Oxford is of course a popular place for Cameron and his ilk. Many of them (and many Labour politicians) studied there. But now, strangely there is no reaction from a government that wants to do better for children. We expected the usual deathly silence from Edward Timpson (Edward when are you going to talk to me?) but after the jaw-jaw of the government and how it cares about families and vulnerable families at that, where is the interest?

This is a classic example of what we at ABW have repeatedly identified: the lack of support for children and parents in vulnerable situations. This might seem like an isolated case but it really is part of a bigger picture where children in danger, either in families or in care, are given very little consideration. And if they are adopted, the parents get no support. It would be far too assumptive to say the council ignored the pleas of the girl’s mother because she was adopted. But it’s not wrong to say that adoptive parents are ignored.

Type the search term, ‘adoption in the Queen’s Speech.’ It is Not Found. No surprise there. We’re used to promises and talk but not much action. What we’re really disturbed about though is that the most repeated words in the document are ‘Cuts’ and “Councils’. Together. So how are we going to look after these vulnerable young people already suffering because of Osborne and Cameron’s austerity package? In our report last year, we noted that many young people in care will have experienced traumatic, dysfunctional childhoods. Sadly children are not given away because their parents adore them. They are usually taken away when they have been abused or neglected.

As it was clear in our report from last year. Many young people in care will have experienced difficult and often traumatic childhoods and many of them will have been abused or neglected.When they leave the system after a life in care, their outlook is bleak. Cameron and his government seem to want to make it even worse. How bad does it have to get?
Seven organisations – Barnardo’s, The Care Leavers Association, Catch22, the Fostering Network, TACT, Voice and The Who Cares? Trust – are calling on the Government to reform the system in a new briefing, “Still Our Children”, published today.
The number of young people aged 16 and over leaving care has risen each year from 8,170 in 2007 to 10,000 in 2012. This is the result of the State as corporate parent. Changes are needed to improve comparatively low outcomes for care leavers:

• 23 per cent of the adult prison population has spent some time in care
• Around a quarter of those living on the street have a background in care
• Care leavers more than four times more likely to commit suicide in adulthood
• In 2011 just 12.8 per cent of children who had been in care for a minimum of one year obtained five good grade GCSEs, including English and maths; for other children the figure was 57.9 per cent
• The number of 19-year-olds who were looked after when aged 16 years and who are now NEET is 36 per cent, double the number of their non-care contemporaries.

Yes we agree that young adults should benefit from more support when they leave care. We absolutely do. However might it not be better to address the problem at its roots. An adoption system that actually works for the participants and placed children with families in a timely manner would be a huge start. And it would lessen the care burden. The foster care system currently costs the state £2bn per year. If we add the costs of prison, homelessness, and drug problems, the overall cost to society is a big one. Meanwhile, the foster care system is imploding and there continues to be a major shortage of foster carers. If there was less need for foster carers, the current ones could foster for longer and the children would have some stability. Astonishingly the government appears not to have made these connections and they are the only ones who cannot see that without an holistic approach to the welfare of children in our society they are doomed to perpetuate this chain of neglect and incompetence.

A crisis situation like the one affecting about 70,000 children in this country necessitates way more than a guideline here and a passport there. It requires a serious overhaul of a system that is inefficient, out of date and fundamentally not developed with the child’s interest in mind. The whole process needs confidence in it and around it and right now, a flimsy passport isn’t going to do this.

Children’s Minister Edward Timpson said: “For too long children have been left waiting – in many cases over two years – for the stable, loving homes whilst prospective adopters have been dissuaded from offering those children the security they need.” The issue is, Mr Timpson, the passport does not even attempt to address the fact that children wait too long. To do so would require tackling the enormous weight of overly bureaucratic processes, the inefficiencies of the Family Courts and the lack of consistency between them and social services.
Most importantly, the Government has completely ignored the need for a regulator which would ensure a smoother process for children who languish in care for years. Until the Government does not seriously take responsibility to address this, we will not see the step change we have been promised for years now. Meanwhile we continue wasting time and lives. But then again Mr Timpson hasn’t even got time to meet with me, so what do I expect.

But it has been far from quiet for myself and my team of dedicated supporters and volunteers who worked tirelessly – many of them for free – to launch ABW and our first report, Adopt a Better Way: Not Just for the Children’s Sake.

I have been stunned by people’s generosity, the time and skills they offered, from PR, designers and rebranding professionals, to the stunning posters which were donated and placed around 20 key locations in London.

