Written evidence from Sarah Saunders,
Independent Social Worker and Child Care Consultant (FC 19)
THE OPERATION OF THE FAMILY COURTS
SUMMARY OF
MAIN POINTS
1. The effects of the LSC decision to cut rates
to ISWs Expert Witnesses on children.
2. The negative impact for children if the courts
are opened to the media.
INTRODUCTION
3. I am writing to the Justice Select Committee
in the hope that the Committee will come to appreciate the dire
state of Justice for Children and Families in 2010. I am an Independent
Social Worker and have worked in this profession since 1974.
4. In 1984 I became a Guardian ad Litem and Reporting
Officer (GALRO) prior to the instigation of CAFCASS (Children
and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service) in 2001. I worked
as a self employed GALRO between 1984 until completing my cases
in 2002. I therefore have had considerable experience of the court
system as a GALRO.
5. I have also worked as an Independent Social
Worker and Child Care Consultant since 1998. Sometimes this work
is court related and sometimes it is not. Some of the work is
funded through the Legal Services Commission and some is for Local
Authorities. The work I am generally approached to take is complex
and demanding and often to very tight deadlines.
6. Complexity of Inter-related Systems.
7. The court system is but one part of a complex
interaction of agencies, professionals and legal constraints that
combine to look at what is in the best interest of the most needy
children. It needs to be understood by the Select Committee that
every part of this complex process is at breaking point or actually
broken down completely.
8. One of the many reasons for delay is lack
of suitably qualified staff across all of the systems that come
together for these children. It does not matter how urgent any
case may be, it can only proceed as quickly as the staff can be
made available to deal with it. It is also of concern that all
of the people currently contributing to the existing system cannot
function at the highest professional standards because the pressures
upon them as individuals are simply too great.
LEGAL AID
- INDEPENDENT SOCIAL
WORKER EXPERT
WITNESSES
9. As set out in my introduction, I am an Independent
Social Worker (ISW). I have chosen to work in the front line because
I feel that this is where my experience can best be used to protect
children. The previous Government was extolling the virtues of
job that we do I quote from the joint letter to social workers
in England Ed Balls MP and Alan Johnson MP 12 March 2009 "Lord
Lamming says in his report that, "Protecting children from
harm demands skill, determination and, quite often, courage. It
is vitally important work that deserves our full support".
We agree, and believe this is also true of social work more generally."
Now it seems that my 36 years experience and enhanced training
is only worth the same as a one year qualified social worker.
10. As an ISW in court proceedings I am dealing
on a daily basis with the most damaged children, with the most
complex needs in the most difficult family situations, with parents
who very often have major problems of their own. These children
urgently need the right decision to be made for them and this
can have a critical impact on their life chances. Sometimes these
decisions can mean the difference between growing up in their
own families or being adopted or spending so much time languishing
in temporary placements their life chances are diminished as a
result.
11. Sometimes decisions have been taken by overburdened
social workers from Children's Services who simply so not have
the time to undertake proper enquiries, or do not have the experience
and expertise to carry out such complex pieces of work. Levels
of supervision are poor due to the heavy responsibilities placed
on team managers who are constantly working at crisis intervention
level. There have also been many complaints about the quality
of social work training which also contributes to the problems.
Very often wider family members have been overlooked and such
placements can often enable a child to remain within their family
of origin even if it is not with their parents.
12. On other occasions the Local Authority may
have reached a premature view without looking at all the options
and this can entrench proceedings. It is therefore important for
the court to have independent expert oversight of the relevant
issues when such situations arise.
13. I have been undertaking this type of work
for a number of years. I am rarely called to court as my reports
can often influence the settlement of cases leading to a reduction
in precious court time or at least a foreshortening of it in what
would otherwise have been contentious and needing a hearing of
many days duration. This is not a drain on the public purse but
rather a means of freeing up resources.
14. I cannot explain to this committee how shocked
I was to learn in December last year that a decision to cut the
fees to ISWs had been made on the back of Legal Services Commission's
Consultation on Family Legal Aid Funding Reforms from 2010 on
an entirely false premise regarding the totality of work undertaken
by ISWs in the courts in relation to Section 9.5 Children Act
1989, work which is normally undertaken by a CAFCASS worker but
which may be undertaken by another "proper person".
