Social Policy in the European Union

“Although there is evidence of convergence, it is still the case that social care provision in Europe is marked more by difference than similarity.” Evaluate this claim.

When viewed from the outside, the general assumption seems to be that the welfare states of Western Europe take similar forms (Cochrane and Clarke. 1998, p.250). Indeed several writers have alluded to the idea that there is such a thing as ‘European’ welfare state (Flora. 1986, p. xii) and ‘Western European’ style welfare state (Weir et al. 1988, p. 9). There is no doubt that Europe has become an important focus in the social policy debate because lessons are ideas are drawn from the experiences of European countries and because Europe (through the EC) is understood to have a role in the development of social policy. However, in spite of this, the fact that Western Europe has become more integrated economically and the fact that there is evidence of convergence, it is still the case that social care provision in Europe is marked more by difference than similarity.

In this paper, I intend to discuss the welfare system as it relates to adoption and fostering. I will consider the provisions in the United Kingdom and compare them with the provisions in Sweden. I intend to show that although, there is evidence of similarities and of a movement towards a more uniform approach to welfare provision in Europe, the position is still unsure and is a far cry the generalised welfare states referred to by the writers above.

Social Policy in the European Union

The 1957 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) was supposed to remove barriers to mobility and ensure that no nation would be at a competitive advantage or disadvantage because of its social provisions. Article 117 provided for the harmonization of social systems across the six original member states, implying that they would eventually converge. ( Hantrais. 2000, p. 21). The founder members- Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands had developed social protection systems that involved variations of the continental model of welfare. However, this did not mean that the desired harmonisation would be easy because each state had its own brand of social protection in terms of both the principles underlying the system and the policy-making process itself. With addition of new members to the EEC, harmonisation became more and more elusive.

The Nordic/ Anglo- Saxon countries –United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark had social polices that had developed in line with the principle of universal coverage of risks funded from taxation. The Southern or Mediterranean countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain relied on family, community and religious support in dealing with social problems. Austria’s social policy was very close to the continental model while Finland and Sweden used the universalist tax based welfare variant.

Harmonisation was not made easier by the provisions of the Agreement on Social which stated that account should be taken of the member states’ diverse forms of national practices, in particular, in the field of contractual relations while emphasising the need to maintain competitiveness of the EEC economy. Also, there was controversy as to the desirability and feasibility of harmonisation and member states took up entrenched positions in defence of national sovereignty.

Adoption and Fostering- The United Kingdom

Adoption became legally recognised in the United Kingdom in 1927. Since then, governments have amended the governing laws several times. The number of children being adopted in the United Kingdom has decreased from about 20,000 in 1970 to about 4,000 in the year 2000. These days, more the children that are adopted are already in public care (they are referred to as ‘looked after’ children under the Children Act 1989), are older, have been at the centre of child protection concerns or have disabilities or other special needs (Department of Health).

There are probably about 60,000 ‘looked after’ children in England. They are mostly children that have been compulsorily removed from their parents. The placement of children for adoption against their parents’ wishes has always been seen as an extreme step by legislators and courts and has only been justified by extremes of parental abuse and misbehaviour. Under UK law, it is not enough to show that adoption is in the best interest of the child. One also has to show that the parent has abandoned a child or is unreasonably withholding consent. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 introduced some changes to the above provision in the sense that under this Act, the main consideration in any adoption matter is the welfare of the child and that there are only two ways in which the consent of a parent can be done away with viz: the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or the welfare of the child requires consent to be dispensed with.

The present legislation as relates to adoption seems to be in favour of putting children up for adoption that would normally be under care. The system does not seem sympathetic to the plights of birth parents and instead seems to be pro- adoption.

The UK as a member of the European Community has to abide with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights 1988. Under Article 8 of the Convention, Everyone has the right to respect for his private life and family life, his home and his correspondence. The European Court of Human Rights has construed ‘family life’ to include non marriage based relationships and extended family. It would seem form the provisions of this convention that the aim of the ‘European Welfare State’ would be to preserve family life. It would also seem that the adoption processes for the United Kingdom do not always have preservation of family life as a major objective.

In July 2000, the Prime Minister published a review of Adoption laws. It contained 85 recommendations. They included plans to develop and implement a national adoption register, draw up new standards for local authorities to follow, set up an adoption and permanency taskforce to monitor the performance of the local authorities.

I am not certain as to how these proposed recommendations, if put in place would affect the present law in the UK. However, the maintenance of adoption registers would at least, make it easier for biological parents to locate their children or children to locate their biological parents. Having said this, it is not necessarily the case the maintenance of such a register would serve to promote family life in the sense that once a child is given up for adoption, the family life is already altered. Even if a child is later reunited with his or her biological parents because of the records in the adoption register, chances are that the child would already have formed strong ties with the adoptive family in which case, it would actually be in the best interest of preserving family life that, the register is not there to enable biological parents find their children.

Generally, UK laws as relate to fostering and adoption are pro adoption. It seems that the position is that rather than have extended periods in foster care where the fate of the child is uncertain, it is in the best interest of the child to have a more stable home and family and thus adoption is a better option.

Adoption and Fostering- Sweden

In Sweden, there is no provision for placement for adoption without the consent of the parents. There are also no provisions for the making of a permanent care order, residence order or guardianship order without parental consent.

About 75% of children in care in Sweden are placed in care upon the request of a parent in accordance with the provisions of the Social Services Act of 1982. The rest are placed in compulsory care under the Care of Young Persons Act 1990. This provides for placing a child in care without the parents or consent and without the consent of the child involved. According to this Act also, young people can be taken into care until they attain the age of 20. Under the Social Services Act of 1982, social committees in municipalities are required to protect and support the children by collaborating closely with the children’s families. When it is decided that the child needs to be taken into care, it is preferred that the child is placed in the care of family or members of his or her kin with the objective being to eventually return the child home after providing assistance to the parents and care and therapy for the children when necessary. Even when it is not possible to return the child back home, the intention is that the child maintains contact with his or her parents while in care and that the parents are involved in caring for the child. The Swedish laws are silent as to guidance for permanent care away from home.

Even when children are taken away from home, Swedish Law provides that such placements should be reviewed every six months. In Sweden, only about ten percent of children in foster care spend their whole childhood under foster care. It is legally possible in Sweden to transfer custody of a child form the birth parents to the foster parents but it rarely happens. Also, Swedish social workers are reluctant to take children from foster homes where they have spent some time to a new adoptive home.

A major disadvantage of the Swedish fostering system however, is the lack of permanency. The foster parents do not know what will happen literally from one day to the other with regards to their custody of the children

Under Swedish Adoption laws, gay partners are allowed to adopt children together both within and outside Sweden. They have the same rights as other couples in terms of adoption. Sweden was the first country to grant same sex couples such extensive rights.

Generally, Swedish Child Welfare laws emphasise on the need for social support and service rather than the need for child protection.

Differences between UK Fostering and Adoption Policies

As already pointed out above, many of the children that are put up for adoption in the UK would be in foster care in Sweden and indeed most other EU countries. While the UK adoption and fostering policy places emphasis on the welfare of the child, the Swedish system places emphasis on the preservation of family. Under Swedish law, there is no provision for the giving up of children for adoption without the parents consent. Under UK law, it is possible to compulsorily remove children from their parents’ care and even to give them up for adoption in the circumstances enumerated above. The key factor is that it is in the best interest of the child. Under Swedish law, it is obvious that a lot of importance is attached to preservation of family. When kids are in foster care, they maintain contact with their parents and the parents have a say in the welfare decisions that affect the child even when the child is removed compulsorily. In cases of compulsory removal of a child, the decision is reviewed every six months.

Whereas in the UK, continued stay in foster care would make it likely that a child would be put up for adoption, in Sweden, social workers are reluctant to take children away from foster care when they have spent a lot of time there to give them up for adoption by a new family.

Under Swedish law, same sex partners have the same rights in terms of adoption of children and other couples. This is not the case in the UK. Many people have criticised the UK system on this ground but the position has yet to change in favour of same sex couples.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it is obvious that even though there is convergence in the sense that there are laws and guidelines that apply to all the members of the European Union, there is still a lot of difference in the their fostering and adoption policy as well as the implementation of their duties under the European Union Conventions.

As discussed above, under the European Convention on Human Rights, the members states should endeavour to preserve the family life of their citizens. On the basis of the above, it would seem that the UK has other objectives and puts the so-called ‘welfare of the child’ before the need to preserve family life.

The UK has based its adoption and fostering policy more on the USA model than on the basis of its obligations under the European Union. This pushes the prospect of a unified ‘European Welfare State’ further and further away.

In order for harmonisation to be possible, states have to at least make an effort to abide by the guiding principles of the European as provided for in the conventions and other agreements and try as much as possible to be led by these principles when making law or policy decisions.

Bibliography

Bailey, J. (Ed) (1997) Social Europe (Edinburgh: Longman)

Cochrane, A. and Clarke J. (Eds) (1998) Comparing Welfare States: Britain in International Context (Milton Keynes: Sage)

Esping- Andersen, G. (Ed) Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies (London: Sage)

Flora, P. (1986) Growths to Limits: Volume 1 (Berlin: de Gruyter)

Hantrais, L (2000) Social Policy in the European Union (Second Edition) (London: Macmillan)

Warman, A. and Roberts, C. (2004) Adoption and Looked After Children: International Comparisons (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Weir, M., Orloff, A.S., and Skocpol, T. (Eds) (1988) The Politics of Social Policy in the United States. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press)

Journal Articles

Andersson. (1999) Children in Permanent Foster Care in Sweden Child and Family Social Work Volume 4, Number 3

Dey, I. (2005) Adapting Adoption: A Case of Closet Politics? International Journal of Law Policy Family Volume 19 Number 3 Pages 289-309

Garrett, P.M., (2002) Getting a grip: New Labour and the Reform on the Law on Child Adoption. Critical Social Policy Volume 22 No.2 174-202.

Garrett, P.M., and Sinkkonen, J. (2003) Putting Children First? A Comparison of Child Adoption Practice in Britain and Finland. European Journal of Social Work Volume 6 Number 1

Lewis,J. (2004) Adoption: The Nature of Policy Shifts in England and Wales International Journal of Law Policy Family Volume 18 Pages 235-255

Selwyn, J. AND Sturgess, W. (2000) International Overview of Adoption: Policy and Practice University of Bristol Publictaions

Steele,L. (2000) The Day Fostering Scheme: A service for Children in Need and their Parents Child and Family Social Work Volume 5, Number 4, Pages 317-325

Sundell, K., Vinnerljung, B., Ryburn, M. (2001) Social Workers’ Attitudes Towards Family Group Conferences in Sweden and the UK Child and Family Social Work Volume 6, Issue 4 Page 327

Testa, M.F. When Children Cannot Return Home (2004) The Future of Children Volume 14

Triseliotis, J. (2002) Long Term Foster Care or Adoption? The Evidence Examined Child and Family Social Work Volume 7 Page 23

Houston and Griffiths (2000) Reflections on Risk in Child Protection: Is it Time for a Shift in Paradigms? Child and Family Social Work Volume 5, Number 1 Pages 1-10