Dear Community,
On 10th June 2025, as we shared at the time, Sarah Johal, National Adoption Strategic Lead (Adoption England) made contact with our campaign team. She did this in response to the open letter we wrote to Chancellor Rachel Reeves on 6th June 2025. Our letter referenced what we considered to be deeply offensive comments made by Sarah Johal during an interview in a Community Care article, published on 20th May 2025.
It was clear from your responses to the article and our open letter to Rachel Reeves (which has 784 signatures), that you found Sarah Johal’s comments profoundly hurtful too. These comments revealed an alarming ignorance and disconnect at the heart of government policy-making on adoption and kinship support.
In her first email to us, on 10th June 2025, Sarah Johal said that the article had taken her words out of context and apologised to us for any offense caused. She asked to meet with us (online).
On 12th June 2025 we responded via email further underlining the strength of feeling among adopters, kinship carers and the community, following the Community Care article and her comments within it. We encouraged Sarah Johal to clarify her comments and apologise publicly. We agreed to meet with her. We stated that we would share comments and the strength of feeling from our community in more depth at that meeting.
On 13th June 2025 Adoption England released their ASGSF Options Appraisal Document, titled Securing the future of the ASGSF: Strategic Options for Reform and Delivery Adoption England’s reflection. This document included much of the same language used by Sarah Johal in the Community Care article. Terms like ‘entitled’ and ‘dependent’, describing parents and carers, remained.
On the 2nd July 2025, we met with Sarah Johal and two colleagues from Adoption England. Sarah apologised for the Community Care article and again said that her words had been taken out of context. We said that much of what had been so concerning to the community within the article was also present in the Adoption England Options Appraisal document. We shared some comments from you all and underlined our collective strength of feeling. We stated that it wasn’t us that needed her apology but our whole community.
On 7th July 2025 we made contact with Sarah Johal, via email, following up on our meeting. In this email we again raised that we felt a public apology to the community would be crucial if Sarah Johal was to re-build trust with our community. We recommended that if her comments had been taken out of context, as she claimed, that she clarify what she meant and show an understanding of what it is like for adoptive parents, kinship carers, how desperate we are rather than entitled, and that she acknowledge the complex needs of our children, the importance of specialist therapy and so on.
We offered to share more of the comments from our community directly with Sarah Johal to help her understand how impacted our community were by what she had said.
We also offered to interview her, if she preferred, so that we could share her video apology and any other comments and her thoughts with you, via our channels.
On the 9th July 2025 Sarah Johal replied to say she would like to see the comments and would then put a response together.
On 11th July 2025 we sent through these comments from our community to Sarah Johal:
“Absolutely disgusting. Gaslighting at the highest level .”
“This rhetoric about greedy parents instead of vulnerable children being denied access to services they desperately need, is pervasive in all areas of trauma and sen… it’s terrifying”
“This one has been rumbling round my head over night. It is gaslighting – your children’s needs aren’t real, they aren’t as great as you say they are, you aren’t “coping” and must need to go on (another) parenting course -we’ve all been there. But coming from the person at the top of Adoption England, that’s terrifying.”
“As if there isn’t enough to do fighting people who have no idea about adoption , but to hear this from someone who professes to be an expert is beyond unacceptable”.
Sarah Johal’s comments weren’t just inappropriate, they were astonishingly tone deaf. In the middle of a funding crisis, with therapy being cut mid-treatment for traumatised children, she chose to suggest that families are somehow over-reliant on support? Has she even heard herself?
I’ve had messages from families who feel completely gaslit. People are furious, and rightly so. She’s not just out of touch, she’s part of the problem. And the fact that she’s still advising the government while this rhetoric is being peddled is really worrying.
It’s incredible (in the worst way) that after a decade of hard-won progress, Labour have managed to unravel all of it in just a few months, and this is the voice they’re listening to? Families were promised support. Now the fund is being gutted, and we’re being blamed for asking for help. I’m sorry, but if Sarah Johal can’t grasp the basics of trauma-informed support, she shouldn’t be anywhere near adoption policy.”
