Even the Court of Appeal thinks that councils are working towards targets for adoptions:
Lord Justice Thorpe said that East Sussex county council appeared more concerned with meeting a quota than the best interests of the family.
The adoption proceedings began while the father was in hospital after a heart attack, but as soon as he was fit he instructed a solicitor to write to the council and ask that he be allowed to care for his daughter. The council reacted by placing the baby girl with prospective adopters the day before a court hearing at which her father intended to challenge the adoption.
Lord Justice Thorpe said: "The council\’s failure to answer that letter and subsequent placement on the eve of the hearing give rise to the clearest inference that the council was out to gain its ends by means more foul than fair.
"There are many who assert that councils have a secret agenda to establish a high score of children that they have placed for adoption… a history such as this only serves to fuel public distrust in the good faith of public authority."
Luvverly, eh? Children ripped from the arms of their biological parents so that a social worker can make quota?
Sadly, given the way in which the "best interests of the child" are considered paramount, and the way in which bonding with adoptive parents happens, even though the judges are highly critical of the actions undertaken, it has actually worked. This counts towards quota:
However, the judges refused the father leave to appeal on human rights grounds against the adoption order. Lord Justice Wall said: "In my judgment, the answer to this case is not to allow the appeal, but for this court to ensure, in so far as it can, that the conduct of this local authority is not repeated elsewhere."