Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Barring Orders - Sec 94(14) CA1989

The making of orders pursuant to Section 91(14) Children Act 1989, colloquially referred to as barring orders, is a judicial act that seems very often to result in orders overturned on appeal and tickings off about procedural fairness.

It is often said by appellate courts (or by counsel opposing the making of such an order) that these orders are "draconian", but they are of course not an absolute bar; they do no more than require an application for permission to be made before further proceedings can be set in train. If there has been a genuine and substantial change in the circumstances that underlay the barring order that permission may well be forthcoming.

There are a number of recent authorities in which s91(14) orders have featured (and been overturned), and these are reviewed below. However, in many of the recent cases the s91(14) issue was somewhat ancillary to other primary issues on appeal – these cases therefore offer little in the way of new law specifically pertaining to s91(14). In the main recent authority is primarily of interest as illustrative examples of the application of pre-existing principle.

When can an order appropriately be made?
Authority is clear that the court should not make a barring order unless both parties have been given advance warning and an opportunity to tell the court what they think about the suggestion, particularly if they do not have a lawyer. There are many examples, but three such instances are:In The Matter of G [2008] EWCA Civ 1468, Re A (A Child) [2009] EWCA Civ 1548 (where the court cautioned against the making of these orders summarily), and In the matter of C (A Child) [2009] EWCA Civ 674, which deals particularly with the signal importance of adopting the correct procedural approach to making of orders against litigants in person.

In Re P (A Child) [1999] EWCA Civ 1323 Butler Sloss LJ set out some useful guidelines, which are still applicable. In summary: in cases where there have been repeated and unreasonable applications a barring order is a weapon of last resort, although where the welfare of the child requires it orders can be made notwithstanding the absence of such features (for example where there was a serious risk a primary carer would be subjected to unacceptable strain). In addition, that judgment tells us that an order may be imposed by the court of its own motion and may be imposed with or without limit of time. Ex parte orders would be appropriate in only the most exceptional of cases.

Duration and terms of order
The court must say how long the bar will last for. Although it can say that it will last for an indefinite period this would need to be justified and reasoned. One case where, exceptionally, it was held appropriate to make an order until a child's eighteenth birthday was Re J (A Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 906.

The order may be expressed to apply to all applications or to applications of a particular kind. Although the judge may state what should be addressed before the court is likely to agree to let another application proceed (and may record this in a recital) she cannot attach conditions to the bar (See S (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1190 andStringer v Stringer [2006] EWCA Civ 1617).

There are rather fewer cases dealing with permission applications after the making of a s91(14) barring order. One relevant authority is: In the matter of S (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1190.

The test on an application for permission is as set out in Re A (Application for Leave) [1998] 1 FLR 1: 'Does the application demonstrate any need for renewed judicial investigation?' Or 'Is there an arguable case'. In Re S the court confirms that there is no discrepancy between the two ways of expressing this test, the hurdle is not formidable and in essence all the applicant has to demonstrate is that his substantive application is not hopeless (see paras 53-55).

The proper procedure to follow is to issue a C2, attaching a draft application and copies for service. The court will either grant the application on paper or will fix a hearing to determine it (para 66). The applicant is entitled to an oral hearing if he so requests.

An applicant will need to demonstrate how he has addressed the conduct which led to the s91(14) bar being imposed (para 78).

The judgment in Re S is clear that in some cases there may need to be directions to obtain further evidence prior to the determination of the permission application (para 81-82).

It is also clear from Re S that exceptionally an application for permission may be made ex parte. For example where the respondent is known to be vulnerable to the stress of proceedings and the s91(14) order has been made with that in mind. This will enable the court to filter any application, for example to scrutinise what change the applicant has been able to effect since the order was made, before causing the anxiety that is likely to arise from the giving of notice.

Recent cases
In Re A B & C (Children) [2010] EWCC 30 (Fam) (Pilot scheme county court judgment) the local authority, with the support of the guardian, sought a s91(14) order preventing the mother from making further applications to discharge a care order. The judge declined at that stage to make an order, adjourning the s91(14) application and the mother's application to discharge for a short period pending the resolution of contact issues which were still live, noting that with the benefit of judicial continuity any further unmeritorious discharge applications could be dealt with summarily.

