Evaluation of adoption practice in Scotland
Abstract
3coue and Purposes To obtain an accurate description of current
adoption practice, to evaluate its validity and answer a number
of subsidiary questions.
Samplet This consisted of: (i) Twenty Sheriff Courts; (ii) twelve
adoption agencies; and (iii) a postal questionnjire.
Methodology; a. ;'©scriplives Basic data and information were
obtained from the case records of adoption agencies and the courts,
and were supplemented by information gained from answers to the
questionnaire,
b. Eva^qative; The accepted standards and criteria of the social
work profession, research findings and the legal framework were
U3ed to appraise practice.
PWinftg
Irrespective of fluctuations in the number of illegitimate
children born annually, the rate of surrender has remained consstant
since 1995* The number of adoptions contracted each year
is still determined by the surrendering habits of single
mothers, A high rate of surrender was noted among the more
educated type of mother and certain other characteristics
suggested themselves as influencing the adoption decision and
its timing# The majority of mothers received no casework help
from the agencies through which they surrendered the children
and little reality was injected into the surrendering process.
Though adoption work requires continuous assessments,
observations and decision-making, it was carried out by the
least trained workers in the social work field. The range of
observations, thinking and acting was very limited compared to
social work expectations and the respective merit of a range of
possible activities were not considered. A major part of
practice, including the assessment of children and the selection
of adoptive applicants, was based on expediency, intuition,
personal beliefs and prejudices and it did not reflect any
organised body of knowledge or any discernible method. Because
of this, the consumers of the service were placed at a consider¬
able disadvantage. Certain other aspects of practice were a
negation of fundamental social work principles and of basic
child welfare concepts. Dysfunction could result in children
and adopters from this approach. The expertise that is generally
claimed*to go into agency placements has been greatly exaggerated.
Agency programmes were generally geared towards the adoption
of young, healthy infants and to the rejection of older,
handicapped/ children or those of "poor" background. Adopters
for "hard-to-place" children were mostly selected on the
principle of "less eligibility" which resulted in the
placement of the more marginal children with the mora marginal
adopters. The amount of physical and human resources, available
to each agency, was only one factor that appeared to influence
the quality and amount of service given, More important'appeared
to be the attitude towards the use of resources, the way the
agency was organised and the kind of policies and programmes it
pursued. Resources were under-used or over-used, either because
of the absence of any coherent policy or through adherence to rigid
outmoded concepts.
Three important agents, i.e. the supervising officer, the
curator ad litem and the Sheriff, all charged with the respons¬
ibility of safeguarding the interests of the child, lacked
conviction about the importance of their role. The .multiplicity
of individuals and bodies involved in the process, far from
ensuring the child's welfare, seemed to create a false sense of
security. Each one of these agents or agencies acted independently
and without consultation with the other and too much was assumed
all round that was not justified by actual events. The Court
decisions were generally reached in an impersonal, routine way
and with only a limited range of concrete factors influencing
the decision. The various courts approached the matter of reclaim
by mothers,and of adoptions by relatives, in widely differing ways.
In conclusion, with few exceptions, it is too early yet to
talk of any organised adoption work being done on practice principles
and being influenced by a wider body of knowledge.
Though the study points towards a number of necessary legal
changes, major improvements can only come from within the agencies
themselves. Finally, the findings highlight the importance of
practice-studies preceding, taking place alongside, studies
in outcome.