Baby Care Proceedings Surge by 64% in England, Sparking Fears of Avoidable Adoptions

The number of infants entering care proceedings before their first birthday has remained stubbornly high across England, according to newly released figures that have reignited a fraught debate over how the child protection system treats the youngest and most vulnerable. Research from Lancaster and Oxford universities shows that care proceedings involving babies have climbed by 64% over the past two decades, with one in every 118 infants now affected. The data, covering the period up to 2024-25, reveals a peak during the Covid pandemic followed by a slight decline before the numbers levelled off at a persistently elevated level.

Experts who spoke to BBC File on 4 Investigates say the statistics point to a system under strain, where many babies might never have been removed from their families had adequate support been available. The concern is particularly acute because very young children who enter the care system are far more likely to be adopted than older children, meaning some may have been permanently cut off from their birth families when alternative interventions could have kept them at home.

The implications of adoption are profound. While it can offer a child stability and a permanent family, it also severs the legal relationship with birth relatives forever. Government figures indicate that 72% of adopted children in England entered care before their first birthday. According to CoramBAAF, which represents professionals working in adoption and care, more than 90% of those adoptions proceeded without written consent from the parents. Courts overruled parental wishes in just under half of those cases, while the remainder were classified as "unopposed" — often because parents had been advised that contesting the decision would be futile.

This has led campaigners and some academics to characterise the situation as modern-day "forced adoption." Professor Karen Broadhurst from Lancaster University acknowledges that the phrase is politically charged 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. Nevertheless, she argues the term captures a reality: parents do not agree to the separation. "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."

Broadhurst's analysis of care proceedings suggests that only between a fifth and a quarter of cases are "clear-cut," involving serious harm or abuse. The majority fall into what she describes as a "grey area" of neglect by families with complex needs — including drug and alcohol misuse and housing difficulties — that might have improved if the right support had been in place. That distinction matters enormously, because it suggests that many removals are not responses to immediate danger but to chronic disadvantage that could potentially be addressed without breaking families apart.

The government and adoption organisations maintain that adoption should always be a last resort. Children's charity Coram, part of the same wider network as CoramBAAF, cautions that if infants in care are not adopted, they would likely remain in the care system for years. Research consistently shows that children raised in care experience poorer outcomes in life than those who grow up outside it, a finding that complicates any simple narrative about the harms of adoption.

Social workers sit at the centre of these wrenching decisions. One practitioner, whom the BBC is calling Tracy, described the daily dilemmas she and her colleagues face as they balance giving families time to weather a crisis against the risk of failing to intervene before a child is harmed. She said 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 added, social workers deal with families "riddled with abuse and neglect" where no one is able to safely raise a child. The stakes are starkly illustrated by high-profile cases such as Baby P in north London and Sara Sharif in Woking, Surrey, which serve as 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. That pressure is a crucial part of the context: a system asked to make life-altering decisions for vulnerable families while operating under financial constraints and staffing shortages.

The BBC understands that new guidance for Family Court judges will be announced before the end of the year, aimed at significantly reducing the number of short-notice care hearings — proceedings held within hours or days of a baby's birth. Such hearings have been criticised for giving parents little opportunity to prepare or challenge the evidence against them. The reform suggests that policymakers are beginning to heed concerns about the speed at which some of these decisions are made.

For birth mother Jean, the issue is deeply personal. She says she never wanted to give up her daughter Tye for adoption and describes the process as "forced." Her local council insists it followed a lawful process. Her account, featured in the File on 4 investigation, reflects the anguish of parents who feel the system treated them as a problem to be resolved rather than a family to be supported.

The broader picture that emerges is of a care system caught between two competing imperatives: protecting infants from genuine harm and avoiding unnecessary permanent separation. The new figures, combined with expert testimony and the forthcoming judicial guidance, suggest that the balance may be shifting — and that the question of how England treats its youngest children in care is unlikely to fade from public debate.