My forewords to the DfE consultations on contact between birth families and children in care and on siblings and adoption

1. DfE papers on Contact between children in care and birth
families and on siblings and adoption.
Introductory Forewords (2) by Martin Narey
Contact Consultation Foreword
During the past year and since my appointment as adoption
advisor to the Government, I have visited a large number of local
authorities and voluntary adoption agencies, and met many
hundreds of individuals involved in adoption.
Whenever I sit down with practitionersor adopters to discuss
adoption and wider issues of care, I invariably ask them to tell me
what worries them. Contact has been one of the subjects
mentionedmost frequently.
The more I have listened, and the more I have read the extensive
research which is available, the more I have become concerned
that, although it is invariably well intentioned, contact harms
children too often.
But let me be very clear. Most children who come into care enter
care for short periods and are soon reunited with their families. I
am not remotely suggesting that contact should not take place in
those circumstances. Even when children are in care for longer
periods, and before it is clear that adoption is the right path for
them, I expect contact with their natural parents and families to be
the norm.But I do argue that such contact should be agreed only
when it is in the best interests of the child. The current legislative
presumption in favour of contact and which sometimes leads to
contact being seen as inevitable, needs re-examination.
In the large majority of cases where contact is appropriate, there is
a need for local authorities and the courts to look critically at the
amount of contact. Daily contact sessions, often lasting more than
two hours, sometimes preceded and followed by long journeys are

2. not in the interests of the child and are too often distressing to
them. This is of particular concern when contact involves an
infant.
I believe that contact should happen much less frequently by the
time a child receives a Placement Order. At this point,
reunification with the birth family is only a remote possibility.
Contact should happen only when it is, demonstrably, in the
child’s interests. And after adoption, birth family contact,
including letterbox contact, should only take place when the
adoptive parents are satisfied that it continues to be in the interests
of their child. Although the legal position on this is clear I hear
from too many adopters who feel informally bound to allow
contact despite their grave reservations.
But these are very difficult issues and I am very pleased that
before coming to a conclusion themselves, that Michael Gove and
Tim Loughton are seeking views. I hope thatsocial workers and
other practitioners, magistrates and judges, birth families and
adoptive families as well as older adoptive children and adopted
adults will let Ministers have their views. I have been pleased to
prompt what I believe to be a crucially important debate.
Siblings Consultation
Soon after my appointment as the Government’s Adoption
Advisor, I attended a meeting at 10 Downing Street where we
discussed how the Prime Minister might encourage more families
to come forward to adopt the large number of children in care who
were in sibling groups.
At that time, it did not occur to me to question the policy of
keeping brothers and sisters together. It seemed to me - self
evidently – to be the right thing to do.
But over the last year I have become troubled by the extent to
which the strong presumption in keeping sibling groups intact
may disadvantage children, at best delaying and sometimes
preventing their adoption. Additionally, I have learned, first

3. through visiting the excellent Family Futures adoption agency, and
then through meeting parents of adopted siblings, that even when
there are adopters willing to take on the challenge, keeping
siblings together may not always be in the interests of individual
children. For example where, through a period of neglect, an older
child has been effectively parenting a younger child, it can be vital
for them to be separated so that each can develop a positive
attachment with their new parents.
Currently, there are too few adopters willing to take on the
challenge of sibling groups, particularly those of three or more
children. I am very clear that we need to do more on recruitment
to close the gap between siblings in care and adopters willing to
adopt them. But, as this document explains, the gap is immense
and I very much doubt that it can ever be plugged through better
marketing and recruitment.
But even if we saw a flood of adopters coming forward there are
other reasons to be cautious. The evidence suggests that keeping
siblings together may not always be in the interests of each
member of a sibling group and younger children, in particular, can
be damaged. And sometimes the challenge of adoption and
compensating for an early life of neglect and abuse might be
considerably easier when parents are coping with just one child
and not two, three or four.
Sibling relationships are important and I am not suggesting that
we should not do what we can to keep siblings together. Just
yesterday, I was buoyed by a conversation with one adoptive
father who spoke entirely positively of his experience of adopting
a brother and sister simultaneously. But the presumption that
keeping siblings together needs to be tested in each instance and
we need to be certain that we do not relegate the interests of one
sibling to the interests of another.
But, as with the subject of Contact, on which Ministers have also
asked for views, this is a difficult and often emotive subject and it
is vital that the Government gets policy and practice right. So I
welcome Ministers’ decision to open a debate and I hope that all

4. those involved in adoption: professionals; magistrates and judges;
adopters and the adopted will respond.
Martin Narey
Government Advisor on Adoption
July 2012