Creating Family: A Perspective on the Debate on Looked-after Children and Those in Care

by Helen King, member of General Synod 2021-2026; vice-chair, Together for the Church of England

The July Synod agenda went through a few last-minute changes this time, including moving the debate on the Private Member’s Motion on looked-after children and those in care; a motion asking for a lead bishop, who can act as a focus for raising public awareness, and for work within dioceses to support this. I had put in to speak on this one so was very disappointed that the new time set was precisely when I had to see a hospital specialist yesterday morning. The motion was moved by Billy-Jo O’Leary, speaking from her experience as a Synod member who had spent time in care. The points I’d hoped to make were not made, so I have simply edited my draft speech here to add some references to what was said – the joy of being able to watch the debate on catch-up – and changed the tense to take into account of the that the motion was passed – unanimously.

While I am not always a great fan of ‘let’s have a Lead Bishop for’ whatever concern we have, I think this was a very valuable motion. It highlights the obstacles currently faced by those leaving the care system, but I would urge that the role description for this bishop’s appointment should include promoting what for many is the best route out of the care system: adoption. We should not be put off by the shameful history of the church homes which carried out forced adoption. Adoption has changed beyond recognition and I suspect some of us have no idea what adoption means today.

Unsurprisingly, based in cultures where adoption of adults was normal, the Bible uses the very strong imagery of all of us being adopted into God’s family; e.g. Galatians 4. If the Church is a family – and that language needs to be used with care, since for some people the family has been the site of the abuse which has damaged their lives – if the Church is a family, then it is a family formed by adoption. The trouble with these references is that they can sound too cosy. They can make adoption sound like it’s very simple. They don’t do justice to the issues raised by adopting a child or young person who may have been through all sorts of trauma, including that of being taken from their birth family.

Adoption now

In the debate, Sheila Bissell mentioned how long the process takes, but there is so much more that needs to be said. Like some of those who spoke, I have colleagues and friends who have adopted. So I know that there is a huge amount of vetting, training and support offered to potential adopters, and the support continues after the legal processes are complete. The language of finding one’s ‘forever family’, used by one speaker in the debate, misses the point that there is much more concern than in the past with maintaining relationships with the birth family, where this is possible (and attempts are made to find a kinship adopter before looking outside that family). We must also face the fact that adoption is not always the end of the story; some adoptions are not without pain, and some don’t work.

But we should all note with concern the decline in the last 5 years in the number of children leaving care and moving into adoption; there are not enough people coming forward to adopt. In her opening speech, Billy-Jo noted that over 100,000 children in the UK are currently in care. We didn’t hear any figures for adoption. Billy-Jo mentioned race but, while the legacy of forced adoption shows us how the idealised model of the white middle-class nuclear family used to dominate, today adopters can’t only be from other racial backgrounds; they can also be single; over 50; and not owning their own homes.

Sexuality: a significant omission…

A significant omission from yesterday’s debate was affirmation of those who are LGBTQIA+ and in committed relationships and who have chosen to adopt. This seems to me pretty typical of our failure as a Church to recognise their contributions. Synod needs to know that sexuality is not a bar to adoption. A 2021 article in the journal Child Development concluded that “Given the large number of children in need of adoptive families, adoption agencies should give greater consideration to gay couples as prospective adoptive parents.” In 2025, the agency Adoption Matters had 40% of those approved to adopt identifying as LGBTQ+, pointing out that “What IS important is the commitment, resilience, stability and love that children who have suffered early childhood trauma ALL need.” Department of Education figures for 2025 state that 1 in 5 adoptions were by gay couples. Another agency, Adopt Thames Valley, currently aims to increase applications from the LGBTQ+ community “who are more likely to adopt children who typically wait the longest and are significantly more likely to adopt sibling groups”.

And these figures exclude gay solo adopters like my colleague who adopted a toddler in 2024. She has written:

“I think being a queer woman, especially of my generation, has given me quite a helpful perspective on adoption. I spent my formative years under the shadow of Section 28, and left to feel an outsider as a result, as ‘ideal’ family life was always presented as biological and nuclear. I think this experience is helping me put myself in the shoes of a child whose family life doesn’t fit that mould, because of their history and adoption. LGBTQ+ people – many marginalised people – tend to know all too well what it feels like to be seen as different, and to understand instinctively the importance of chosen family. There are positive messages from this we can pass on to our adopted children.”

The log in our eye

Finally, I was disturbed in the debate by what came across as self-congratulation on how good Christians are at offering to adopt; Julie Maxwell said that “We need Christians to step up”. We need people in general to step up! And let’s make sure we have seen the log in our own eye. We heard in the debate from Michaela Suckling about how the young person to whom she was the independent visitor was let down by a church youth club. In the Church we make all sorts of assumptions about ‘family’: but it doesn’t require two parents. And, when it comes to solo adoption, this can be difficult for Christians in some sorts of churches; I have spoken to another solo adopter who has felt repeatedly judged by Christian acquaintances who assume that she has given birth to a child without being married.

Finally, I’d recommend that we don’t overlap the responsibilities by appointing a lead bishop who is also working on the forced adoption apologies: the new lead bishop needs to focus on looked-after children today. She or he needs to take the lead in educating our Church on what adoption, and also ‘family’, means now.

Comments

2 responses to “Creating Family: A Perspective on the Debate on Looked-after Children and Those in Care”

  1. Philip Groves avatar
    Philip Groves

    Helen – thank you. Adoption is a very hard challenge.
    At a clergy conference I found myself at a table with other clergy adopters and the stories were heartbreaking. In our own story of adopting the support I have had from those clergy has been invaluable. You cannot understand unless you have been through it. I would require the lead bishop to be an adopter or to have been adopted. If not, to find a senior clergy person to fulfil the role.

  2. Philip Groves avatar
    Philip Groves

    Another comment.
    There are specific safeguarding issues around adoption and fostering that are not addressed in church training and a lead bishop could help.
    We are not told what to do if a looked after child (LAC) or a previously looked after child (PLAC) discloses abuse. Yes, do everything in the book, but also report to a social worker.
    Fellow adopters were arrested by police on suspicion of abuse when a child disclosed abuse by their father. However, this was the original abuse by the birth father (who was already in prison), but the situation confused by everyone following the rules. The children were again taken into care until it was sorted out with involvement of the social workers and the children returned to the adoptive home, but with new trauma and damage.
    There is a real case of a child who disclosed new information to a teacher days before a court case. The school recorded the information but did not inform anyone (it came out by accident). They thought that as the child was in care it no longer mattered. The information was vital for the court case.
    We need Parish Safeguarding Leads to know that they have a LAC or PLC and know what to do and how to connect with social workers. Some carers and adopters abuse, it is rare and horrific, but we cannot drop our guard. However, a 3 year old may not be clear as to who they mean when they say ‘Daddy’ or ‘Mummy’ and a social worker needs to be involved. PSLs need to know how to respond properly so the right action is taken.
    A lead Bishop could liaise with safeguarding to develop practice.

Any thoughts?