“The word prevention keeps coming up, but the trauma has already occurred. If they want to prevent families in crisis and that is what is meant then they need to put in appropriate levels of specialist therapy from the start because everything else is a false economy. What Sarah Johal is suggesting will not work, history shows this, but round we go again, when will they ever listen?”
“It isn’t our responsibility to make social workers jobs more interesting, we need qualified therapists carrying out specialist multi model therapy.”
“Does Sarah Johal understand anything about traumatised children and how best to meet their needs. Does she really believe what she is saying or is she just the unfortunate mouthpiece for the government?”
“Also what was the understanding from Sarah Johal about the huge level of need that many traumatised children have? I sense minimising/parent blaming/denial.”
“I am also keen to know if Sarah apologised for the hugely offensive comments that were made in the community care article. The one where adopters were painted as entitled individuals who were requesting unnecessary therapy?”
“Was there any response from Sarah Johal about the published comments attributed to her?”
“Honestly I’m shocked at what I’ve just read! Entitled – just wow. Where do they find these people? It echoes again the lack of consultation behind the decisions being made. This is actually a new low. I’m furious for our amazing families, with statements like that who will want to adopt?”
“Sarah Johal used to run the RAA we went through and spoke at the first meeting we went to before starting the process. Her comments are very disappointing and show a complete disregard for her colleagues who are trying to deal with the fall out from these cuts. Not to mention the lack of understanding of what our kids are going through.”
“However she added that transferring funding to councils “might be right for the element of the fund that is related to kinship carers and special guardianship”. Many Kinship carers are already ignored by their councils when it comes to support. So concerns that if handed to councils it wouldn’t be ring fenced for adoptive families but it would be okay for kinship families?”
“It breaks my heart that there is so little understanding of the devastating impact of trauma in our children.”
“Parents are by and large “skilled up” they’ve read, attended training, done courses, sought advice, tried to be proactive but professional help and therapy is still needed. These things should run concurrently, because both have their uses, if specialist therapy is needed, wading through a parent course first won’t change that.”
“Adoption England seem to be trying to lead post adoption support services back decades, shame on them”
On 17th July 2025 Sarah Johal sent an apology to Clare, Euan and Stéph.
On 4th August 2025 we followed up with Sarah Johal via email and asked once again if she would make a public apology to help restore trust and rebuild a shared understanding of the needs of adoptive and kinship families.
On 7th August 2025 Sarah responded and said that the apology sent to us on the 17th July 2025 was also for the community and could be shared with you all.
We’ve included her full apology for you all to read, below. We are sorry that it is coming through us and not directly from Sarah Johal. For clarity, we are NOT a mouthpiece for Adoption England.
It is so important that Sarah Johal and Adoption England:
1. understand the needs of our children fully,
2. appropriately consult across the whole sector, including with children and families.
Using weak research and small studies that are not reflective of a national picture alongside anecdotal information inconsistent with the community we hear from to underpin huge changes in post adoption support is not acceptable. Our children deserve better, particularly from an organisation tasked with improving the system. We as parents and carers deserve better.
The adoption and kinship journey does not end at placement. The resistance from the government to acknowledge the complex needs of this group of children is deeply worrying. You cannot pave the path forward by sticking with the adoption rhetoric of yester year that love is enough and that needs end at the point of placement. The specialist needs of our children doesn’t mean the parents/carers must be doing something wrong. Our children and their parents and carers need specialist support to heal. Failing to acknowledge this is gaslighting of the highest order.
Children and young adults are suffering. They were already, and brutal cuts to the ASGSF made with neither evidence base or consultation have left many in crisis. Our survey results show a deeply worrying picture. This needs urgent attention.
Please tell us what YOU think.
Your voices add weight to our campaign.
Our voices are louder and stronger together.