And a special thanks goes to our lovely Baroness King of Bow, Oona King, patron for ABW who has also adopted three children, and left her busy work and family life to pose with me for a photo shoot at one of the poster sites. We are hoping this will be followed up with some coverage in a national publication.

Although this was a quiet week for media coverage, my concern is that complacency could set in when we desperately need urgent adoption reforms, that everyone will sit back and do nothing because they believe that the government is doing a great job, yet there is still so much that needs to be done.

Here are some of its findings from our study that government needs to be aware of, and this is what continues to drive us on:

Adoption rates are their lowest in ten years
The number of children waiting to be adopted has increased by 15%
A child over the age of 8 has only a 1% chance of being adopted
It takes an average of 2.7 years for a child to be placed with a family after they have been accepted
Compared with 10% of the general population, 45% of children in care are assessed as having a mental health disorder
Twenty seven per cent of children in care have special educational needs compared with 3% of the general child population
Compared to 86% of all 19 year olds, fewer than 40% of children in care in London are in education or employment at 19

We must keep adoption as a high profile topic to remind everyone of the urgent reforms that need to be made, and how we must place the needs of these young children above the bureaucratic system that currently exists.

The media has already called it a non-event. Adoption week. One week where we try to focus attention on the kids who don’t get a fair shot at life. The kids who languish in care. The kids who could have a family if the authorities and government could look beyond their own inhuman and inefficient processes.

Since last year we’ve heard Cameron and co talk the talk. They made some announcements and some that even made the headlines. And then, nothing.

But some people are interested. We have been utterly amazed by the generosity of agencies and individuals who have worked flat out over the past few weeks to pull together our campaign for Adopt a Better Way.Most of them have worked totally unpaid. They have done it not because they want to adopt or were rejected for adoption. These are people who simply care what happens to thousands of children in the UK every year. Children who are already damaged and then have to endure further damage by the system.

They work in media, marketing, design, writing, film and research. They are natural parents not adoptive ones. They are people like you who understand that if you fix the children you fix society.These people have freely helped us produce our new brand, our new launch, the posters you will see at over 20 sites in London. These people haven’t asked for acknowledgement. All they want is that you spend a few minutes thinking about the kids that society is failing. (A list of poster sites is at the at bottom of this post)

We’ve commissioned a report that shows just how broken the care system is. The findings indicate just how the care system impacts on a child’s ability to settle into an adopted family and shows us that with some commonsense thinking, we can improve their lives. And our society.

We need your help. They need your help. If you’d like to help a child get a real shot at life please visit our website and make a donation. Yes it’s for the children. But actually it’s for society as a whole. If we make just a few small changes to the system we can prevent kids ending up homeless, as prostitutes or addicted to drugs after being in care. And we can give more of them a permanent loving home. That is why we’re here. And we hope you are too.

The fact that this is likely a result of ignorance and fractured processes rather than malice, is little comfort however, for the adoptive parent. Having already endured an emotional rollercoaster that has lasted years, they reach a point where they adopt only to find they have no support.

An article in the Guardian raises some pertinent issues about this, particularly in the light of falling placements.

In the piece, John Simmonds, director for the British Association for Adoption and Fostering makes an excellent point regarding the lack of support (link here) particularly with troubled children, groups of siblings, disabled children and those who are older.

And this I think is the crux of the problem.

“There needs to be a recognition that, for any adopter, this is a challenging thing that people are taking on.”

Nothing prepares you for adoption. The local councils and social workers would have you believe that the highly invasive and traumatic Home Study is part of that preparation. It’s not: it’s all about satisfying their requirements. And that doesn’t help when you are dealing with kids who have come from situations of real despair.

“Currently, 72% of adopted children were neglected, abused or both by their birth families. Alan Burnell, director of adoption agency Family Futures, says many children they see are scared and need help to adjust. “Even though they’re in safe, new environments, they need help to rewire their brain so that they can accept the love and the care that they’re getting in adoptive families,” he says.”

The requirements of an adoptive parent are complex. Where natural parents are led through the process by an army of doctors, midwives, friends, support groups, ante-natal classes and more, adoptive parents get to read a few books.

