO with relative as foster carer) For child in OOHC to provide permanency with foster carer For child on edge of care to secure care by relative (local authority promotes arrangement) As private family arrangement instigated by carer (most relative carers have no court order) ISS Conference Melbourne April 20164

Disruption rates (Selwyn et al 2014) All rates are low Definition ‘Return to care after order’ Risk at 5 years RO 147: 1000 SGO 57: 1000 AO 7: 1000 RO SGO AO ISS Conference Melbourne April 20165

Factors related to order disruption Cox P.H. model; not significant (Selwyn et al. 2014) Residence orderSpecial guardianship Order Adoption Order Age at entry to careReason for entry to careAge since order Number of moves Age at adoptive placement Placement is not with kin Time between placement and order Age since orderGender Reunified with parents beforeAge at placementWhether adopted by foster carers Legal status at entry to careTime from entry to ad. placement Age since order ISS Conference Melbourne April 20166

Understanding disruption: comparing SGO and Adoption (Selwyn et al 2014; Wade et al 2014) Commitment Assessment Preparation Transition Support ISS Conference Melbourne April 20167

Commitment Most SGO carers are very committed Higher breakdown risk for non-relatives suggests kin are more committed Selwyn noted exceptional commitment by many adopters Refusing to give up in the face of huge challenges child to parent violence Severe sibling conflict Breakdown of marriage etc Isolation because of loss of friends Only half of birth parents positive Most reluctantly accepted order ‘Zero support for us as a family. We hang on in there somehow for her sake because she deserves it, and we cannot contemplate the alternative. But it is at a huge cost to our emotional, physical and financial health.’ (Selwyn AUK survey) ISS Conference Melbourne April 20168

Assessment Far less rigorous for SGOs than adopters Uncertainty about how to assess kin Failure to recognise additional difficulties of abused/ neglected child Time constraints – superficial assessment Quality assurance more limited than for adoption The LA’s concerns were not always accepted by the court Concerns: new assessment regulations Greater focus on permanency – care to adulthood Greater focus on risks from parents who have abused or neglected child ISS Conference Melbourne April 20169

Preparation Lack of preparation for kin carers In Wade’s study Half guardians did not feel fully prepared 15% had not cared for child before order 20% felt pressure to agree 10% did not feel special guardianship was right order for them/ child ‘My mother was very manipulative, and unfortunately she kind of manipulated me into it, I believe. Because if I had thought about it properly, I don’t think I would have had the children…cos I’ve never actually wanted children’ ‘We didn’t really sit and discuss it with them at that time, cos I thought they were a bit young…We just told them they were going to be here a long time…I think they understood that.’ ISS Conference Melbourne April

Transition Adoption introductions are planned 30% adopters in breakdown study said introductions poorly handled (Selwyn) Statistically related to premature end of adoptive placement 15% of children were not living with special guardian before order Some of these had little pre-existing knowledge of child Issue for children too Outcome was better for children who had lived with carer before order At follow up (20-92 months post order) (Wade) 92 % special guardians thought children well integrated in the family 59% said things had gone very well for the child since the order Only 10% said ‘not very well ‘ or ‘not at all well’ ISS Conference Melbourne April

Support Little support for relative carers in UK More support for adopters – high on government agenda In Selwyn’s study adopters noted inadequate therapeutic support Some special guardians have a right to assessment Where children have been OOHC LA must assess Support package commonly agreed before order made: (80% in Wade study) Support tends to decline over time eg only 8% still had support with contact Financial support is means-tested Key supports: to manage child’s challenging behaviour; to cope with child’s complex needs; for birth family and with contact; finance. Need for contingency ISS Conference Melbourne April

Conclusion: improving kin care Recognise that children needing kin care have additional needs And make sure carers, agency and court knows what these are Recognise that kin care is not always best Ensure that those offering care are thoroughly assessed Understand that carers are pressured to offer Recognise that children and carers need preparation for the move Ensure that children and carer feel placement is right before making order Accept and prepare carers and agency for difficulties Develop accessible services ISS Conference Melbourne April

References Department for Education (2015), Children looked after in England (including adoption and care leavers) SFR 34/15 National Tables, available at Department for Education (2015) Special Guardianship Review d_Report.pdf Department of Education (2016) Special Guardianship Statutory Guidance available at _guidance.pdf Harwin et al. (2015) A national study of the usage of supervision orders and special guardianship over time ( ) Briefing paper no 1: Special guardianship orders Nuffield Foundation available at: Selwyn J. and Masson J. (2014) ‘Adoption, special guardianship and residence orders: a comparison of disruption rates. Family Law Journal, 44(12), pp Selwyn, J, Wijedasa, D. and Meakings, S. (2014) Beyond the adoption order: challenges, intervention and adoption disruption London: Department for Education available at research brief available at Wade J., Sinclair I., Stuttard l. and Simmonds, J. (2014). Investigating special guardianship: experiences, challenges and outcomes (Research Report DFERR372). Available from: ISS Conference Melbourne April