EVEN the youngest children face a wait of around three years for adoption, a study has found.
The statistic is part of a broader report into looked-after youngsters which is set to be presented at a conference today.
The event will include contributions from poet Jackie Kay, whose own childhood experience inspired her acclaimed poetry collection The Adoption Papers.
Working with the charity Adoption and Fostering Alliance (AFA) Scotland, researchers from Stirling, York and Lancaster universities tracked the progress of almost 2000 children aged five and under who became looked-after in 2012-13.
They found that those children allowed to return to their parents did so after an average time of nine months.
In contrast, the adoption process took an average of two-three years for youngsters for whom reunification was not an option.
Lead academic Dr Helen Whincup, of Stirling University, said: “What this tells us is that when the child is going home, this happens relatively quickly.
“However, despite the Scottish Government’s explicit commitment to early permanence, other routes to secure a child’s care take much longer, even for our youngest children.”
She added: “For those children where adoption is the most appropriate option, there is no evidence that this decision is taken hastily in Scotland.
“In fact, the data shows rather the opposite – it takes approximately two to three years, even for those children who became looked after when they were very young.”
Every year thousands of young people are looked-after in foster
care, residential placements or by relatives as a result of welfare concerns.
Prospective adoptive parents – including single people and couples of any sexuality – must undergo stringent background checks and it can take up to one year to match them with a child.
Data taken from across the country’s 32 local authorities shows 1355 children aged five and under were looked-after by others in 2012-13, with another 481 remaining at home with their parents under a Compulsory Supervision Order (CSO).
By 2016, 31% of those removed from home had returned, 11% had been placed with relatives permanently and 16% had been adopted, with another 6% “moving towards” this.
Another 2% were subject to permanence orders and data was lacking on the destinations for another 2% who had left the care system. A further 32% were still cared for away from home.
And researchers found the time taken to make decisions about those under CSOs may be influenced by the Children Hearings System in Scotland.
The team found a “clear spike” in the number of youngsters who stopped being looked-after at home after around 12 months on a CSO – in line with the official time limit for such orders.
Co-principal investigator Professor Nina Biehal, from York University, said: “This suggests to us that in some cases, decision-making as to whether or not children
should remain on a CSO may be system-driven rather than entirely needs-driven.”
The findings will be presented in full at a one-day event held by Stirling University today. Kay, an alumnus of the university, and Fiona Duncan, chair of the Independent Care Review, will contribute.
Meanwhile, researchers will continue to track the children’s progress.
Dr Maggie Grant, from Adoption and Fostering Alliance (AFA) Scotland, said: “Some children told us about early experiences of abuse and neglect, and were also able to tell us what helped them feel secure, including keeping important things from their past safe.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here