As you’ll see in the piece, there are those who do support parents and do it in the most caring, non-intrusive way. However this shouldn’t be a mere option. The one who stands to lose at the end is the foster child taken back into care because the parents need help in dealing with this brand new challenge. Remember a new baby is challenge. Think about a new baby arriving with a whole lot of baggage to a family who, having been through the disappointment of not being able to have kids and the tough adoption process, now find they are unprepared. Adoption is an end-to-end process. Support for families should be integral to the process.

• The government appointed an adoption adviser – former Barnados CEO Martin Narey. 

• The government has published league tables of the number of children adopted in each council area and the time each adoption too. 

• There have also been interventions to the guidelines surrounding the adoption of black/mixed race children by white parents. In principle at least the government feels there should be no barriers to cross-ethnic adoption. 

• There are further measures in the pipeline including a leaner, less bureaucratic process to vet prospective parents. There is talk of the walls between fostering and adoption being broken down. 

• Adoption was in the last Queen’s speech and is firmly on the agenda. 

The problem is that these are really just gestures in a situation that requires dramatic action. The government has shied away from putting in place measures to reveal the real truth. This is why we want to see a government-led, enforcement authority to oversee the behaviours of Local Councils and make things more transparent. We know anecdotally that parents who’ve been approved to adopt a child currently in care cannot do so as their council does not have the resources to finalise the paperwork. Desperate parents are just as confused when their adoption case worker says that the new guidelines do not apply to their council. There are endless examples and while we’re not saying they could all be solved by a central authority, we know that such a body would make councils up their game.  We do however feel that the government is still fudging the issue of hard figures: there is no way of quantifying how many people have been denied the chance to adopt at all stages of the process. We don’t know the reasons for applications being refused. We note that despite announcements proclaiming change, the government has not yet even added a question in the Home Study asking if the prospective parents wish to adopt a child from a different race. This information is essential to understanding where the process is going wrong. The government’s way out is to name and shame councils and cut their budgets. Frankly it’s gutless and pathetic. It should be noted that before the rise in adoption rates, adoption was at its lowest level in ten years. As we say, it’s a long, long game. It’s an even longer one for the children who are waiting. Think about it:

• Most of the children awaiting adoption will never be placed into a family.
• From the age of eight onwards, 99% of children up for adoption will not be placed.

Let’s examine what the government has done: it has introduced ‘Special Guardianship’, giving parental responsibility to a guardian, who tends to be a family member or friend. This is supposed to allow certain steps such as the costly Home Study approval, to be skipped, immediately after the links from the birth parents have ceased to exist legally. It’s a good concept, however in practice it means that while the number of children in foster care has decreased that the number of adoptions has not correspondingly risen. Furthermore,

• Special Guardianship breakdowns are not recorded.
• Successful voluntary adoption agencies have been asked to take on some of the work of poorly performing councils temporarily, thus massaging the figures. 

The number of babies available for adoption appears to have decreased.  The government will say this is because less of them enter the system; however the fact that should not be overlooked is that the time to adopt has not decreased so any babies entering the care system are likely to be toddlers before they are adopted. If they are adopted. Finally we have the ‘defenestration’ of Tim Loughton, who had acted as Children Minister for two years and Shadow Children Minister for seven. Tim and I have had our arguments about how far he could go in the review of the system, however he’s shown more commitment than anyone in what is a very tough position. He championed social work and initiatied controversial reforms to speed up adoptions. And he genuinely tried to do so by involving all stakeholders from campaigning groups-  like ours-  to the children themselves to adoptive parents, prospective parents and social services. Why not let him carry on his work and build on his knowledge and passion? He was making some small, but very significant breakthroughs.

Now Edward Timpson will have to pick up and run with it. I hope he does try and run but I am fearful of the energy being lost, the time lost, and the young lives that are caught in between. Farewell Tim and thank you for caring. The issue is just as urgent, poignant and tragic. We need to run faster.

Meanwhile work on the campaign hasn’t stopped, rather the opposite.

Thanks to Rick dedicating all his available time on this, back in August I was able to meet with Christian Schroeder, CEO of Lambie Nairn, ‘THE’ London based Branding agency par excellence, who offered to support us in redefining our brand strategy and further develop it. We are absolutely thrilled with the work Kate Blewett and  Graeme Haig have done.

I don’t want to say too much now and spoil it  - yes it is a new look but that’s all I will say for now, watch this space!!!