G (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 470 (13 January 2010) is an example of a barring order imposed for a five year term in respect of contact to a three year old girl, alongside an order for indirect contact only. That was held to be an excessively long period given the child's age and was reduced to two years on appeal. The case raises no new point of principle, and indeed Thorpe LJ was in part supportive of the appeal on the basis that the facts on the ground had changed (in that the father had since the first instance decision become resident in the jurisdiction, thereby removing the geographical barrier to contact that had previously existed).

In S (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 219 (21 January 2010) the court declined to make a s91(14) order, but it is noted as an instance of an intractable contact dispute involving evidence of parental alienation where the court made an order changing residence from the mother to the father. The mother had opposed any direct contact and sought a conclusion to proceedings and a s91(14) order. As was subsequently explained in a later judgment in the same case (Warwickshire County Council v TE & Ors [2010] EWHC B19 (Fam) (11 August 2010)) the attempt to change residence failed, and ultimately the child was returned to the mother under a residence order. At that stage all routes had been exhaustively explored and a s91(14) order was made against both parents.

In A Father v Lancashire County Council [2010] EWHC 2503 (Fam) (30 July 2010) a "garrulous" and "egocentric" father who had made a number of applications including freestanding human rights claims and who objected to the principle of a s91(14) order was permitted to undertake instead not to issue any application for contact with one child before his sixteenth birthday. In respect of a second half sibling the court dismissed all of the father's divers applications (discharge of care order, human rights claims, and s8 applications). Whilst there had been protracted litigation, numerous applications and some stress on the carer of the child as a result, the judge was persuaded to step back from a barring order on the basis that any future application (whilst strongly discouraged) should be listed before him and would be anxiously scrutinized. The facts of this case are complex and the judgment lengthy, and it can only be imperfectly summarized in the space available here.

H (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 1296 (26 October 2010) is an unusual decision, not because the court granted permission to appeal on a limited basis, namely in respect of the courts failure to specify the ambit or duration of the barring order, but because the court gave an indication of the sort of duration that might be appropriate and directed that the appeal should not proceed until mediation had been attempted by the parties on the points outstanding.

The case of W (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 1449 (29 October 2010) is of little assistance since, although the s91(14) order was overturned on appeal, this arose from the fundamental procedural flaw in that the father had not been permitted to cross examine the guardian and the whole matter was remitted. The court avoided expressing any view on the appropriateness of a s91(14) order.

In Re K (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 1365 (02 December 2010) was a clear case of a s91(14) order wrongly made by a district judge and which the circuit judge ought to have categorized as plainly wrong. The judge in that case had summarily dismissed the father's application for contact in the absence of compelling reasons to deprive the children of a relationship with him. That case is no more than an application of previous authorities to stark facts.

The case of Re T (A Child- murdered parent)(2011) EWHC B4 (Fam) (8 March 2011) is in fact most interesting for the use of a non-molestation order (with all the serious criminal sanctions that arise from a breach of the same) to get around the lack of jurisdiction to make an occupation order (whilst in the writer's experience the incorrect labeling of what ought to be an occupation order as a non-molestation order is not uncommon it is rarely expressly so – although see the more detailed examination of the basis of and jurisdiction for the injunction in Re T offered by Andrew Willetts in his article on this case). In that case the father had murdered the mother and the child was living with an aunt. Whilst the father consented to a s91(14) order until the child's thirteenth birthday the court ordered that the prohibition should extend until the child was sixteen for fact specific reasons.

In B (Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 509 (11 March 2011) the Court of Appeal overturned a barring order made preventing the birth mother of an adopted child applying again for permission to make a contact order application for two years. The real question on the permission application was whether there was any principled basis upon which it could have be refused. Since the local authority's case comprised the submission that the case warranted further investigation, albeit that they said this should not take place within the court arena, it could not be said that there was a proper basis for refusing permission. That being so, the barring order which had followed on from the refusal of permission was discharged and permission granted. An important factor in that case was that there was an un-adopted sibling still cared for by the mother whose own article 8 rights in connection with his brother were engaged.

Finally, in another case called Re K (Children)[2011] EWCA Civ 635 (25 May 2011) the Court of Appeal upheld a s91(14) order against the parents, which had been made alongside a special guardianship order in favour of the maternal grandmother and which was to last for two years and four months. Although there was no history of repeated applications there had been protracted proceedings and the judge had concluded that the welfare of the child required a period of calm in her placement which, on the facts of this case (lying, manipulative parents whose behavior had complicated the proceedings and who were already indicating an intention to make further applications), the court could not be satisfied would occur in the absence of an order.

