Appendix 9: Summary of the Oxford visit
Summary
On Monday 4 July we visited the Oxford Combined Court Centre. Lord Bach, Lord Cruddas, Baroness Lawrence, Lord Mawson and Baroness Prashar were in attendance. We met with volunteers running the Cowley Child Contact Centre, mediators, members of the local family justice board, judges, and staff of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, as well as observing proceedings.
Cowley Child Contact Centre
The Cowley Child Contact Centre facilitates court-mandated contact between a child and a parent they do not live with. The centre holds two Saturday morning sessions a month—for an average of six families each session—and is free and staffed entirely by volunteers. It is the only contact centre in Oxfordshire. Some contact centres in other areas charge parents a fee. The Centre is not equipped to facilitate ‘supervised contact’; social workers must do this, but they are overstretched and lack the capacity to.
Even though the Centre is essential to allow mandated contact to take place, it receives no funding from the Local Authority or central Government. Funds to rent the premises have come from donations, including from Cafcass and the local judiciary—who have been supportive. There is a waiting list for new parents to begin contact.
Volunteers stressed the value of the Centre’s work—in particular the economic value of early intervention supporting parents and children, improving their life chances. However, they felt that this was not widely understood. The only co-ordination between the Centre and agencies supporting children and families is interaction with social workers when there is a safeguarding concern. The sector is unregulated, though contact centres can voluntarily sign up to the National Association of Child Contact Centres.
Mediators
We were joined by four local mediators, who provide their services on a commercial basis. The mediators felt that public perceptions of mediation have changed recently, with some now seeking out mediators directly rather than being referred by a solicitor—although they stressed that receiving early advice was crucial to take up. However, they argued that it is still too difficult to find information about mediation—suggesting that a central portal website could be set up to signpost options. They lamented that lawyers tend to appear before mediators on Google searches.
The mediators praised the Government’s scheme to provide £500 vouchers for mediation, though there were mixed views on whether it is right that it is not means-tested. All agreed that the scheme was easy to navigate, comparing it favourably with the bureaucracy of applying for legal aid. They argued that many people find mediation productive and noted that at Mediation Information & Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) they provide advice on a range of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and not just mediation. However, we heard that parents often rush to start court proceedings because of 6-12 month delays before getting a hearing, which can undermine attempts at mediation.
Oxfordshire Local Family Justice Board
Board members began by discussing the 26 week limit on proceedings. They told us that there were many reasons why it was not being met, including because of the Local Authority struggling to get cases ready due to resource limitations, NHS waiting lists for medical assessments standing at 27 weeks, and cases with litigants in person taking longer. More funding for mediation and legal aid was suggested as a way of speeding up the system.
Board members felt that although it is important to have the 26 week timeframe in mind, some cases cannot and should not be completed in that time—such as when longer is needed for there to be a chance of reuniting a child with their birth parents. It was noted that many cases are offered a final hearing within 26 weeks but go on longer due to essential adjournments, as cases ‘take on a life of their own’ with new developments.
One board member told us: “the whole system is creaking quite badly”. This sentiment was shared by the group, who argued that only individuals’ commitment, including working overtime, kept proceedings going. One member told us that although they are part-time they still work five days a week and sometimes in the evenings and at weekends. Challenges raised include finding solicitors willing to work for legal aid rates and the shortage of expert witnesses, some of whom felt badly treated when criticised in court. There was also seen to be a shortage of judges and social workers. The Local Authority was buying in independent social workers to avoid breaching the ratio of 25 children to 1 social worker.
We heard about a lack of support for kinship carers and, to a lesser extent, adoptive parents—with it suggested that the breakdown of special guardianship and adoption placements is an emerging trend. Board members also felt that parents who have had a child taken from them are not sufficiently supported. This relates to a broader theme: the importance of early intervention. Board members told us that it is often the same people having children taken away from them every couple of years and that they do not receive sufficient help in the interim to become capable of looking after a child. They added that adoptive parents generally consent only to annual letterbox contact but that social media was making unauthorised contact easier.
Judges
The 26 week limit was seen to have brought a welcome culture change, although further guidance on what constitutes a good reason to extend would be welcome. Judges identified the lack of resources for Local Authority social workers as the main barrier to staying within it. Sometimes, children could be passed between six or seven social workers. Judges explained that allegations of domestic abuse—in as many as 60 to 80 per cent of cases—are a further cause of delay as they must be investigated prior to turning to welfare considerations.
Judges added that the courts are slowed by having too few staff—with judges’ time increasingly taken up by administrative work—and that fewer cases are settling because of the trend towards litigants representing themselves. Early advice was seen as crucial, to explain the role of the court to potential litigants and direct them to charities or mediation. However, views differed on the effectiveness of MIAMs. It was suggested that alternative dispute resolution has been limited in its uptake beyond London and the surrounding area.
It was felt that the presumption of parental involvement did not add to the pre-existing law, whereas the section on expert witnesses had been helpful. There was concern about the equality of arms in domestic abuse cases, where the alleged victim receives legal aid but the alleged perpetrator does not. It was also suggested that there should be formal support for contact centres and—more broadly—an increase in funding for the implementation of the Act.
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)
Staff agreed that judges are taking on more administrative work. Although more staff had been recruited, their time is taken up by the extra administrative work which virtual proceedings require. It was felt that virtual proceedings saved lawyers time and resources but are a greater cost to the court and resulted in fewer cases settling.
Staff observed a trend of litigants in person asking HMCTS staff for help. However, staff are unable to provide much help as they are not legally trained. Staff added that there has been a move towards centralised enquiry functions, so members of the public now phone a central call centre rather than speaking directly to staff in Oxford. It was not known how service users feel about this.