I have only ever taken instructions on such a piece of work once
in 12 years.
15. The role of the ISW is different from that
of the CG. The CG is part of an organisation with support and
resources in place, namely CAFCASS. The ISW works alone and responsible
for all aspects of their work from professional matters to office
management. Their work is wide ranging and is not confined to
appointments under Section 9.5. Most of the work is being undertaken
to tight deadlines and require fine tuned recommendations in very
contentious situations. I have assessed family members, I have
been asked to comment on placement issues, sibling separation
matters, contact arrangements, findings on injury cases and the
non abusing parent's capacity to protect. The role of the CG is
defined as relating to the best interest of the child and the
Welfare Checklist. The role of the ISW is much more wide ranging
and requires a high level of experience. Many ISWs have a range
of skills including further qualifications, play therapy, family
therapy, attachment training etc.
16. I believed that the LSC would include ISWs
along with all the other experts in the current round of consultations
regarding fees for expert witnesses. We have been told by the
Ministry of Justice that the decision has been made and will not
be reviewed. How can it be fair that one group of experts is effectively
excluded from the current discussions particularly when it is
clear that the original decision was ill informed about the actual
role of ISWs. (I attach a supporting document NAGALRO'S Response
to the LSC's Consultation on Family Legal Aid from 2 April 2009,
which sets out all the issues clearly.)
17. It is equally clear that the LSC is making
arbitrary decisions on these matters with no information about
the actual costs of expert witnesses or an impact study on whether
or not such reports actually save costs by driving down the need
for lengthy and costly hearings by bring about resolutions outside
of court. How can decisions be made about public expenditure on
such a basis? How can one group of experts be cut out from consultations,
particularly when this group of experts it the crucial profession
in terms of expertise in the area of children and families.
18. Even if the court use other types of experts
such as psychiatrists and psychologists they are not going to
be able to being to the case the skills that are required to look
at the best possible placement for a child or to look at the parenting
capacity of the parent or family member incorporating a broad
range of factors. This is the role of the social worker. Psychologists
and Psychiatrists are reluctant to step outside of their field
of expertise and if asked about the placement of the children
or parenting issues they will often state that they cannot answer
such questions. An example from a recent psychiatric report was
as follows:
- Question: "If you consider Ms X to be
suffering from any psychiatric condition, please comment on the
potential impact of this on her parenting abilities either currently
or in the past".
- Answer: "It is beyond my area of expertise
commenting on parenting skills".
19. In short, an adult psychiatrist can comment
on the parent's mental health but not on their parenting or adult
psychologist will be able to comment on the adult's cognitive
function but not on their parenting. A child and adolescent psychologist
will be able to inform the court about a child's mental health
but not whether or not the parent has the parenting skills to
care for that child. Similarly the Child Psychologist will be
able to comment on the child's cognitive function and behavioural
difficulties but will not be able to comment on the capacity of
the parent to manage those problems. All experts are careful for
obvious reasons not to step outside of their particular field
of expertise. Whilst there is a place of such experts in some
cases they are not going to be able to address key issues for
the benefit of the court.
20. I am aware that many psychologists and psychiatrists
charge around £200 to £250+ per hour for their work.
Most ISWs charge around £60 to £70 per hour and produce
report which actually go to the heart of parenting issues and
children's needs. No assessment or analysis has been undertaken
by the LSC about where money on experts is being spent and how
effect this spending is. This is neither fair nor reasonable.
21. The effect of the cut to ISW fees is that
many ISWs will leave this field of work feeling that their skills
are not recognised and that in comparison to the fees of other
experts we represent good value for money. We are currently valued
less than the worth of a finger print expert, accountant, meteorologist
according to the LSC and whilst I do not question the value of
finger print experts, accountant or meteorologists I feel we could
all agree that protecting children is really a skill that should
be valued at least as much as these experts and in my view more
(Annexe B Proposed Rates for Experts).
