The debate about gay adoption is not so simple. The current level of service to gay adopters will not change if Catholic agencies close. Inevitably, the most vulnerable of all children in our society will suffer.
Gay men and women have rights. If the law is to be clear, people of all faiths have rights too.
But surely the conflict of rights between gay people and people of a faith cannot be allowed to undermine the rights of our most vulnerable children to have a loving and secure family life.
A compassionate society must place greatest emphasis on the needs of these children. Less than 4% of all adoptions are by gay couples. The needs of gay adopters are met by all the other 250 local authority and voluntary adoption agencies in England and Wales.
The 13 Catholic adoption agencies, (which serve the needs of adopters of all faiths and none), refer any same sex adopter to an agency who will proceed with their application.
The weight of evidence demonstrates that the Catholic agencies currently under threat, are amongst the most successful at placing the most vulnerable children in secure adoption placements. Many of these adoption placements are of “hard to place children” i.e. the most neglected, ill-treated, disabled, or abused children, whose needs are greatest.
The services that these threatened adoption agencies provide is not an abuse of public funding as stated by ministers. Local authorities purchase this service when they themselves cannot make these difficult adoptive placements.
A recent government paper “Handle with Care” by the Centre for Policy Studies (Sept 2006) evidenced that:
• 50% of the prison population under 25 years of age are ex-care leavers
• 33% of all homeless adults are ex-care leavers.
• 80% of the ‘Big Issue’ sellers are ex-care leavers
• Only 1 in every 100 young people leaving care goes on to university.
• (According to British Agencies of Adoption & Fostering, BAAF): 4 out of 10 children will not be adopted because of their special needs
How can it possibly be considered an abuse of public funding for local authorities to purchase adoption services from a Catholic agency for such fragmented, vulnerable children?
Should some of the threatened adoption agencies close, their impressive record of successful adoptions for “hard to place children” will be lost. Future children in care will be more likely to end up homeless and or in prison.
When the government is so concerned about prison places how can it make sense to threaten these agencies?
When the government is so concerned to eradicate child poverty and homelessness, how can it make sense to threaten these agencies?
If 4% of adopters i.e. gay adopters can be satisfied with services provided by all but one group of agencies, how can it make sense to threaten the faith agencies?
On average, the cost of accommodating a child in local authority foster care is in excess of £30,000 per year. When the local authority buys in a private independent foster placement, these costs rise in excess of £50,000 per year. The same cost of placing one of these most vulnerable children in a voluntary adoption agency is £19,000. How can purchasing such a vital, low cost service, from a Catholic registered charity, be considered an abuse of public funding?
Where are the best interests of the child in this debate?
Where is best value to ratepayers?
Where is the abuse of public funding?
In proposing to prohibit local authorities to purchase services from Catholic adoption agencies, how will the government reach its own adoption targets?
Both sets of conflicting rights could readily be accommodated by a simple exemption in the Sexual Orientation Regulations? Last year 33 children were adopted through loving families approved by St. David’s Children Society. Those 33 children represents 14% of all children in care adopted in Wales last year. St. David’s is one of the 24 adoption agencies in Wales.
Surely society’s most vulnerable children deserve every opportunity that can be afforded to them.
Ends.
Gerry Cooney
Director
St David’s Children Society
