Does the term “permanence” help or hinder outcomes for children: Family Justice Council Debate (Part 1)

The term 'permanence' in children's social care is under intense scrutiny in this landmark two-part debate hosted by the Family Justice Council and featured on The Relational Social Work Podcast. While the concept was born from a desperate need to replace institutional care with stable, loving families after the 1970s, speakers argue it has become a rigid, legalistic obsession that often fails children. Professor Julie Selwyn defends permanence as essential for security, identity, and long-term stability, citing data on placement instability and the transformative shift to family-based care. However, Matt Clayton and others counter that the system's fixation on permanence—especially through adoption—destroys hope, undermines family reunification, and ignores the reality of change. They argue that permanence as currently framed is a 'fantasy' for most children, with over 12,000 more children in care than a decade ago and adoption breakdowns rising. Legal experts like Tom Wilson affirm permanence's foundational role in law, but Lorraine Kavanagh delivers a devastating critique: the term blinds practitioners to trauma, risks, and the need for flexible, individualized planning. She reveals that adoption plans often lack proper mental health risk assessments, and that 73% of adoptive families feel on the brink of crisis.