22. I doubt that other experts in other field
will remain in this type of work if the proposed fee levels go
ahead and this will be a sad day for access to justice. It would
have been helpful if before arbitrarily making cuts the LSC had
actually obtained data and insisted on data being collected across
all fees incurred in relation to legal aid not just in relation
to experts fees. Now those who are at the bottom of the pile being
picked off as easy targets.
CONFIDENTIALITY AND
OPENNESS IN
FAMILY COURTS,
INCLUDING THE
IMPACT OF
THE RECENT
CHANGES IN
THE CHILDREN,
SCHOOLS AND
FAMILIES ACT
2010
23. I feel very concerned about the issue of
media coverage in the family court from the child's point of view.
It is well known how the press generally reports high profile
cases and even if the children are not actually named it is inevitable
that the will be identified within their communities. No research
was undertaken by the government with children prior to the enactment
of this legislation notwithstanding the the Children Commissioner
for England's report following the research undertaken with children
by Dr Julia Brophy, which clearly demonstrates that the children
involved in public and private law cases have a very strong view
about such a prospect:
http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_397
24. It is also a major concern that children
will not feel free to talk about their concerns for fear of how
this will be reported by the press. It is currently difficult
enough to help children to feel safe enough. This will make it
nigh on impossible in my view. The research also shows how children
take on responsibility for the court situation even when they
are clearly innocent of any blame, but they clearly feel that
they will be vilified and labelled. Frankly looking at reportage
by some in the media it is easy to understand why children would
feel this way.
25. It will be the final irony that the court
system that is there to protect children, via openness to the
press will actually put these children at risk within their own
communities to having every detail of there lives opened up for
public scrutiny and they will not be able to defend themselves
in the public arena. Given what we know about the backgrounds
of many of the children in the care system I think it would be
fair to say that they have already suffered enough without the
indignity of having their lives picked apart on Facebook, Twitter
and every newspaper and TV news programme in the country. They
have their whole lives in front of them and a chance to move on
an lead a new life if they are placed elsewhere. If everything
becomes public, even if anonymised it is difficult to know how
these children are likely to remain unaffected by it and for it
to dog them throughout their lives.
26. The position of children in this situation,
not only in public law cases but also private law matters has
to be carefully balanced against the benefits of openness. Whilst
I accept that is is important to inform the public about these
difficult decisions I do not feel that the risks that this kind
of openness will bring to the children concerned by providing
every detail of a child's life to the press can be outweighed
by the right of the public to know. It is not the child's fault
that they are in the care system or that their parents are having
a difficult divorce. Information about decisions reached in courts
can be made available via suitably anonymised judgements being
made available, which has increasingly been the case.
27. Finally, the Select Committee might also
want to bear in mind that such levels of openness as have been
indicated such a complete disclosure of reports to the press and
naming of social workers and experts will create a further disincentive
for people to chose to go into this area of work thereby further
reducing the already diminishing pool of experienced people willing
to enter the court arena. I do not see how this would be in the
interest of the children that the courts are there to protect.
IN CONCLUSION
28. No one in this country can feel they are
immune from the current financial situation. However, for all
of the personnel and agencies concerned with this particular area
of work further cuts are taking place against a backdrop of:
- poor funding over a prolonged period of time;
- a much increased workload in terms of the numbers
of cases coming through the system;
- an environment of bureaucracy which does not
assist the people it is there to serve; and
- a work force from a range of different fields
who all feel under-valued including court staff, Children Panel
solicitors, social workers, CAFCASS workers and ISWs.
29. In 36 years of social work I have never felt
so depressed about the future. Every single professional with
whom I come into contact at the moment is talking about how they
are going to get out and either retire or do something else as
they can no longer do what they were trained to do. The NHS has
had investment, education and schools have had investment but
nothing has been done to protect the most needy in our society
by making sure they are offered well trained, well supported social
workers who can undertake preventative work and act swiftly to
protect children in need. I have always felt that I was making
an difference and doing something worthwhile as a Local Authority
social worker, as a GALRO an now as an ISW. The Select Committee
needs to understand that a huge tranche of very experienced people
are about to leave this type of work taking their knowledge and
expertise with them because they do not feel valued by society
or by the government.
30. I wonder how many children are going to have
to die before something happens to change the direction of the
tide.
September 2010
| 