If you can, tag your local MP, Bridget Phillipson and Janet Daby when you comment below. Or send your comments and thoughts via our email address [email protected]
We will continue to share your comments with Sarah Johal in the hope she, and the government department she serves, in the hope this will improve their understanding of the difficulties we all face, that they listen, and pivot their current policy quickly and appropriately to prevent further harm.
Please keep fighting with us, however you can. We need your help to make real change and make the Government LISTEN.
Sending strength to you all
Clare, Euan and Stéph
—-
Letter from Sarah Johal
Dear Claire, Euan and Steph,
I want to begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling expressed in response to the recent Community Care article and the ASGSF options appraisal document. I have read your comments carefully that you shared with me and have listened to the concerns you raised during our discussion. It was never my intention to undermine the lived experiences of adoptive families, nor to suggest that the support parents and carers seek is anything less than necessary and valid. I recognise that many parents and carers felt my comments implied a sense of entitlement or dependency, and I want to be clear: that was not my intention.
I will address the comments raised:
1. When I spoke about the need to tailor support and reduce reliance on specialist therapeutic services, I was referring to the importance of early, preventative, and holistic support—not to diminish the need for specialist therapy, but to ensure that families receive the right help at the right time. I understand now that this language may have come across as dismissive or minimising, and for that, I sincerely apologise.
2. “With reference to the sentence around ‘entitled to therapy,’ I was referring to one of the unintended consequences of the ASGSF that families see the ASGSF as something families are directly entitled to , rather than a fund that regional adoption agencies or local authorities apply to, on their behalf. I completely understand why this has happened; families are the ones seeing the challenges their children face and are rightly advocating for their children and driving the process, and often also experiencing the impact of delays or decisions. However, the original purpose of the fund was to support therapeutic services as part of a wider package of care. What we’re trying to do now is look at how we can build a more joined-up, holistic approach—where therapy is available when needed, but is also part of a broader, more responsive, and holistic support system that includes education, health, peer support, identity work, and with practical and emotional support for families.
3. In relation to the term “dependency” sometimes we do see families needing ongoing therapeutic support for longer than expected. This is not a criticism, and I can see that this language was unhelpful. I am clear that there will always be some families and children who need longer-term therapeutic support and this will be essential for some families, especially where children have experienced complex trauma, have multiple and complex needs, and some of whom may also be at significant risk, with therapeutic support being part of a multi-agency support plan. In these situations, sustained therapeutic input can be crucial to helping families stay together and thrive. Our aim is not to limit this support, but to ensure it is available where it is most needed, alongside other forms of help that together creates a strong, stable foundation for family life. We want to explore together how therapy can be a tool for empowerment and the aim is not to ‘cut off’ support, but to help families feel confident and equipped to manage things independently when the time is right.
I hope these points respond to the concerns raised by adopters and carers. I also want to acknowledge the broader concerns about the recent changes to the ASGSF and the impact they are having on children and families. I share your concern about this, and we are actively engaging with the Department for Education to seek a longer term commitment for funding and a decision about the future of the ASGSF beyond March 2026 so that we can plan accordingly.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I have worked with adopters, foster carers, and kinship carers for many years as a social worker and manager, and I have seen parents and carers trying to navigate complex challenges and trying to access the right support for their children to help them fulfil their potential. I have complete admiration and respect for the commitment, dedication, and advocacy of adoptive parents and special guardians and I am committed to listening, learning, and working collaboratively with you to ensure that your voices are central to shaping the future of adoption support. I recognise how important language is and both personally and within Adoption England we will avoid language such as this in future and ensure that we work harder to articulate what we mean carefully.
I am very grateful to those who took the time to share their thoughts, even when they were difficult to read. Honesty is important and I will aim to be as transparent and honest with you as we move forward to try and shape a support system that provides families with the right support at the right time.
With respect and appreciation,
Sarah Johal
National Strategic Adoption Lead
Adoption England