What can be seen from the recent authorities is a pattern of s91(14) orders as a feature of overly zealous attempts to conclude litigation, often coupled with the dismissal of applications for contact or change of residence arrangements, and therefore several examples of barring orders falling away when the judicial approach to the main application has been overly harsh or has fallen foul of human rights arguments. It is of particular note that a number of the examples given above involve the court imposing, in effect, double insulating against future applications – by imposing a barring order in circumstances where the subject of it would in any event require the permission of the court before being able to proceed with a substantive application. It could be observed that this appears to occur surprisingly often given the numerous occasions on which the Court of Appeal has had cause to reiterate now long established principles and core rights.

What also begins to emerge is the prospect of praying in aid the Family Procedure Rules 2010, particularly the overriding objective and the court's case management duties (r 1.4 FPR 2010) to argue that the use of s91(14) is not necessary and therefore not justified: the court now has, for example, a duty "to decide promptly which issues need full investigation and hearing and which do not; and the procedure to be followed in the case" (r1.4(2)(c)). Those powers lend themselves to providing a more bespoke alternative in many cases to the draconian barring order. Judicial continuity and pro-active case management ought in many cases to be sufficient protection: Baker J evidently thought it appropriate in the Lancashire case (above: [2010] EWHC 2503 (Fam)), notwithstanding the protracted and troubling history of that case. The writer appreciates that this case predated the implementation of the Family Procedure Rules, however the new rules are in many respects simply a codification of the pre-existing and developing case management practice that has grown up in recent years, and a mechanism for empowering judges to case manage yet more effectively.

23rd June 2011

Lucy Reed is the author of Family Courts without a Lawyer: A Handbook for Litigants in Person (Bath Publishing).

Monday, August 05, 2013

The Olive Press | een girl found in suitcase at Malaga port

PUBLISHED: AUGUST 4, 2013 AT 9:19 AM  •  LAST EDITED: AUGUST 3, 2013 AT 11:25 AM

Teen girl found in suitcase at Malaga port

A COUPLE was arrested in Malaga last week for trying to smuggle a 13-year-old girl into Spain inside a suitcase.
The Moroccan man and Spanish woman were stopped by police officials while entering the country from Melilla with a large, unusually heavy suitcase in their car.
Upon opening the suitcase, the officers found the girl, distressed and disoriented.
She is not a family member of either the man or the woman.
She was reportedly treated by Red Cross officials at the port before being admitted to a hospital.

To view this article directly on The Olive Press website, select the hyperlink below:

Teen girl found in suitcase at Malaga port

Monday, May 20, 2013

Top court upholds acquittal of mom who left baby in Walmart toilet (News Canada)

QMI Agency

Walmart store. (QMI Agency)
Walmart store. (QMI Agency)

OTTAWA -- Canada's top court has upheld the acquittal of a woman who left her newborn in the bathroom of a Saskatchewan Walmart after giving birth there.

The woman, identified in court documents as A.D.H., said she did not know she was pregnant when, in May 2007, she went to a Prince Albert Walmart bathroom feeling unwell. She gave birth to a baby she claims she thought was dead, and left the store shortly afterwards.

Store staff found the infant in the toilet and rescued it.

A.D.H. was charged with child abandonment, but was acquitted in 2009 because the judge believed she hadn't meant to "abandon" the baby -- a crime that requires awareness that an action was liable to endanger the life of a child.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that the verdict will stand.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

A Mother's [Unconditional] LOVE...

Emptiness consumes my soul,
as the pain etches its' signature
- inside and out
...Bound to an eternity in purgatory

Dazed like a diver with the bends,
as I drown in the sea of faces
...I am almost euphoric

I feel no more pain,
as there is no such word that can describe what is tearing my heart out
- And ripping it to shreds

Trapped in a glass prison,
unable to protect you from your captors
"Mommy is here, my Precious"

A torture that can still be felt -
Even when physically paralysed
A sensation from within...

of a
Michelle L. Anthony November 8, 2011
For My Dearest Precious Angel xoxox
2009, December 15...
....Learning to walk again was only the beginning of this epic battle spanning over three years...and counting

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Proposed Family Bill - SW no longer required to promote contact with Parents of Looked After Children

Social workers no longer obliged to promote contact with birth parents

The government hopes new legislation will prevent birth parents from having unregulated contact with adopted and looked-after children
Picture credit: Isopix/Rex Features (Picture posed by model)
Picture credit: Isopix/Rex Features (Picture posed by model)
Friday 08 February 2013 16:52
Social workers will no longer have a duty to promote contact between birth parents and children in care under new measures in the children and families bill, which was laid before parliament this week.
Instead social workers will be obliged to ensure contact arrangements have “clear purpose”, as set out in the child’s care plan. Contact will be subject to the social worker’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child, and legislation will specify areas social workers should consider when deciding on contact arrangements.

