This study explored the beliefs and assumptions that affect professionals in the decision making process about contact between children in permanent alternative care and their birth parents. Nine professionals from three groups, guardian ad Litems; judges and independent experts, were interviewed, using semi-structured interviews. The verbatim transcripts of these interviews were the data for an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Five overarching themes emerged in guiding the work of professionals, which were described as, parental capacity; children's rights and wishes; contact as central to identity; the safety and the age of the child. There were seven other common themes, which were described as, permanency and stability; having an open mind; adoption as different to other forms of permanency; attachment; ethnicity/race/gender/culture; views of alternative parents and power and responsibility. Three themes occurred in only one group or individual interview, and were described as, having differing and conflicting views to others; contact as having a symbolic function and the law as paramount. The guardian ad Litems emphasised the importance of contact as central to identity, and were strongly influenced by research supporting this view. They often felt disempowered in legal proceedings. The experts took a "detached" evidence based position, and were particularly concerned about the safety and emotional needs of children. The judges worked within a legal framework, within which individual differences emerged. The issue of power and responsibility given to certain discourses is discussed. The similarities and differences within and between groups are understood in terms of the different ways in which professionals position themselves in relation to contact, based on professional roles and responsibilities, within a social and cultural framework, and influenced by a range of professional and personal experiences'. Consideration is given to how the themes are played out in discourses used to present and argue a position. A number of tensions and contradictions emerged. Findings were considered in the light of outcome research and a social constructionist perspective". The co-ordinated management of meanings". Possible recommendations for ways in which professionals may become more aware of their beliefs and assumptions affecting decision making about contact, are made. The open and thoughtful manner in which professionals responded to the research interview and sought feedback supports the idea that greater openness in the decision making process about contact, between children in permanent alternative care and their birth parents, would be beneficial.

This thesis considers how local authority social workers go about assessing the suitability of lesbians and gay men to foster or adopt children. It also asks how far a stated lesbian or gay sexuality is problematic within this process. A constructionist approach to social enquiry is used, data being generated by interviews with social workers, as well as a case study of a lesbian couple’s adoption application. Dorothy Smith’s ‘institutional ethnography’ is also employed to examine the ‘relations of ruling’ that structure such assessments. A continuum of assessment models is proposed in order to show the dominance of ‘on merit’ approaches which prioritise child care skills over sexuality issues. The thesis demonstrates the presence of arguments about the supposed ‘risks’ to children posed by lesbians or gay men. The notion of ‘discrimination’ in assessments is analysed, as are attempts by some social workers to challenge discrimination, and it is argued that small-scale anti-discriminatory measures are inadequate. Constructions of the categories ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ are discussed in relation to the ‘good carer of children’, and the thesis proposes the dominance of two versions: the ‘good lesbian’ and the ‘maternal gay man’. The thesisargues that the ‘on merit: prioritisation of child care skills’ model relies upon heteronormative ideas, and the case study looks at contested meanings given to the category ‘lesbian’ which are also gendered and raced. The thesis sees ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ as categories of knowledge, and social work assessment as a ‘making sense’ activity in which versions of these are produced. Such everyday practices are problematised in the thesis, and discourse, (black) feminist and queer theories are used to analyse how the assessment is a site for the production of knowledges about sexuality.