Only a few days later we also met with Johnny Hornby, one of the founders and partners of CHI&partners and my amazingly brilliant friend, Sarah Golding, their CEO. Sarah had already been hugely generous with us in the past developing a website as a huge measure of her support in the cause and allowing me to ‘squat’ in their offices having my own desk and using their facilities for free. But this time they have gone even further; very far indeed. Under Sarah’s guidance the incredibly talented and creative Malcolm Peters has designed a number of (!!) fabulous creative campaigns, one of which will be launched soon, another gesture of support that will always be remembered and appreciated.

But that’s not all! Another great friend, the inspirational and talented Karen Blackett , CEO of Mediacom, has been offering her support for a while now, and has stepped in and with the help of Jem Lloyd Williams will support us in ensuring that the campaign gets the media exposure it deserves. Without the huge and generous support of these people we hope to in turn help and support literally thousands of other ‘little people’ : ).

Meanwhile, in the background, Olga Rudnieva and Mike Dudko, film directors of the soon to be realised documentary feature Kids-r, a global examination of the adoption crisis, tell me they are, to use Olga’s word ‘imprisoned’ in their editing suite, finalising the film. Olga flew to film us all the way from New York as she feels the film won’t be complete without our story so far; a truly unforgettable compliment to the efforts of everyone so far.

I am so thrilled, touched and massively grateful to everyone for their time, effort and unstinting generosity. It will be vital in helping us move such a crucial issue forward. There are a lot of big hearts around and I can’t wait to move into the next exciting phase of our campaign, with them.

When I read things like this I totally understand why some people find the idea of adoption a step too far. It is a fact that when you adopt you have to pay money – to your council, your government, various lawyers and that’s even before you factor in the kind of expenses you incur travelling to find your child and taking time off work in order to be able to do so.

By its nature, adoption discriminates against those potential loving parents who do not earn high salaries, favouring the well-off middle classes. People who come to adoption also may come to it after spending thousands of dollars on other methods of having a family, like IVF. I have personally seen couples shut out of adoption for purely financial reasons.

So yes, the process itself is not ideal. But this article hints at something more insidious: the worth of a child. In a world where multiple third world deaths are lucky to make page five while a handful of deaths in Europe or the US invite front page news, this should not be surprising. But there is something patently shocking about putting a price on a child and suggesting that a white child is more valuable than a black child. There are various explanations in this article that attempt to rationalize this in pure economic terms but they fail miserably: A life is a life. A child is a child whether it is black, white or yellow. The fact that a child cannot, for a long time, understand monetary concepts, makes this even more poignant.

Placing monetary value on a child, commoditising it like everything else in our society is not a modern function of a market economy but an immoral practice that harks back to slavery. As Cindy Friedmutter points out, the argument that charging higher fees for healthy white babies due to supposed demand can help subsidise black babies who are not in such demand is fatuous.  She also makes a very good point about the expectation created. Parents who spend more money on an adoption may well think this is a guarantee.

“The thing that is scary to me is that children aren’t perfect. People who are willing to pay high fees for healthy kids don’t always get perfect children. If you pay $50,000, it doesn’t mean that child is going to be healthy, gorgeous and smart.”

I’m with her when she says charging people according to what they can afford is a way for agencies to make adoption a viable choice for more families, and still let them balance the books. There is nothing simple or even fair about adoption. That children should be unloved is itself immoral. Putting a price on ethnicity, gender or physical state is getting close to something too terrible to contemplate. That is not what adoption is about.

You probably know what’s coming next: what they uncover is heartbreaking and frustrating as they experience what many adoptive and would be adoptive parents have found – a system that works against the interests of the children. Apparently Sir Elton John and David have provided a great deal of input into the feature, so my delight at being contacted was pretty much off the scale. They sent a film crew from the States to record my experiences of adopting from Mexico. I had to keep pinching myself to believe  it was true!

It’s gratifying that my campaign group, Adoption With Humanity, has been recognised amongst global adoption campaigning groups  for its emphasis on the plight of the thousands of children in the UK forgotten in care. Though I’m no less frustrated at the situation we’re in with adoption, it’s very encouraging to know that many of you share our views and understand the need to make the adoption process leaner and more child-centric.

Launched in the US this coming September, the film will be shown here in the UK just before National Adoption Week. I have huge hopes about its potential as a catalyst for change. Filming with Olga and dealing with her and her colleague Mike Dudko was an amazing experience and their commitment to giving children a voice is real and will hopefully go a long way. I felt like I had known them both for ages. We share the same views and dreams. Dreams it is worth waking up to every day for.