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 It requires a serious overhaul of a system that is inefficient, out of date and fundamentally not developed with the child’s interest in mind.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.

• 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.

In fact on the occasions we were offered children as a transaction – and this is documented in the article- we declined. As for money, well yes of course you have to spend money to adopt. You spend to fill in forms. You spend money with your local council on the Home Study so a social worker can probe your lives. You spend money with the UK government. And you end up spending loads more money because quite often the latter messes your around. We spent money on airfares and accommodation in Mexico because we felt that if we waited for the authorities to come up with a match for us it would never happen.

As for the notion of a ‘dream family’ again that is totally inaccurate. The concept itself suggests some sort of genetic selection. Quite seriously if you wanted a dream family would you adopt children from parents you had never met? Yes we hoped and dreamed of having a family but as for a dream or perfect family well if you think adoption is a route to perfectly formed children in every way then you have another giving. It is about giving children who do not have a home, a place to be safe, secure and loved. It’s about sharing and caring. That was our dream family, and luckily despite governmental inefficiencies it has come true and hopefully with my work more children will have a shot at a proper life. As for buying a dream family, anyone with that notion is probably not the person to care for children.

Not surprisingly my childhood continued to influence me. I have always been concerned about the environment, our planet, sustainability issues and the fact that there are so many children in this world just waiting for a home. For a number of years I held a major global position at Greenpeace. When my husband and I were married we were not desperate to have children. However, there was an unspoken sense that we would, and it might be a little unconventional.

We are, to all intents and purposes, both fertile. But we chose to adopt.  That point of view immediately put us at odds with the chattering classes who declared how wonderful it was to have their own children. It also put us on a road that often seemed to lead to nowhere; a route that appeared to be laden with booby traps and endless obstacles. They dug up every inch of our lives. Yet instead of each step making it easier, it became harder.

I began to wonder if this was actually an attempt by the UK government to make adoption difficult. When our local council told us we were ‘too white’ to adopt one of the many mixed race children available, we knew something was rotten in the system.

Many people give up at that point. In fact, many people give up long before this. Just the fact that you are being judged constantly, almost as if you are a criminal, makes it tough. My husband and I were lucky. We had the financial resources, the know-how from working in big business, and most of all, a united belief that we were not going to let them beat us.

When we found the route to international adoption stalling we took matters into our own hands and went to Mexico to find our baby ourselves. It was the beginning a road trip, that would be both physically and emotionally gruelling as well as funny and poignant. We met selfless people running orphanages, mothers who had no choice but to give up their babies in a strongly Catholic country and, in a Starbucks off a highway, a lawyer who traded in babies and had convinced himself it was not only legal but moral. We met people who had nothing but wanted to do everything they could to help us. We took our marriage to a place that isn’t easy and it came back intact.

Needless to say, we didn’t accept the lawyer’s offer but lots of couples do. We did it legally, at times sailing very close to the wind in our discussions with various governments. And when we brought our daughter home thinking she was safe at last, she was arrested at Heathrow. The nightmare never stopped. And for many people it is too much to bear.

Speaking to other couples about their experiences with adoption I realised something had to be done. There was a lot of suffering going on but not very much adoption. I decided to write Mexican Takeaway because I felt that most of the books written about adoption were overly sentimental and personal, rather than inclusive.

Adoption is still in many ways a taboo. I want it to be something that is acceptable, natural and, most of all, accessible. Yes, there have to be rules, but right now the rules are inhumane and immoral. They do not work. I decided that at the very least I could try and campaign to change some key ones so set up Adoption with Humanity.  Our aim is to transform the process of adoption into something that is not about forms and unworkable rules, but puts the interests of the children, the adoptive parents and birthmother at its core.