Appendix 12: Summary of the engagement session with the Family Justice Young People’s Board
On Wednesday 7 September we held an engagement event with five members of the Family Justice Young People’s Board, aged between 16 and 22. The Board comprises 79 members between 7 and 25 years old who have experience of—or an interest in—the family justice system. It is convened by Cafcass, two of whose co-ordinating staff were also present. The Chair, Lord Bach, Lord Brownlow, Lord Cruddas, Baroness Lawrence, Baroness Prashar, and Baroness Wyld were in attendance.
Participants discussed problems relating to proceedings taking too long or being repeated. One said that they had endured more than 10 years of different cases. Another had experienced four years. Both felt that their not being listened to had made proceedings go on longer than they needed to. One said that this was because a parent they did not wish to live with had made repeated applications for custody.
Participants expressed concern about the rights of parents being allowed to override the rights of children. One recounted them and their sibling having been severely distressed by being forced to have contact with a parent they did not wish to see. They opposed the presumption of parental involvement as it puts parents’ wishes before children.
Participants agreed that parental involvement was a laudable general goal. However, it was felt that involvement should only take place if it is in the child’s best interests and consistent with their wishes. They felt that every case was different and there should not be a one size fits all approach.
More broadly, participants felt that both judges and social workers could do more to seek and act on children’s wishes. Sometimes children are asked their wishes but they are not respected. Participants felt that under-staffing meant social workers could not follow up on a child’s stated wishes, or were unable to build rapport before being moved on. They also said on occasion failings by individuals were responsible. It was also suggested that contact and living arrangements for children should be revisited as a matter of course to ensure that they are still in their best interests. Participants felt that their wishes were being disregarded or not solicited because of their age, and recommended specific training for judges on how to speak to children.
We heard that children in the family justice system can have serious mental health problems and that there is a lack of support, both at the time and in the long term—including into adulthood. Participants spoke of having been, or being, on long waiting lists. One had waited four years to see a counsellor and their education had suffered in the meantime. They added that children do not become eligible for support until after proceedings have ended—stressing the importance of early intervention and mental health support being offered throughout proceedings. One suggested that at the end of long waits, only generic support may be offered, pointing to a lack of specialist trauma counselling as a failing of the system. Another suggested that, even if resources are not available for more specialist appointments, more self-help resources and phone lines could be provided. Others added that attention must be given to cultural barriers in some ethnic communities which make addressing mental health problems particularly challenging.