Baby Care Proceedings Remain at Record Highs in England, Prompting Fears of Unnecessary Adoptions

The number of infants entering care proceedings before their first birthday remains persistently elevated across England, according to new research that has reignited concerns about whether some of the most vulnerable children are being permanently separated from their birth families without adequate justification. Data compiled by academics at the universities of Lancaster and Oxford shows that care proceedings involving babies have increased by 64% over the past two decades, with one in every 118 infants now affected. The figures, which run up to the 2024-25 period, peaked during the Covid pandemic before declining slightly and then levelling off at a stubbornly high plateau.

The research, presented to BBC File on 4 Investigates, paints a picture of a care system under sustained pressure. While there are undoubtedly cases in which continued parental contact would place a child at serious risk, experts have warned that many babies might never have needed to enter the care system at all if timely and appropriate support had been made available to their families. The implications of that assessment are considerable, given that very young children who enter care are far more likely to be adopted than older children, meaning that the consequences of any unnecessary intervention are potentially permanent.

According to the latest government statistics, 72% of adopted children in England were taken into care before they turned one year old. The vast majority of those adoptions—more than nine in ten—proceeded without the written consent of the birth parents, according to CoramBAAF, the organisation representing professionals working in adoption and care services. In just under half of those cases, courts overruled the parents' wishes. The remainder were classified as "unopposed," with many parents reportedly advised against contesting the adoption because their chances of success were considered slim.

Both the government and adoption organisations maintain that adoption should only ever be pursued as a last resort. While it can offer children stability and a permanent home, it also severs the legal relationship between the child and their birth family forever—a consequence that cannot be undone. That tension between stability and severance lies at the heart of the debate now unfolding around the country's care proceedings.

Professor Karen Broadhurst of Lancaster University, whose analysis underpins much of the new data, told File on 4 Investigates that only between a fifth and a quarter of children's care proceedings could be described as "clear-cut" cases involving serious harm or abuse. The majority, she said, fall into a "grey area" of neglect by families grappling with complex needs, including drug and alcohol misuse and housing difficulties. These are circumstances, she suggested, that might well have improved had the right support been in place.

The stakes involved in these decisions are extraordinarily high, and social workers sit at the centre of them. One social worker, whom the BBC is calling Tracy to protect her identity, described the daily dilemmas she and her colleagues face as they weigh giving families time to overcome a crisis against the risk of failing to intervene when a child is in danger. She explained that assessments are wide-ranging and detailed, involving judgements about whether past and present evidence points to a future risk of harm. In some cases, she said, social workers encounter families "riddled with abuse and neglect" where no one is capable of safely raising a child.

The consequences of getting those judgements wrong have been seared into public consciousness by extreme, high-profile cases such as that of Baby P in north London and Sara Sharif in Woking, Surrey. Such tragedies serve as stark reminders of what can happen when the system fails to act. Yet the British Association of Social Workers has said its members are doing their utmost against a backdrop of rising caseloads and shrinking resources—a combination that inevitably strains the quality and consistency of decision-making.

The scale of non-consensual adoption has led campaigners and some experts to characterise the current situation as modern-day "forced adoption." Professor Broadhurst acknowledged that the phrase is politically loaded, and she was careful to note that the contemporary care system bears little resemblance to the coercive practices that took place mainly between 1949 and 1976, for which the government recently issued an apology in England. Nevertheless, she argued that the term is difficult to avoid when parents do not agree to the adoption. Many parents, she said, wish to remain in contact with their children, and even those who recognise they could not look after a child at that particular moment find it especially brutal to be told they will have no contact—or only minimal contact—until the child reaches adulthood.

One birth mother, Jean, told the BBC she never wanted to give up her daughter, Tye, for adoption and described the process as forced. Her local council has stated that it followed a lawful process. Her account reflects a broader pattern identified in the data: a significant number of parents who feel they had no genuine opportunity to oppose the removal of their children, either because they were advised not to fight or because the hearings happened too quickly to mount a meaningful challenge.

Acknowledging these concerns, the BBC understands that new guidance for Family Court judges will be announced before the end of the year. The guidance is expected to significantly reduce the number of short-notice care hearings—proceedings convened within hours or days of a baby being born. Such expedited hearings have been criticised for leaving parents with little time to seek legal advice, gather evidence, or demonstrate that they can provide a safe home with the right support.

Children's charity Coram, which is part of the same wider network of specialist children's organisations as CoramBAAF, has cautioned against assuming that alternatives to adoption would necessarily serve infants better. The charity warns that if babies in care are not adopted, they would likely remain in the care system for extended periods. Research consistently shows that many children raised within the care system experience significantly poorer outcomes in later life than those who grow up outside it, encompassing education, employment, mental health, and housing stability.

The emerging picture is therefore one of genuine and unresolved tension. On one side stand the irreversible consequences of severing a child's legal ties to their birth family and the possibility that, with adequate support, some of these separations might have been avoided. On the other stand the risks of leaving infants in a care system that research suggests too often fails to deliver the stability and outcomes children need. With care proceedings for babies plateauing at a historically high level and fresh judicial guidance on the horizon, the coming months are likely to bring renewed scrutiny of how England balances the duty to protect children with the duty to support the families from which they come.