Adoption and Kinship Placements

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Smith]

Absolutely: the goalposts have completely shifted. As we saw with farming, it happened overnight, so there was no warning for families and no ability for them to come up with other ideas.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Following the announcements in April, a constituent got in touch. She has two adopted granddaughters who, given their traumatic start in life, rely on specialist support. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that diminishing the support fund will have long-term financial impacts on the Government’s budget?

[Rebecca Smith]

I agree with the hon. Member that there is definitely a concern around that issue. I will touch on it more later, but it has already been brought up this afternoon.

I turn to what some of my constituents are saying. My constituent CA said:

“These children are slipping through the net and it is the parents who are dealing with the fallout— excessive child on parent violence, total exhaustion from managing needs at home and constant battling with professionals.

I myself have had to give up my career—”

incidentally, she was a teacher—

“in order to maintain the daily battle of getting her to school, then constant meetings to get her any sort of education that meets her needs. It’s exhausting!”

Similarly, Joanne said:

“Myself and my husband adopted our daughter 12 yrs ago and our son 6 yrs ago. They both have Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder alongside Autism Spectrum Disorder.

My son is 6 yrs old and because of the trauma he endured in utero, he also has complex needs and has suicidal ideation with intent and wishes he has never been born—we were lucky enough to secure vital match funding last year to enable the sensory OT”—

that is, the sensory occupational therapist—

“to have weekly sessions to support him in controlling his emotions and to create a specific sensory diet which school will be able to use”

to support him in accessing school and supporting his needs. She continued:

“To hear that the fund is being reduced to £3,000 is truly terrifying. As a family, we have been in crisis and at risk of family (placement) breakdown, as having 2 complex children is exhausting, physically, mentally and emotionally, and my husband and myself had nothing left in the tank to carry on. I have been unable to work for 6 yrs due to my daughter being unable to access education as her needs were not understood or being met.”

The Labour Government promised to be different, to be bold and to put children first. However, when it came to one of the most vulnerable groups in our society—children who have experienced trauma, neglect and loss—they hesitated, they wavered and they failed to provide the leadership that we had been told to expect.

The Government say that the changes to the fund have been made to “maximise the number” of children supported, but how can they claim to support more children by offering them less? How can they ask families to step up and adopt or become guardians, only to pull the rug out from under them when they need the most support? Nearly 20,000 children received support through the fund last year. That is 20,000 stories of resilience and of families holding on through the hardest times. Now, however, many of those families are being told, “You’re on your own.”

Another constituent wrote:

“I am in the final months of a doctorate to become a Clinical Psychologist and much of my work…is with families who rely on this fund. Children and young people who are adopted have almost all experienced developmental trauma and are left with many relational and neurodevelopmental complexities that require long term specialist support and intervention in order to heal. Parenting these children is usually not straightforward and can be incredibly challenging and draining, requiring specialist support. I have little doubt that with the reduction of the fund, we will see a significant increase in adoption break downs…This is not only incredibly traumatic for all involved, but is also incredibly expensive—far greater than the costs that will be saved through the reduction in the support fund. The cost of keeping a child in care has been estimated at around £280,000, significantly more than the £2,000 that has been cut.

We know that that is not the only cost that will increase. As well as the risk of returning to care, adopted young people face tougher educational and employment outcomes and their mental health and wellbeing is significantly impacted, especially as they transition to adulthood. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill has just progressed through the Commons—why undermine its aims by severely limiting the support in the ASGSF?

In the past few months, it has become clear that this decision should not be binary. It should not be about spreading funding thinly to go further; it should be about extending the funding to its previous levels. We need to see a return to the £5,000 fair access limit, to reinstate the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessments and to allow for match funding. We must make the funding permanent—not subject to annual spending rounds—provide it for more families and recognise that if it is not provided and ringfenced by the Government, it will fall to local authorities to find it, and we know how that tends to end up.

To conclude, I will quote from a constituent who works as a professional in this field and has raised some serious questions that I hope the Minister can address. She says:

“There has been no consultation process at all...how can this be fair or legal as adoptive & kinship families have access to therapies in their adoption and special guardianship order paperwork and in their EHCP agreements?”—

that is, education, health and care plan agreements. She continues:

“Who will adopt disabled children where lots of intervention and support is necessary? How many children will return to care? What will families do without multi-disciplinary assessments where it is beyond negligence to take this away as it is often the only thing that triggers considered recommendations for adopted children in EHCPs for case reviews, for providing carefully managed intervention plans.

Our previously looked after children are being discriminated against due to their complex needs where families face yet another closed door.”

I call on the Minister to reverse her decision and to acknowledge that failing to do so risks an uncertain future for these special children and young people, and their families.