The mistrust between the Eastern Health Board and prospective adoptive parents, and the delay in processing applications, are being tackled by two confidential reports. At the same time, the Adoption Board is to hold an appeals hearing into a decision by the EHB to turn down a Dublin couple who want to adopt.

Before their rejection by the board, Molly and Victor Rock had publicly complained on RTE's Kenny Live that the assessment procedure was lengthy and that their social worker was hostile. They made their complaint after Paul Harrison, a manager in the childcare section of the Eastern Health Board, wrote to national newspapers asking couples with complaints about adoption assessments in the EHB area to write to him in confidence so that the complaints could be investigated. Five complaints were made and there could have been more, says the International Adoption Association (IAA), but few couples whose assessments were in progress were willing to take the risk of complaining. The Rocks did complain, however, and as a result their assessment for adoption was suspended. A new social worker took over their case, then a week ago they were rejected.

Adding to the storm over the Rock case, is a letter dated May 4th from Brid Clarke, programme manager in the Eastern Health Board, to the members of the Adoption Board. It states that: "I wish to reassure you that all outstanding issues have been satisfactorily resolved between the applicants (the Rocks) and the Eastern Health Board."

The discovery of the letter has angered Molly Rock who feels that matters are anything but resolved, considering that the case is now being appealed. "This is the last straw," says Molly Rock, accusing the Eastern Health Board of being "vindictive". In her letter, Brid Clarke states that "we have always been open to positive criticism and suggestions on how to improve our service. It is fair to say that our inter-country adoption service has been subjected to unwarranted, and indeed unsubstantiated, criticisms. However where criticisms were warranted we have addressed these."

The Adoption Board's swift decision to conduct an appeal of the Rocks' case comes as the Department of Health and the Eastern Health Board are considering two independent confidential reports critical of the Eastern Health Board's assessments procedure. One of the reports is by Barnardo's and investigates five complaints made to the board. The other report is by the Department of Social Policy at UCD and is to be presented to the Government today. It recommends the reduction of the assessment process from 30 hours to 10 and from nine months to three. Its proposed standardisation of the assessment process has been accepted by the EHB.

While the official assessment period is 14 months, in practice the process can take years from the day the couple apply to the board to the day they receive a decision. Shortening this period would go some way to easing the stress on the 150 couples who are in the course of being assessed by the board, not to mention the 350 couples queuing behind them. The 500 couples, in total, who are awaiting assessments have not been encouraged by the fact that only 74 assessments were completed by the board in 1998. At that rate, it could be 2003 before all the couples are assessed.

The lengthy waiting period has led a spokesman for the IAA to suggest that "artificial obstacles are being deliberately placed in our paths". In the US and Belgium, the assessment period takes only a few months and there are no queues. Even in the Republic, other health boards, such as the Western and North Eastern, have quicker assessment periods. The Barnardo's report on five complaints, which has been seen by The Irish Times, sheds some light on the delays with its analysis of 14 assessments undertaken by one social worker, about whom complaints had been formally made. The assessments took on average 13.9 months and 11 visits. One application took 21 months and 12 visits. The report's author, adoption expert Norah Gibbons states: "I was informed by the Acting Senior Social Worker that during an assessment she would expect a social worker to make an average of eight visits to a family. Once an application was allocated to a social worker, she would expect it to be completed within a six to nine-month timeframe."

Gibbons concluded that the social worker under investigation "did take longer than average to complete her assessments and made more than the average number of visits. There was no explanation on the files that would account for this. The considerable length of time taken could be a further source of stress and tension for the families concerned and it does not accord with the expectations given to families at the initial meeting."

Gibbons went on to recommend that "a system be established to monitor the ongoing progress of assessments". Gibbons also investigated a complaint (made by the IAA), that a named social worker made the following comments to childless couples: "I disagree with the pension book in one hand and the children's allowance book in the other"; "It is our belief that people who have led a charmed life do not make good adoptive parents" (many may disagree that an infertile couple have led a "charmed life") and "there needs to be very strict regulation of adoption because I know of cases where couples have sold their adopted children for body parts". The social worker admitted making the first two remarks, but denied the third. However, the investigation was hampered by the fact that prospective adoptive couples who say they heard the remarks refused to come forward for fear of prejudicing their assessments.

"It is unfortunate and of concern that such a degree of suspicion exists so as to prevent individuals/groups from identifying themselves in relation to complaints," the report states. It goes on to recommend the implementation of "an opportunity to allow participants, whether in a group preparation or individual assessment procedure, to anonymously give their views".

While Norah Gibbons declined to discuss her report, she did say that "any situation which is not based on trust is dangerous for children. It is very important in the interest of the child and the child's family, both biological and adopted, that there is trust established completely and utterly throughout the process of inter-country adoption. That trust is necessary so that parents can seek any help they may need in their parenting job, so that children grow and develop and flourish."