Understanding care pathways and placement stability for babies in Wales

This is the summary of a full report that provides new evidence about entry routes to care, pathways through care, and placement outcomes for the very youngest children in the care system in Wales.

The report is the seventh in the Born into Care series, and the first to use data collected by local authorities on all children in care to understand the care experiences and outcomes for babies under a year old.

To date, the Born into Care research has focused on data about babies coming into care via care proceedings under s.31 of the Children Act 1989, captured within Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru data.

This has not included babies entering care with parental agreement. The use of data collected by local authorities in this study has ensured that all babies entering care are included. The study identifies four main pathways through care for these babies.

The study identified four main pathways for babies entering care under voluntary arrangements or an interim care order.

1. Babies that enter care with the voluntary agreement of parents under s.76, and remain subject to voluntary accommodation as a family support service.

These babies – 37% of those who entered under voluntary arrangements – did not progress to care proceedings. Rather it appears that local authorities are offering voluntary accommodation as a family support service, in keeping with the objectives of Part III of the Children Act, 1989.

At 2-year follow-up, 94% of these children had left care, with three quarters returning home to their parents.

Findings firmly evidence the importance of s.76, as an option for local authorities and families to work together on a voluntary basis where additional help is needed, including out-of-home care, for the very youngest babies.

2. Babies that enter care with the voluntary agreement of parents, but then become subject to care proceedings, typically within around 4 weeks.

Almost two thirds (63%) of babies initially subject to s.76 arrangements subsequently became the subject of care proceedings. This is a sizeable proportion and, given that the median time to conversion was only 4.5 weeks, this suggests that for these babies, s.76 appears to be a ‘holding’ position, en route to care proceedings.

Over time, the period between an initial voluntary agreement and care proceedings has reduced – which indicates that local authorities are heeding advice from the judiciary that they should not delay issuing care proceedings where the child’s welfare requires compulsory intervention.

3. Babies that enter care via care proceedings and are placed in out-of-home care.

Most babies who enter care via care proceedings are initially placed in out-of-home care. At 2-year follow-up, only 34% of babies who had entered care via care proceedings had returned home to parents or kin, or were placed at home, and 43% had either been adopted or were placed for adoption.

Overall, babies entering care via an interim care order are less likely to return home to parents or kin compared to those who enter via voluntary arrangements.

4. Babies that enter care via care proceedings but are placed with parents.

The issue of whether babies involved in care proceedings should be placed with their parents under a care order, has been subject to considerable debate, but empirical evidence has been wanting.

In this study, we found that 15% of babies who first entered care under an interim care order were initially placed with their parents. At follow-up, of those who had entered care via an interim care order and who were still in care (934), a third (297, 32%) were placed with their parents – which may indicate that this route supports family preservation, although further work is required to track this specific group of babies and verify this hypothesis.

Babies who first enter care via care proceedings, and who are not placed with their parents, have a greater chance of being permanently separated from their birth parents and extended families than babies who first enter care via voluntary arrangements.

However, a ‘neat’ split between voluntary and compulsory intervention is not evident – rather, there is movement between the two and, furthermore, evidence of care proceedings used as a mechanism to support and preserve ‘placement’ with parents.

The variation between local authorities warrants further analysis.

Adaptations in practice might be considered a positive response to the combination of factors that must be managed at a local level, including need, resources and preferences of local adjudicators (the judges). However, it is clear that mode of entry to care does matter – along with initial placement.