Letter: Put children at centre of adoption law
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: There are indeed 55,000 children in local authority care. However, over 40,000 of these children are already placed in substitute families with varying levels of support from local authorities. The remaining 15,000 are in residential care and 90 per cent of these are adolescents.
The vast majority of these young people are in residential care because attempts to place them in substitute families have failed - so great has been the initial damage that they have suffered at the hands of their original families.
To your great credit, you have been highlighting the efforts being made to track down the victims of abuse in residential care in the Seventies and Eighties, but no one seems to be prepared to ask why it happened and continues to happen.
A glance at Sir William Utting's 1991 report "Children in Public Care" provides the answer. He reviewed residential staff's abilities and called them "deplorable".
In the two children's homes I worked in this summer, only one of the 19 staff had a qualification.
The system of promotion is based entirely on time-serving.
Add to this "privatised care" and the simple fact that within the new dispensation these unqualified people can set up their own children's homes, and you have a situation which in any other field of social policy would be regarded as intolerable.
So why do we tolerate it? Well, firstly the "clients" are children who have no voice.
Secondly - money. To recruit and train staff for this difficult and demanding work so that at least 50 per cent have reached degree level would cost millions, money that no government is prepared to spend.
Yet curiously we are prepared to pick up the social cost once these young people leave care; 15,000 of our prison population have been in care, exactly the same number currently languishing there.
NIGEL EVANS,
School of Social Work,
Kingston University
Kingston Hill, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments