BBC File on 4 Investigates: Adoption: The Blame Game

By Gillian Elam, Research Manager, and Euan Preston, Chair, The POTATO Group

On 2 December 2025, BBC File on Four released Adoption: The Blame Game, an investigation into lies, blame and systemic gaslighting within adoption in the UK. Presented by Judith Moritz, it drew on what it described as the most extensive Freedom of Information request ever into adoptions that have "broken down", revealing that more than 1,000 adopted children have reentered the care system in the past five years.

Nearly a quarter of parents interviewed by the programme had been arrested. Others had been threatened with arrest. Support offered to them took the form of generic parenting courses that placed the issue squarely with them while sidestepping the needs of children who have experienced trauma, abuse, neglect, loss and in some cases, have neurodivergent conditions.

Our own research contains many similar accounts. Four hundred and eighty members took part, representing parents of 700 pre teens, teens, young adults and adults. The message could not be clearer, yet there are still adoption professionals who remain unwilling to listen.

Key findings from our research include:

• One in four parents now parent at a distance at least one of their children.

• Seventy five percent have experienced child to parent violence and aggression.

• Sixty five percent have been blamed by professionals for behaviours that stem from trauma and unmet need.

• Forty three percent have faced false allegations.

• Eighty seven percent of our children have diagnosed (53%) or suspected (34%) a neurodivergent condition. These include FASD, ASC, ADHD, inattentive ADHD and PDA.

• Many of our children remain undiagnosed throughout childhood, entering adulthood, Section 20 arrangements and even the criminal justice system without diagnosis, treatment or support for neurodivergence or mental health difficulties.

• Nearly all of our children live with anxiety and hyper vigilance, including those who are now adults.

  
  

Predictably, there is pushback from some in the sector intent on presenting the BBC’s work as one sided and unrepresentative of a supposedly rare phenomenon. One such criticism came from a voluntary adoption agency whose adopter recruitment advertising places them in a very fragile glass house from which to be throwing stones. The refusal to listen speaks for itself.

As someone who spends a great deal of time with adopters, not only within The POTATO Group but in many other settings as well, I hear stories and see levels of need that sit far beyond what statutory authorities are prepared to acknowledge. The broader data echoes what families tell us, including the Adoption UK Barometer, in which 56 percent of parents of teens and young adults report that their families are facing severe challenges. Yet these findings are pushed aside by those who have decided they do not want to recognise them.

Where criticism of the programme feels most justified is in how it touched on the idea of culpability in children. Liam, the 17 year old son of adopters Ian and Verity, expressed self blame after having been moved from the family home and accommodated under Section 20 of the Children Act. It is entirely understandable that he would feel this. Our children often carry shame that doesn’t belong to them. Yet choosing to broadcast it risks feeding a narrative that a child can somehow be responsible for behaviours that were shaped by trauma long before they entered their adoptive home. Our children are no more accountable for these adaptations than they are for the colour of their eyes. This is not a criticism of the families involved or even the programme makers. It is simply a reminder of how far we still have to travel before public understanding of trauma catches up with reality.

Language used in news reporting around the programme revealed similar gaps. Phrases such as sending them back into care suggest parents making a choice because they cannot cope. Reentering care after adoption is widely misunderstood. When families reach crisis, the local authority is not taking over parental responsibility in most cases. The arrangement most families enter into is Section 20 of the Children Act, as mentioned above. Parents remain fully responsible in law. Section 20 is intended to provide safe accommodation and support while parents stay central to decision making. It is usually the right and proportionate response when a child needs somewhere safe for everyone, or requires a full time therapeutic environment that cannot be provided at home.

Some local authorities, however, may move instead toward a Care Order or an Interim Care Order. These give the local authority majority parental responsibility and reduce the role of parents in key decisions. For families already in crisis, this shift can feel punitive rather than supportive. It also fuels public misunderstanding, since these legal orders are often conflated with parents giving up or children being taken away, which is not what most families experience or seek.

In truth, when a child reenters care it is most often because safety is at urgent and sustained risk, whether the child’s or that of close family members. For many adopted children and young adults, needs can be so great that even the most skilled and loving parents are overwhelmed. Reaching the point where parenting from a distance is the least worst option is devastating for parents, and the fight to be understood and to secure the right support for our children is fraught.

The programme highlights the systemic underreporting of adopted children reentering the care system, with only a third of local authorities meeting their obligation to keep records and report. Added to this are children who leave the family home prematurely but do not reenter care, instead living with first families or in ad hoc or makeshift accommodation, frequently at risk of harm. The numbers being reported, then, represent only the tip of the iceberg.

Adoption: The Blame Game arrives at a time of increased attention on adoption and the failings of post adoption support across print, radio and television. It is encouraging to see how many people are now speaking out. As they do, something becomes strikingly clear; We are all saying versions of the same thing. For those of us campaigning, it is tempting to feel as if a wave is forming.

Yet our community has been here before. Members, volunteers and founders of The POTATO Group have in the past appeared on national media, participated in research and campaigned to change legislation and policy. Many took part in Selwyn et al’s Beyond the Adoption Order. And still, too little has changed. Cuts to the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund point to a rolling back of the very support that research helped to establish.

Outrage fades quickly once the news cycle moves on, leaving injustice to settle back into place. It is therefore essential that we continue speaking out, continue building momentum and continue working together. Our voices are louder in unison. We cannot justifiably criticise professional services for working in silos only to fall into the same pattern ourselves. This does not require us to relinquish our own identities as individuals or organisations. It means recognising that the collective evidence, including our own research, is now too substantial to ignore, and that we have an opportunity to bring it to bear on systems that have resisted change for too long.

Congratulations to Fiona Wells and everyone at PATCH, whose persistence brought this programme to air, and to the many courageous families who took part in The Blame Game and other recent BBC coverage.