Written evidence submitted by the Family
Rights Group (CAF 57)
INTRODUCTION
Family Rights Group is a national voluntary
organisation which advocates for the welfare of children who are
in contact with social services, from a family centred perspective.
At the core of our work is a concern for families and children
where children are either removed from their parents, accommodated,
or there is a possibility or likelihood of this happening. We
work with families, practitioners, academics and policy makers
to improve services for children and families. Current projects
include:
— running a national (England and Wales)
telephone advice service for families whose children are involved
with social services, and child care professionals working with
them. In 2002 we advised over 1,200 callers, of whom over 40%
were parents or relatives of children who were the subject of
care or adoption proceedings;
— supporting and strengthening advocacy
services for Black and minority ethnic families;
— working with grandparents and other
relatives who have to take over the full time care of a child
to improve supports services, including financial support; and
— promoting the development of family
group conferences as a mechanism that enables family led decision
making for children in need of care or protection.
This submission is informed by our contact with
families (parents and relatives), childcare professionals (including
child care lawyers, Social Workers and CAFCASS officers) with
whom we have contact both on the advice service and in our project
work.
SUMMARY OF
KEY SUBMISSIONS
— The delays in the court process means
that the interim arrangements for the child need to be subject
to independent scrutiny to ensure that they are appropriate, for
the child.
— The guardian's role in this independent
scrutiny is fundamental, but if there are delays in his/her appointment
the interim arrangements will already have become a status quo
and therefore be unchangeable before the final hearing.
— Relatives need support from Guardians
to be able to conduct themselves appropriately during the course
of care proceedings so as to show their support and concern for
the child without undermining the parents' position.
— Guardians who are perceived to be
acting independently of the local authority are greatly valued
by family members but too often their independence is perceived
to be compromised because they seen to be "in the pocket
of the local authority".
We have appended to our submission extracts
from: New Traveller Families and Post-Separation Parenting
Arrangements by Margaret Greenfields, unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Bath, 2002 (not printed). This study was
completed prior to Dr Margaret Greenfields' appointment at Family
Rights Group as a policy officer, but in our view provides valuable
information about how the traveller community experienced court
welfare officers and it offers pointers for CAFCASS when working
with minority ethnic communities.
1. IMPACT OF
DELAYED APPOINTMENT
ON INTERIM
ARRANGEMENTS FOR
THE CHILD
In the last year we have noticed that some callers
are still waiting for a Children's Guardian to be appointed even
though the care proceedings were instigated weeks, and sometime
months, earlier. We are extremely concerned that the child and
family may be very disadvantaged by the absence of a Children's
Guardian at this initial and crucial stage of the proceedings:
A key consequence of this delay in appointment
is that it is extremely unlikely that parents will be able in
future successfully to contest an interim care order and placement
away from home if the local authority opposes this plan, because,
unsurprisingly, courts are reluctant to go against the recommendations
of the local authority at this stage unless there is independent
evidence to support the parent's position. The Children's Guardian
has a key role to play in evaluating the interim arrangements.
It is therefore essential that they are appointed and can start
work when the care proceedings are initiated. Indeed it is surely
for this reason that the court rules provide for an appointment
of a children's guardian "as soon as practicable" after
commencement of proceedings, implying days, not weeks or months.
Moreover, the evaluation of interim arrangements
will become increasingly important in the future given the ever
increasing (and never decreasing) delays in the court process,
The proposed Public Law Protocol aims to ensure that care proceedings
are completed with 37 to 40 weeks. 40 weeks is a very long time
for parents and children (often babies) to be separated without
a detailed consideration of whether such a separation is necessary
for the safety of the child. Given these court delays it is even
more essential to ensure that there is an early independent consideration
of whether the child needs to be removed from the family pending
a final decision. The role of the Children's Guardian in ensuring
whether any, and if so what type of separation is required, is
crucial, so that unnecessary separation, and resulting trauma
for children can be avoided, especially in those cases where the
child returns home after the final hearing.
2. GUARDIAN'S
SUPPORT FOR
BIRTH RELATIVES
Birth relatives are often in a particularly
difficult position. They may be prepared to consider caring for
a child who cannot live with their birth parents, but may be understandably
reluctant to state this clearly before the court has ruled out
rehabilitation to the parents. Birth relatives may also not know
if they should seek leave to apply to be parties and they are
often ineligible for legal aid. Where local authorities are reluctant
or unwilling to consider the relatives as carers (we know that
this happens despite the legislative requirements that relatives
are considered), the Children's Guardian has a crucial role under
the current regulations in investigating the relatives as potential
carers and in giving information to the relatives that will assist
them in deciding whether to seek leave to become a party to the
proceedings.
PROTECTING THE
INDEPENDENCE OF
THE GUARDIAN
Birth parents and relatives will be very concerned
at the suggestion that the Children's Guardian will not be centrally
involved throughout the course of the care proceedings. An involved
Guardian, who is perceived as independent of the local authority,
is valued by birth parents and relatives. Frequently and inevitably
care proceedings are very adversarial in nature. Birth parents
are upset at what they perceive are inaccuracies in the local
authority statements and the adversarial nature of proceedings
means that local authorities are obliged to emphasise the worst
side of parents in order "to prove" their case. The
Children's Guardian's role is to stand aside from these conflicts
and offer a genuinely independent voice which focuses on the needs
of the child.
However, whilst Guardians who are seen to work
independently are greatly valued, we are concerned that, too often,
we hear birth parents and relatives say that the guardian is "in
the pocket" of the local authority. Whether or not this is
actually the case, it is, in our view essential that the Children's
Guardian is, and is seen to be, independent. This requires that
they have sufficient time to see children, parents and other relatives
in order to form their own view on the appropriateness of the
local authority plan.
4. FAMILIES'
PERCEPTIONS OF
COURT WELFARE
OFFICERS IN
PRIVATE LAW
CASES
In 2001 Family Rights Group published "Second
Time Around—A survey of Grandparents raising their Grandchildren"
by Alison Richards. Over 50% of the 180 grandparent carers involved
in the survey had been involved in court proceedings, predominantly
in residence order applications. Those involved in residence order
applications generally felt uninformed and several found the proceedings
"intimidating" or "stressful". One fifth of
those involved in private law proceedings had had poor experiences
of professionals involved in court proceedings, in particular
the court welfare service as it was then. There was the general
impression that court welfare officers did not take grandparents
seriously:
"The court welfare officer had no idea of
what he was doing, . . ."
"We were treated as if we wanted the children
for ourselves . . ."
Another strong message was that grandparents
felt obliged to take proceedings in order to protect their grandchildren,
and viewed themselves as the sole voice of the child in the proceedings:
"Should we at least not have a level playing
field? All represented or none, but with particular regard to
the children, whose interests are paramount but who have no representation?"
It is clear that the private law system requires
as many safeguards as the public law system in terms of a properly
trained guardian role, and an independent professional whose primary
role is to be the voice of the child.
Robert Tapsfield, Bridget Lindley & Alison
Richards
Family Rights Group
3 April 2003
| 
