This week, Parliament will debate the future of the Adoption Support Fund (ASGSF). The Society has submitted evidence to the debate, emphasising the importance of protecting this vital lifeline for adopted children and their families.
The Adoption Support Fund was created to provide therapeutic support for children who have experienced significant trauma before entering care. For many families, it has been nothing short of transformational.
One adoptive parent told us:
The therapy that my son was able to access through the ASGSF was transformational. He went from a young person who experienced significant dysregulation, difficult peer relationships and exclusions from school, to being able to identify his feelings and find ways of managing those feelings effectively. He became successful at school and developed a more positive sense of self.
It allowed me, as his parent to effectively use therapeutic parenting to support him through a very difficult period of his life and ongoing.
The trauma he experienced can not be underestimated and the impact throughout his life will be notable. The therapy helped in the moment but also into his future.
The reality is that the type of therapy needed is expensive but vital. It will not fix the trauma experienced, without the funding many of the most vulnerable children in our society will not be able to access therapy. This will inevitably impact their future relationships and life choices.
Stories like this demonstrate exactly why the fund matters. Over 70% of adopted children experienced abuse or neglect before entering care. These early experiences of trauma can leave deep and lasting marks: things like difficulties with trust, heightened anxiety, emotional dysregulation, or challenges in forming healthy relationships. Without the right support, these challenges often play out in school, at home, and later in adult life, leading to exclusion, breakdown of placements, and long-term mental health struggles.
Therapy offers something irreplaceable: a safe, consistent, and compassionate relationship where children can begin to process what has happened to them. Relational therapies equip children with lifelong skills in managing emotions, understanding themselves, and building positive attachments; they don’t just reduce distress in the moment. For many adopted children, this is the first time they’ve been able to experience a relationship that is truly safe, reliable, and attuned to their needs.
Cuts to the fund risk creating a two-tier system. Families with financial means may be able to pay privately for counselling and specialist trauma therapies, but for many this is simply not an option. Therapy is expensive, often hundreds of pounds per month, and is far out of reach for families already stretched by the costs of raising children with additional needs.
This means that the children who most need support (those who have already experienced neglect, abuse, or instability) are the very ones who will lose out. Without the ASGSF, their trauma goes unaddressed, widening the gap between children who can access therapy and those who cannot. It entrenches disadvantage, leaving vulnerable children even further behind their peers in school, in relationships, and in life.
Creating such a divide is both unfair and harmful. Denying children access to relational, human support at the point they need it most risks compounding the very inequalities the care and adoption system is supposed to redress. Instead of levelling the playing field, we would be pushing the most disadvantaged children further to the margins.
The NCPS has also warned against replacing relational, human-based therapy with cheaper, digital alternatives. While these options may look efficient on paper, promising scalability and lower upfront costs, they cannot provide what traumatised children need most: the consistent presence of a safe, caring adult. We heal from our trauma through connection, trust, and warmth. Embodied, emotional, relational safety. For a child who has experienced neglect, abuse, or instability, the act of sitting with a trusted therapist is itself reparative. It models safety, empathy, and reliability in a way that no algorithm or app can reproduce. Growing concerns about depersonalisation and AI-psychosis add to the list of significant risks if we continue to lower the bar on what makes a reasonable, acceptable mental health support intervention.
Decades of evidence in counselling & psychotherapy show that the therapeutic relationship itself is the strongest predictor of positive outcomes. Much more important than the model or technique used. Removing that human element risks leaving children feeling unseen, unheard, and unsupported. Replacing relational therapies with digital substitutes could cause real harm by offering a hollow imitation of care, and that's even before we understand whether or not it 'works'.
The case for protecting the ASGSF is clear, and the NCPS is urging MPs to use this debate to protect and ringfence funding for the Adoption Support Fund.