AdTech Ad
However, the government decided not to go ahead with its initial proposal of a presumption of 'no contact' once children have been taken into care.
The bill will also toughen up contact arrangements for adopted children. Social workers will be able to ask courts for a ‘no contact’ order when they apply for an adoption order. It would only take effect once an adoption order has been made.
Once adoption has been decided as the plan for a child, birth parents will have to ask courts for permission to apply for contact and must meet tougher criteria to do so.
BAAF: Legislation 'too crude an instrument'
The changes are intended to prevent birth parents from using social media to have unregulated contact with adopted and looked-after children.
However, John Simmonds, director of policy, research and development at the British Association of Adoption and Fostering, said he felt legislation is too crude an instrument to tackle this issue.
“How do you police it? Is it going to become a criminal offence if birth parents try to do this? I’m not sure these changes will make a lot of difference. What we need is more high quality support for birth parents, adoptive parents and social workers to navigate these complex issues,” he said.
However, he agreed the current duty to promote contact sometimes allows birth parents to intimidate social workers into allowing contact, even if it's not right for the child.
The government also included an annexe to its response to the consultation, which included the various recommendations for social worker training and practice from those consulted. It has promised to work with the sector to improve practice.
'Insult to social workers'
Nushra Mansuri, professional officer for the British Association of Social Workers, said it was a little insulting to imply that many of the problems came down to social worker training.
“Contact forms a large part of the social worker decision making process and we already spend a lot of time and thought on this. What would be more helpful is to allow social workers more time and opportunity to update themselves on the latest research and think about it in relation to their current practice.”
Related articles
Government announces major reforms in children and families bill
Life inside a modern adoption team
- See more at:

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Shropshire Star Reports Shropshire child case worker is struck off

February 9, 2013 10:59
A Shropshire social worker accused of a string of failures to conduct or complete assessments and to keep accurate records has voluntarily struck himself off his professional register.

As a result disciplinary proceedings against William Goodwillie, who worked for Telford & Wrekin Council, have been dropped by the Health & Care Professions Council (HCPC).

The withdrawn allegations claimed he was guilty of misconduct and by reason of ‘misconduct and/or lack of competence’ his fitness to practise was impaired.

It was alleged he had failed to conduct an initial assessment on a two-year-old child who had a repeated pattern of head injuries.

In its decision to withdraw allegations the HCPC says it has acted ‘on the basis Mr Goodwillie wishes to be removed from the HCPC Register voluntarily’.

An HCPC spokesman said: “Mr Goodwillie has admitted the allegation in full and has undertaken not to practise as a social worker.”

To view this article directly from the Shropshire Star News [online] click on the hyperlink below: (if the link does not automatically open, you can manually enter the URL in your address bar)

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

From News Archives | 1997, March 8th | SS Chief Jailed for 20 Yrs

Social Services Chief jailed for 20 years' abuse Judge condemns 'perverted lusts' By MATTHEW BRACE | INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER | Saturday 08 March 1997

A "career paedophile" was jailed for 18 years yesterday for a string of sexual assaults against children in care. Several of the men and women he abused over a 20-year period clapped and cheered from the public gallery of Chester Crown Court as Keith Laverack, a former senior social services manager, was sentenced.

Passing sentence, Judge Huw Daniel summarised two decades of horrific
abuse dealt out by Laverack, saying it was unquestionably the most serious case of its kind he could remember and that it would cause tremendous public outrage.

The 52-year-old had denied 20 charges of sexually assaulting young people during a career of more than 20 years as a teacher and headmaster at children's homes in Cheshire and Cambridgeshire. However, the jury of eight women and four men found him guilty of 15 of the charges - 11 of buggery and four of indecent assault.

