What is Early Permanence?

Early Permanence is a term used to describe the earliest possible placement of a child in care to a potential adoptive family who are also approved as foster carers. Should reunification be dismissed and an adoption order granted, the child is already best placed with its future family. Attachment theory suggests that this is the most beneficial scenario for the childs future mental health. This ideal is very much child focussed and delivers on a basis of understanding that there is a possibility that the child can return to its birth family or even a friend of the family if deemed appropriate.

How does Early Permanence benefit adopters?

Early Permanence is often chosen as a route to adoption by families eager to take on a child from birth. This can include a number of different demographics:

Heterosexual couples who are unable to carry their own birth children.
Heterosexual couples who have been unsuccessful in IVF treatment.
LGBTQ+ couples who have been unsuccessful in IVF treatment.
LGBTQ+ couples who have chosen adoption over surrogacy.
Single adopters both heterosexual and LGBTQ+.
Parents with existing birth or adoptive children

For many, it is important to experience parenthood from birth, but equally this route can be chosen for many other reasons:

A desire to form attachment at the earliest possible stage
To protect the child from mutliple placements within the care system
To enable other children in the home to form attachment from birth
To adopt a child protected from exposure to abuse or neglect.

Early Permanence is also common practice for those who have already adopted and a sibling is entering into the care system.

Who is involved in the final decision making process?

There are a number of professionals inside and outside the care system who will make the final decision on placing a child. For a placement to happen smoothly it takes a coherent and detailed approach from each party. The process relies on information being shared confidentially but equally in a way which allows all parties to make their decisions based on facts. Sadly, with such high pressure and enormous work load, human error can occur during the process. This can lead to all sorts of things being missed, misconstrued and breach's of confidentiality.

Court Guardian - Children’s Guardians are qualified social workers, trained and experienced in working with children and families. They are appointed as experts by the court to represent the rights and interests of the child and to provide the court with independent advice about the child’s best interests. They are not part of local authority children’s social care services or the courts. They appoint their own solicitor to represent the child in court. They do not always agree with the local authority application or their plan for the child. For more information on the role of the Court Guardian please visit the Cafcass website.
Child in Care Social Workers - The child's social worker will be working on behalf of the Local Authority to assess the suitability of the childs future care plan. This can include assessments on birth parent's, family members and occasionally friends. Their findings are reported back to the Judge in a series of hearings. These assessments are sometimes shared amongst Social Workers meaning that more than one person will be working on the same case. This is particularly the case where family members are being assessed at the same time as birth parents.
Court Judge - The Judge preciding over the case will only contemplate adoption where parents do not agree to it as a ‘last resort’. Adoption orders will only be made against parents’ wishes ‘where nothing else will do’. A Family Court can only conclude ‘nothing else will do’ if it has looked at all of the options that are realistically possible for a child. Nothing else will do means being sure all of the possible realistic options for the child to be cared for within their family and friends’ network have been looked at first and both options on the mothers and fathers sides of the family should have been looked at. The court must analyse the arguments for and against each of the possible realistic options. Adoption can only be considered as an option for a child if the court is satisfied there is no one else in the child’s family and friends’ network who can care for them