Corporate Parenting

The language of corporate parenting entered English legislation in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 (Children and Social Work Act 2017; Department for Education 2018, p. 7). While there is no mention or definition of a corporate parent or parents in that Act, it refers to each “local authority in England” having an obligation to follow seven “Corporate parenting principles” in relation to children and young people who are or have been in their care. As noted in the corresponding statutory guidance, “local authorities are often referred to as being the ‘corporate parent’” and “the term ‘corporate parent’ is broadly understood… in relation to how local authorities should approach their responsibilities for looked after children and care leavers” (Department for Education 2018, p. 6).

The concept of corporate parenting was in use well before 2017 as illustrated by the apt title of a 2006 article, “Can the corporate state parent?”, which notes “longstanding concerns about the nature and extent of appropriate state involvement in parenting children” (Bullock et al. 2006, p. 6). The term ‘corporate parent’ lacks a clear legal definition and over time the understanding of the term seems to have shifted. Initially the ‘corporate’ in corporate parenting was understood along similar lines to other definitions of, for instance, a corporation or corporate body which has a “legal personality distinct from those of its members” and “is capable of enjoying and being subject to legal rights and duties” (Law 2022). More recently an understanding of corporate parent has been emphasised in which importance is placed on the sharing and discharging of parenting responsibilities among individuals who comprise a local authority. This change in usage is also recognised by Bullock et al. who observe that it “clouds the issue” (Bullock et al. 2006, n. 3) I will illustrate this pattern from the literature, also identifying how the role of foster carers is seen in this context.

That Bullock et al. prefer the former understanding of the term ‘corporate parent’ is illustrated by their description that “the very existence of state care means that certain rights and duties become invested in corporate organisations rather than private individuals” (Bullock et al. 2006, p. 8). They also question whether the state is able to ensure the same benefits for the children in its care as children who have a life-long relationship with good birth parents (Bullock et al. 2006, p. 10). They acknowledge that parenting is understood to have “several facets – legal, social, psychological and biological” (Bullock et al. 2006, p. 9) but that “many of the essential parental responsibilities which corporate bodies assume can only be exercised by individual people working with the child concerned” (Bullock et al. 2006, p. 8). They conclude that, while the state does have to parent children in some circumstances, a major part of discharging this responsibility is “to select substitute carers who can meet the diverse needs of the children who come into care” (Bullock et al. 2006, p. 11). This appears to be an implicit reference to the important role that foster carers play in this context, while Bullock et al. also refer to the fact that “Full responsibility, however, is rarely assigned to [the individuals working with a child]” (Bullock et al. 2006, p. 8).

Lund (2018) also reviews the use of the term ‘corporate parenting’ referring to the work of Vera Fahlberg to set out three aspects of parenting: birth parent (who brings to the child life, physical characteristics, genetics, etc.), legal parent (with responsibility for finance and major decisions about education medical and other legal consents), and parenting parent (love, discipline, daily needs, life skills, values) (Fahlberg 1994, p. 149; Lund 2018, p. 51). These three aspects of parenting are combined in the birth parents for children who live with their birth parents but become separated for children in the care system. Fahlberg notes that, for a child who comes into the care of the local authority, “A court order may be made transferring to the [local authority] many of the responsibilities of the legal parent… The foster carers continue to be the parenting parents” (Fahlberg 1994, p. 150). Although Fahlberg does not use the term, Lund equates the legal parent role with the corporate parent for those children in the care of the state (Lund 2018, p. 51).

Subsequent political and policy discussion of the parental responsibilities of the state has been driven by Frank Dobson MP’s question, “Would this be good enough for my children”, and his comment that one of the intentions of the Children (Leaving Care) Act (2000) was to “make society, as corporate parents, do what might be described as what normal parents do” (Bowden 2022, p. 60). There are two shifts evident here: firstly, the reference to plural ‘corporate parents’ brings an understanding that the responsibility is shared ‘corporately’ among a group of individuals, rather than being vested in a single corporate body; secondly, the scope of the corporate responsibility is extended beyond the legal responsibilities mentioned by Fahlberg to include additionally ‘what normal parents do’, i.e. the domain of Fahlberg’s ‘parenting parent’.

