Baby Care Cases Hit Two-Decade High as Experts Warn of Unnecessary Adoptions

The number of infants caught up in care proceedings before their first birthday has remained stubbornly high across England, with new research suggesting the figure has climbed sharply over the past twenty years. Academics from Lancaster and Oxford universities have published data showing that care proceedings involving babies have increased by 64 per cent since the early 2000s, meaning roughly one in every 118 infants is now affected. The figures, which run up to the 2024-25 period, reveal that cases peaked during the Covid pandemic before dipping slightly and then levelling off at a persistently elevated rate.

The findings have reignited a sensitive debate about whether too many very young children are being permanently removed from their birth families. Experts who spoke to the BBC's File on 4 Investigates programme argue that a significant proportion of these babies might have been able to stay at home had the right support been available to their parents. The concern is particularly acute because infants who enter the care system are far more likely to be adopted than older children, raising fears that some may have been separated from their families for good when alternative arrangements could have worked.

According to the latest government statistics, 72 per cent of adopted children in England were taken into care before they turned one. 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. In just under half of those cases, courts overruled the parents' objections. The remainder were classified as "unopposed," often because parents had been advised that fighting the decision would be futile.

Adoption is supposed to be a measure of last resort, as both the government and adoption agencies acknowledge. While it can offer a child stability and a permanent home, it also legally severs the relationship between the child and their birth family forever – a consequence that carries profound emotional weight. Professor Karen Broadhurst of Lancaster University, who has studied the data, estimates that only between a fifth and a quarter of children's care proceedings are "clear-cut" cases involving serious harm or abuse. The majority, she says, fall into a "grey area" of neglect linked to complex family needs such as drug and alcohol problems or housing difficulties – issues that might have been resolved if families had received timely help.

The human cost of these decisions was illustrated by one birth mother, identified as Jean, who told the programme she never wanted to give up her daughter, Tye, for adoption and described the process as "forced." Her local council has maintained that it followed a lawful process. Jean's account is far from isolated: with only about 10 per cent of adoptions in England made with written consent from birth parents, campaigners and some experts have begun describing the situation as modern-day "forced adoption."

Broadhurst acknowledges that the phrase is politically loaded and that today's 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 argues the term is accurate in the sense that parents do not agree with what is happening. "They want to continue to be in contact with a child," she said. "Even parents who feel they couldn't look after a child at that point find it particularly brutal that they're going to have no contact, or very little contact, with that child until they're 18."

The stakes in these decisions could hardly be higher. High-profile cases such as Baby P in north London and Sara Sharif in Woking, Surrey, serve as stark reminders of what can happen when authorities fail to intervene. Social workers sit at the centre of the decision-making process, weighing the risk of removing a child too soon against the danger of leaving them in an unsafe home. One social worker, whom the BBC is calling Tracy, described the daily dilemmas she and her colleagues face as they balance giving families time to overcome a crisis against the possibility that delay could put a child in harm's way.

Tracy explained that assessments of parents are wide-ranging and detailed, including judgments about whether past and present evidence points to a future risk of harm. In some cases, she said, social workers deal with families "riddled with abuse and neglect" where no one is able to bring up a child safely. But the British Association of Social Workers told the programme that its members are doing their best against a backdrop of rising caseloads and shrinking resources – a combination that leaves little room for the kind of intensive, preventative support that might keep families together.

The charity Coram, part of the same wider network of children's organisations as CoramBAAF, offers a counter-argument to those who fear unnecessary adoptions. It warns that if infants in care are not adopted, they are likely to remain in the care system for years. Research consistently shows that children brought up in care experience much poorer outcomes in life than those raised outside it, including lower educational attainment and higher rates of mental health difficulties. From this perspective, adoption – however painful – may offer the best chance of a stable and secure childhood.

Against that backdrop, 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, which can take place within hours or days of a baby being born. These emergency proceedings have long been criticised for giving parents little time to prepare, seek legal advice or demonstrate that they can care for their child with appropriate support. The change could mark a meaningful shift in how the family justice system handles the most vulnerable cases.

The debate ultimately turns on a difficult question: how should society balance the imperative to protect children from harm against the rights of parents and the value of keeping families together wherever possible? The data from Lancaster and Oxford suggests that this question is being answered in a way that affects an increasing number of babies, even as overall numbers have plateaued since the pandemic. For now, the families caught up in these proceedings, and the professionals who make the decisions, continue to navigate a system where the consequences of getting it wrong – in either direction – are irreversible.