Laverack stood with his head bowed in the dock, occasionally closing his eyes as Judge Daniel passed sentence. The judge told him he had taken advantage of damaged children to satisfy his "perverted lusts", knowing full well all his victims wanted was love, affection and security.

"None of those young children you buggered consented to what happened
to them. They were raped, many of them, by you with violence and force. They submitted through fear of violence," said Judge Daniel, adding that there was little else the children could do, and they were humiliated and oppressed in their own minds by what happened to them. "They had to live with it for years, locking it away, trying not to think of the appalling things you did to them," he said. "You made them go through the ordeal of having to recall what happened to them and suffer what many of them regard as public humiliation by having to go through the whole thing in public in giving evidence.

"You were merciless to them at the time and you showed no mercy when you were found out. You abused your position of power, the position of trust in which you were, in the worst possible way." Judge Daniel told Laverack he had abused the children at every available opportunity.

"You were confident you could get away with it because the system
allowed you to get away with it and you ensured the silence of these children by threats and sweet talk, confident in the knowledge that if these children did complain they would not be believed," he said.
"It is worthy of note that your career paedophilia started the moment you
became a master, the first permanent appointment you had at Greystone
Heath [approved school in Warrington, Cheshire] at the age of 21 or 22 and behaved that way until 1987 or thereabouts - a period in excess of 20
years." The judge said there had been three distinct periods of abuse on boys and girls at the three children's homes, and there had to be consecutive jail
sentences of six years on the buggery charges relating to each home. He
said while there had been gaps in between where Laverack appeared to
have controlled his urges to an extent, he had reverted to child abuse on every occasion.

When the applause from the public gallery died down after Laverack was taken away, Judge Daniel told the abuse victims in court: "I hope this has brought some substantial consolation to those who suffered at this man's hands." The court once more erupted into applause.

Sunday, February 03, 2013

The Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 effect on Children Act 1989

The Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 effect on Children Act 1989

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Family Justice Board Action Plan - a few words from Family Lore's John Bolch

Family Lore: Family Justice Board action plan published: The Family Justice Board has published an Action Plan to Improve the Performance of the Family Justice System.

(Please select the hyper-link above to read the article direct from John Bloch's blog, Family Lore)

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Health and Social Care Bill: HPC likely to be renamed Health and Care Professions Council - The Social Work Blog

Health and Social Care Bill: HPC likely to be renamed Health and Care Professions Council - The Social Work Blog

Friday, January 18, 2013

Southern Family Aid | An Introduction to Shaun O'Connell

Shaun O'Connell is a dedicated advocate in pursuit of [much needed and anticipated] reform within our judicial (family/ civil) system; A "system" that remains:

🔹clogged with both frivolous &/or vexatious applications;
🔹Cases unnecessarily delayed due to poor management of time-tabling
🔹 Cases lacking evidence,
🔹 ICOs likewise being "used" to stall time while cases are built against parent(s)
🔹Local Authorities and supporting agencies lacking alternative (and) effective remedies,
🔹 Lack of compliance without appropriate consequences
🔹A cloak & dagger approach to family proceedings as many cases slip through the cracks of time, maladministration, & misfeasance then proceed to be buried beneath a veil of secrecy.

Working diligently, to assist parents in their own personal battle(s) against councils and other Local Authority agencies around the country, Shaun volunteers his assistance under, Southern Family Aid.

As a parent, exposed to England's draconian practices, he found himself powerless in the Courts: Furthermore, he was more so powerless a a Father with marginal "rights".

He has links to Fathers4Justice (original) and continued on his plight for "justice" and equality, long after his case had exhausted possible channels to challenge the court rulings against him (as a Father)
- see his appeal in case :
Re O’Connell and others 22nd June [2005] EWCA Civ 759

Now, in 2013 he carries a wealth of knowledge and first-hand experience in the High / Appellant Court(s).

In a Nationwide, epic campaign for transparency, accountability and equality in our Family Courts, he is along side many, who share the same passion(s) against the INjustices which occur daily.