The discussion around the 2000 Act has also been critiqued by Grover et al. (2012) significantly around the assumption of a simple “linear relationship between good (corporate) parenting and the ‘good outcome’ of the production of socially included and morally competent care leavers” (Grover et al. 2012, p. 13). Here the emphasis on the role of the corporate parent(s), seen in contrast to the role of the foster carer, is illustrated by the observation that “the mandate for good social work practice in the LAC system is premised upon notions of what a ‘good parent’ is and/or does” (Grover et al. 2012, p. 12, emphasis added).

Hollin and Larkin (2011) compare and contrast the ways in which social workers and a government Green Paper, ‘Care Matters’ (Department for Education and Skills 2006), characterise the roles of birth parents, social workers, and foster carers. They note that, in ‘Care Matters’, “The individuals identified from within the State, who are expected to be ‘good parents’, putting ‘their own’ child first, and embodying the role on a ‘day-to-day’ basis – much like a primary caregiver – are the social workers” (Hollin and Larkin 2011, p. 2203). Neither the social workers nor ‘Care Matters’ “consider foster carers to be ‘parents,’ despite the fact that these are the people charged with ‘coping’ with the child’s needs, and providing daily care and support” (Hollin and Larkin 2011, p. 2204). Noting that “the local authority is understood to be placing a child with the intent or expectation of an attachment relationship [with the foster carer] being developed” (Hollin and Larkin 2011, p. 2201) the authors suggest that there is a “conflict between the construction of a foster placement primarily through an attachment discourse, and the construction of foster carers as non-parental” (Hollin and Larkin 2011, p. 2204).

As mentioned above, the Children and Social Work Act 2017 introduced seven principles of corporate parenting which local authorities must follow in relation to children in their care. The accompanying government advice explains that “The corporate parenting principles are intended to inform how a local authority carries out [its] existing legal responsibilities… [and] to encourage local authorities to be ambitious and aspirational for their looked-after children and care leavers” (Department for Education 2018, p. 9). Here again the emphasis is on the local authority and its officers and employees doing “all that is reasonably possible to ensure the council is the best ‘parent’ it can be to the child or young person” (Department for Education 2018, p. 6) (noting that the ‘corporate’ issue continues be clouded by the reference to the council as a singular parent).

It is apparent from the discussion above that while foster carers were formerly discussed as an important part of the ‘parenting’ of children in care, more recent discussion has emphasised the perceived obligation on local authorities to deliver more, if not all, aspects of parenting. Foster carers, who are not employees of the local authority, are mentioned more as receivers of support and training to perform various tasks, not as primary providers of parenting. One recent voice which has taken something of a different view is the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care (MacAlister 2022) which observes that, while the accountability and oversight provided by the local authority as corporate parent is appropriate for a child in care, “it is the foster carers who have the relationship and are part of [the children’s] daily lives” (MacAlister 2022, p. 134).

Where is love?

MacAlister observes that “‘Love’ is often missing in discussions about children’s social care but it is a word used with intent throughout [this] report” (MacAlister 2022, p. Intro16). He discusses the importance of foster carers for those children who are not able to be cared for by kinship carers within their birth family network, in particular the provision of “a home rather than a ‘placement’” and he believes that “fostering needs to be celebrated” and foster carers “need to be [trusted] in their ability to meet children’s needs, to give them a voice in the system” (MacAlister 2022, p. 132). With regard to ‘love’ MacAlister helpfully observes that “the state can never provide love for a child” but that its responsibility should be to create networks of people around a child who can provide that love (MacAlister 2022, p. 144). ‘Love’ is one of the attributes or functions that Fahlberg includes in her definition of the ‘parenting parent’, and, as MacAlister correspondingly concludes, the individuals caring day to day for children are the ones best placed to provide that love in a meaningful and effective way.

