This article examines the processes and outputs of an adoption panel and is the second by Terence O'Sullivan to report on an observational case study. The research investigates how representative and participative panel members were, how attendee presence was structured, what the panel focused on and how conclusions were reached. The panel considered social work proposals in relation to looked after children whose permanence plan was adoption. A scrutiny process was observed that took the form of identifying issues, asking questions, being reassured (or not), coming to a conclusion and giving feedback. The importance of the panel's work stems from its scrutiny of social work proposals and the article suggests various ways in which this could be made more effective.
AlisonL., ‘What are the risks to children of parental substance misuse?’, in HarbinF.MurphyM. (eds), Substance Misuse and Child Care, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing, 2000.
BaronR. S.KerrN. L., Group Process, Group Decision and Group Action (2nd edition), Buckingham: Open University Press, 2003.
4.
CousinsJ., ‘Are we missing the match? Rethinking adopter assessment and child profiling’, Adoption & Fostering27:4, pp 7–18, 2003.
5.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills), Draft Adoption Regulations and Guidance for Consultation: Arranging adoptions and assessinp adopters, London: DfES, 2004; www.dfes.gov.uk/adoption.
6.
Department of Health, Adoption: Achieving the right balance, LAC(98) 20, London: DH, 1998.
7.
Department of Health, Adoption Now: Messages from research, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
8.
Department of Heath, Adopted Adults and their Birth Siblings: Draft National Adoption Standards for England and Practice Guidance, London: DH, 2001.
9.
Department of Health, Adopter Preparation and Assessment and the Operation of Adoption Panels: A fundamental review, London: DH, 2002.
10.
ForresterD., ‘Parental substance misuse and child protection in a British sample: A survey of children on the Child Protection Register in an inner London district office’, Child Abuse Review9, pp 239–46, 2000.
11.
ForsythD. R., Group Dynamics (2nd edition), Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole, 1990.
12.
FraserA. C.CavanaghS., ‘Pregnancy and drug addiction: Long-term consequences’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine84, pp 530–2, 1991.
13.
HillM., ‘Partnership reviewed: Words of caution, words of encouragement’, Adoption & Fostering24:3, pp 56–68, 2000.
14.
HoweD., ‘Adoption outcome research and practical judgement’, Adoption & Fostering22:2, pp 6–15, 1998.
15.
KaniukJ., ‘Responses to “Are we missing the match?”’, Adoption & Fostering28:1, pp 70–2, 2004.
16.
KochT.RidgleyM., ‘The Condorcet's Jury Theorem in a bioethical context: The dynamics of group decision-making’, Group Decision and Negotiation9, pp 379–92, 2000.
17.
LordJ.BarkerS.CullenD., Effective Panels: Guidance on regulations, process and good practice in adoption and permanence panels (2nd edition), London: BAAF, 2000.
18.
LoweL.MurchM.BorkowskiM. et al, Supporting Adoption: Reframing the approach, London: BAAF, 1999.
19.
LudvigsenA.ParnhamJ., ‘Searching for siblings: The motivations and experience of adults seeking contact with adopted siblings’, Adoption & Fostering28:4, pp 50–59, 2004.
20.
MacaskillC., Safe Contact: Children in permanent placement and contact with their birth relatives, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing, 2002.
21.
MurphyM.HarbinF., ‘Background and current context of substance misuse and child care’, in HarbinF.MurphyM. (eds), Substance Misuse and Child Care, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing, 2000.
22.
MurphyM.OuldsG., ‘Establishing and developing co-operative links between substance misuse and child protection systems’, in HarbinF.MurphyM. (eds), as above.
23.
O'SullivanT., Decision Making in Social Work, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999.
24.
O'SullivanT., ‘Inputs to an adoption panel: A case study’, Adoption & Fostering28:3, pp 41–51, 2004.
25.
OwenM., ‘Single-person adoption: For and against’, Children & Society8:2, pp 151–63, 1994.