He has stumbled down the same kafkaesque pathway, as many unwitting parents alike. And I am proud to stand alongside Shaun - seeking and researching reform in our current policies and procedures, in hope that changes in legislation ARE possible (and not just a pipe-dream) in an otherwise

You can visit Southern Family Aid by clicking on the hyper-link below:

(If you are unable to connect to Shaun's site directly, you can also manually enter the URL in your browser's address bar)

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Local authorities planning to increase inter-agency adoption fee

Community Care | Articles

Voluntary adoption agencies have accused councils of distorting the true cost of recruiting adopters, but this could be set to change as councils consider upping the fees they charge each other

Councils are negotiating to increase inter-agency adoption fees to ensure a level playing field between voluntary agencies and councils when recruiting adoptive parents.
In the past, voluntary adoption agencies (VAAs) have charged local authorities £27,000 for finding adoptive parents, while councils have charged each other £13,000.

This does not cover the true cost of the recruitment process, however, and VAAs have accused councils of distorting the picture and using voluntary agencies less as a result.
The Local Government Association (LGA), the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) and Solace, which represents council chief executives, have now agreed to increase the fee between local authorities to £27,000 on the basis that this will create a more level playing field.
An ADCS spokesperson said directors are "working hard" to progress the talks, which would also encourage councils to recruit more adopters than they actually need.
Other proposals being investigated by councils include creating a national pool of adoptive parents, developing a national market for adopter recruitment and incentivising smaller councils to work together or join consortia when recruiting adoptive parents.
Authorities will also be encouraged to pay recruitment fees and offer social workers more support when looking at other permanent options for children, such as long-term fostering and kinship care.
Councillor David Simmonds, chair of the LGA's Children and Young People Board, said councils are moving forward on increasing both the number of adopted children and adoptive parents.
But he attacked the government for not moving as quickly on key proposals, such as the adoption gateway or reducing court delays.
David Holmes, chief of the British Association of Adoption and Fostering - who has previously called for a rethink on inter-agency adoption fees - said the LGA is right to highlight that family courts are still a significant cause of delay.
"In fairness, work is underway to address this but it is taking time to implement," Holmes said.
"It is heartening that local authorities are taking forward their own positive initiatives to make the adoption process more efficient and effective."
Related articles

Government urged to look again at inter-agency adoption fees
Voluntary adoption agencies say they are being used less

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

CourtRoom Advice

For access to information and courtroom guidelines, please visit Courtroom Advice directly.

You may click on the hyperlink below, otherwise you may manually input the url in your address bar:

Sunday, January 13, 2013

5 Things Our Children want from Family Justice System

The Children's Services Blog

A group of 32 children and young people with experience of or interest in the family courts have compiled their top five wishes for the family justice system in 2013.
The Family Justice System Young People's Board was set up by family courts body Cafcass to advise on policy issues.
Here are their top five wishes:

1. Cases don’t drag on and are always focused on our needs
2. There is more support when we just need to speak to someone
3. We find a way for the court to keep us informed about our cases such as when big decisions are going to be made about our lives
4. Help is available when things get tough and everyone's arguments stress us out
5. We have a way to tell the people involved in our case about the good and bad bits and know they'd listen
(Image: Stew Dean on flickr)

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

ADOPTION REGISTER (BAAF) How to efficiently utilise it

Adoption Register for England and Wales has been operated by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) on behalf of the Department for Education and the Welsh Government since December 1st 2004.

The Adoption Register works with adoption agencies and adoption consortia to make sure that all children and families have the best chance of finding a suitable match. Its main purpose is to find adoptive homes for those children for whom Local Authorities cannot find a home locally.

Maximising Use of the Adoption Register -

Project Evaluation Report Published - click here to view

Children Matched Through the Register

2021 children have been matched at panel with families through the Adoption Register since December 2004:

253 children matched: 1 April 2012 to 31 December 2012 (Year 8)

351 children matched: 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012 (Year 7)

335 children matched: 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (Year 6)

267 children matched: 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (Year 5)

82 children matched: 1 December 2008 to 31 March 2009 (4 month extension period)

268 children matched: 1 December 2007 to 30 November 2008 (Year 4)

199 children matched: 1 December 2006 to 30 November 2007 (Year 3)

157 children matched: 1 December 2005 to 30 November 2006 (Year 2)

109 children matched: 1 December 2004 to 30 November 2005 (Year 1)

1st August 2011 - BAAF rated 'Outstanding' by OFSTED

BAAF which runs the Adoption Register for England & Wales has been rated as 'outstanding' by Ofsted in its recent inspection.


Popular Posts

Bringing Home Baby... RSS Recent Posts

Shared Items via Google Reader

I am Multiplying