The guidance for the application of corporate parenting principles asserts that “All children need love and stability to thrive” (Department for Education 2018, p. 6). Nevertheless ‘love’ does not appear in any of the principles themselves. Rather, they mention promoting children’s physical and mental health, hearing and taking into account children’s views, wishes and feelings, ensuring children’s safety, ensuring children can access local authority services, and promoting high aspirations and preparation for independent adulthood (Department for Education 2018, p. 8). As described in one critical analysis, “Love would appear to be a rhetorical device in the introductory paragraphs of the documentation to shore up the metaphor of Corporate Parenting”, while a child in care is seen as a “needs-driven service user, rather than a living feeling being”  and “Corporate parents become service providers” (Turner and Percy-Smith 2020, p. 5). Bowden sees this as symptomatic of a culture that needs to be able to measure performance quantitatively which in consequence is alien to a culture where loving relationships can develop (Bowden 2022, p. 66).

The UK Government responded to the MacAlister report with a consultation and report entitled “Children’s Social Care: Stable Homes, Built on Love” (Department for Education 2023). This adopted a number of MacAlister’s recommendations, including additional support for kinship care and recognised the call for more to be done to place kinship care on an equal financial and support footing with foster care (Department for Education 2023, p. 19). Recognising children’s needs for “stable, loving homes close to their communities” the report seeks to “prioritise loving and safe relationships for children alongside being world-class corporate parents” (Department for Education 2023, p. 34). The Department’s “ambition is to extend corporate parenting responsibilities to other government departments and relevant public bodies… [to] ensure that policies and services that affect children in care and care leavers better take account of the challenges that they face and provide opportunities for them to thrive” (Department for Education 2023, p. 35). Nevertheless, as in previous reports, there is no mention of foster carers being part of the delivery of what is required by the principles of corporate parenting, despite the increased number of people being seen under the term ‘corporate parents’.

The corporate parenting principles do not make reference to aspects of parenting which involve development of, for example, a child’s character, values, resilience, or sense of identity as a contributing member of society. In the next section I will seek to demonstrate that this is in sharp contrast to principles of Christian parenting, which, I suggest, is what Christian foster carers may bring to their role. Of course, ‘love’ is frequently discussed in theological discourse and also in the context of parenting more broadly than foster care.

 BOWDEN, H.M.F., (2022). MAPPING THE VIRTUAL SCHOOL ENSEMBLE: THE ROLE OF LOSS, GRIEF, LOVE, AND CARE. PhD. University of Birmingham.

 BULLOCK, R., COURTNEY, M.E., PARKER, R., SINCLAIR, I., and THOBURN, J., (2006). Can the Corporate State Parent? Adoption & Fostering, 30(4), pp.6–19, [Available from: DOI:10.1177/030857590603000403].

 Children and Social Work Act, (2017).

 DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION, (2018). Applying Corporate Parenting Principles to Looked-after Children and Care Leavers: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities.

 DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION, (2023). Children’s Social Care: Stable Homes, Built on Love. September 2023: Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/childrens-social-care-stable-homes-built-on-love . [Date Accessed 21 May 2025].

 DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, (2006). Care Matters: Transforming the Lives of Children and Young People in Care. London. October 2006: Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e51d9e5274a2e8ab4740d/Care_Matters_Transforming_the_Lives_of_Children_and_Young_People_in_Care.pdf . [Date Accessed 12 May 2025].

 FAHLBERG, V., (1994). A Child’s Journey Through Placement. London: CoramBAAF Adoption and Fostering Academy.

 GROVER, C., STEWART, J., and BROADHURST, K., (2012). Transitions to adulthood. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 11(1), pp.5–18, [Available from: DOI:10.1921/swssr.v11i1.426].

 HOLLIN, G. and LARKIN, M., (2011). The language and policy of care and parenting: Understanding the uncertainty about key players’ roles in foster care provision. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11), pp.2198–2206, [Available from: DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.07.004].

 LAW, J., ed., (2022). A Dictionary of Law. 10th edition. Oxford University Press.

 LUND, S., (2018). Connection and relationship in care- the voices of foster carers: a Western Australian study. The University of Western Australia.

 MACALISTER, J., (2022). The Independent Review of Children’s Social Care: Final Report. May 2022: Available: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20230308122449/https://childrenssocialcare.independent-review.uk/final-report/.

 TURNER, L. and PERCY-SMITH, B., (2020). Allow Us to Dream: Professional Love, Corporate Parenting and the Development of Relational Practices. Radical Community Work Journal, 4(1), pp.1–16.