Baby Care Cases Hit Record High as Experts Warn of "Unnecessary" Adoptions

The number of infants entering care proceedings before their first birthday has remained stubbornly high across England, according to newly published research from two leading universities. Data compiled by academics at Lancaster and Oxford indicates that care proceedings involving babies have climbed 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, reveal that cases peaked during the Covid pandemic before declining slightly and then levelling off at a persistently elevated rate.

The research has reignited concerns among child welfare experts that many babies are being removed from their birth families without adequate attempts to support those families first. Speaking to BBC File on 4 Investigates, specialists argued that a significant proportion of these cases might have been resolved without care proceedings if proper assistance had been available. The implications are particularly serious because very young children who enter the care system are far more likely to be adopted than older children, meaning some may be permanently severed from their birth families when alternative outcomes could have been possible.

Government statistics paint a striking picture of the adoption landscape. According to the latest official figures, 72% of adopted children in England entered care before reaching their first birthday. CoramBAAF, which represents professionals working in adoption and care services, reports that more than 90% of these adoptions proceeded without written consent from the birth parents. In just under half of those cases, courts overruled the parents' objections. The remaining cases were classified as "unopposed," with many parents reportedly advised against contesting the adoption on the grounds that they were unlikely to succeed.

Both the government and adoption organisations maintain that adoption should only ever be pursued as a last resort. While it can provide stability for a child, the process permanently severs the legal relationship between the child and their birth family—a consequence that cannot be undone. This tension between providing permanency and preserving family ties sits at the heart of the debate now unfolding.

Analysis of care proceedings by Professor Karen Broadhurst of Lancaster University suggests that only between a fifth and a quarter of cases could be described as "clear-cut," involving serious harm or abuse. The majority, she contends, fall into a "grey area" category involving neglect by families with complex needs, including drug and alcohol problems and housing difficulties—issues that might have been addressed with appropriate support. Broadhurst's assessment challenges the assumption that most removals are unavoidable.

However, the children's charity Coram, which is part of the same wider network of specialist organisations as CoramBAAF, cautions that infants who remain in care rather than being adopted are likely to stay in the system long-term. Research consistently shows that children raised in care experience significantly poorer life outcomes than those raised outside it, adding another layer of complexity to an already fraught decision-making process.

Social workers find themselves at the centre of these life-altering judgments. One practitioner, 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 judgments about whether past and present evidence points to a future risk of harm. In some instances, she said, social workers encounter families "riddled with abuse and neglect" where no one is capable of safely raising a child.

The stakes are exemplified by extreme, high-profile cases such as that of Baby P in north London and Sara Sharif in Woking, Surrey—tragedies that serve as stark reminders of what can happen when intervention comes too late. The British Association of Social Workers told the BBC that its members are doing their utmost against a backdrop of rising caseloads and shrinking resources.

With only about 10% of adoptions in England taking place with written consent from birth parents, according to CoramBAAF, campaigners and some experts have begun describing the current situation as modern-day "forced adoption." The terminology is controversial, but it reflects a growing sense of unease about the scale of permanent separations.

Broadhurst acknowledges that the phrase is "politically loaded" and notes that today's care system bears little resemblance to the coercive practices that occurred mainly between 1949 and 1976, for which the government recently issued an apology in England. Nevertheless, she argues that "forced adoption" is an accurate description of what is happening because parents do not agree with the decisions being made. "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."

One birth mother, Jean, told the programme that she never wanted to give up her daughter Tye for adoption and describes the process as "forced." Her local council maintains that it followed a lawful process. Jean's case, though not fully detailed in the source material, illustrates the human cost behind the statistics—a mother separated from her child against her wishes, with the adoption proceeding despite her opposition.

The BBC understands that new guidance for Family Court judges is expected to be announced before the end of the year, aimed at significantly reducing the number of short-notice care hearings—those held within hours or days of a baby being born. Such hearings have been criticised for giving parents little opportunity to respond or to access support that might allow them to keep their child. The forthcoming guidance could represent a meaningful shift in how the family justice system handles the most vulnerable cases.

As the figures continue to plateau at a high level, the debate over how best to protect infants while preserving families where possible remains unresolved. The research from Lancaster and Oxford, combined with testimony from social workers, birth parents, and advocacy organisations, suggests that the current approach may be failing some families—and that the consequences, for both children and parents, can last a lifetime.