Divert removal cases that could go 'either way' from court, says Chief Social Worker

Families subject to “thin, red line decisions”, where the decision to remove a child from his or her parents could go either way, should be diverted away from court, the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families in England has suggested.

In a policy paper, Care proceedings in England: the case for clear blue water, Isabelle Trowler also said:

• Stronger family focused practice, better decision making and more sophisticated and tailored support services, should create clear blue water between the standard of care and protection given to a child involved in public court proceedings compared to the care and protection of other local children considered to be at risk of significant harm.
• The legal principle of No Order should be more readily applied in practice. “The use of voluntary accommodation should be reclaimed as a legitimate and respected support service to families for the long-term care of children. Shared care should be developed and incentivised, so that where safety allows, parents and extended family in partnership with the State, are fully supported to look after children within their own family networks.”
• Great care must be taken not to undermine progress in child protection practice. “Where permanence for children can clearly not be secured within family networks, swift and skilful practice must lead to court action without delay.”

The Chief Social Worker’s policy briefing was drawn up in response to the significant increase in the number of families brought into public care proceedings, over the last 10 years in England, because of concerns about the care and protection of their children. “20% of those children return home on Supervision Orders,” she noted. Trowler was supported in preparing the briefing by academics from the University of Sheffield.

Responding to the briefing, Charlotte Ramsden, Chair of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services’ Health, Care and Additional Needs Policy Committee, said: “Most children live in their families and thrive but a rising number of care proceedings in recent years shows that local authorities remain committed to taking prompt action to remove children from dangerous situations when necessary. However, this has placed increased pressure on the child protection and care systems as funding has declined and need increases.

“The paper is a helpful contribution to the current debates about the rise in care proceedings, the reasons behind the increase and what we should do as a result. It notes that a significant proportion of the cases that end up before courts could go ‘either way’ and should be diverted away from courts and suggests that without services that support children and parents close to the ‘thin red line’ more families will eventually cross it.

“However, the report fails to recognise that councils are also being forced to cut the very services that help keep children and families together due to rising demand for statutory child protection services and diminished budgets.”

Ramsden added: “The endorsement of the No Order Principle for children and families is welcome as is the message about the importance of testing promising approaches to support families to secure lasting change. It is crucial that this work is resourced appropriately. Many of the report’s recommendations seem sensible; we’d welcome further discussions with relevant partners and government departments on developing models of shared care that enable children to stay within wider family networks where appropriate as well the notion of sharing learning and good practice.”

Last week the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, suggested that the process undertaken in the months, weeks and days before a care application is issued was “ripe for attention”.

Speaking at the Association of Lawyers for Children Conference 2018, Sir Andrew said that this was “with the aim of either diverting some cases away from court or, at least, ensuring those cases that come to court are, as it were, ‘match-fit’ for engagement in the court process at Day One”.

The Chief Social Worker’s recommendations to Government

1. The principles of the Children Act 1989: the primacy of family, the principle of partnership with parents, the use of voluntary accommodation and the concept of No Order, should be reasserted in policy by Government, upheld in practice by local authorities and examined for impact through inspection, by the Regulator.
2. The use of voluntary accommodation should be reclaimed as a legitimate and respected support service to families for the long term care of children. Shared care should be developed and incentivised, so that where safety allows, parents and extended family, in partnership with the State, are fully supported to look after children within their own family networks.
3. A national programme of work should begin to test if and how we can divert away from court proceedings, those families who have the greatest chances of staying successfully together for the long term. Building the evidence base more broadly, about most effective support for families, to be provided at the earliest point possible, is essential. It is equally imperative that this does not distract from recognising families where children are being seriously harmed, and where the prospect of sufficient change is unlikely.
4. A targeted improvement fund should be made available to local authorities who have yet to develop their practice system sufficiently well, and in line with best evidence, for social work practice to be consistently good. This is a pre-condition for more effective support and protection of high risk families and their children.
5. A national learning programme should be developed, to help calibrate senior social work leaders’ decision making within and between local authorities across England. There is currently no systematic mechanism through which those who make final decisions about care proceedings can test their professional judgement against those of their peers, outside of their own authority.
6. The pre-proceedings period should be resurrected as the key point of hope at which local authorities can work with (extended) families to develop long term, sustainable plans for children of concern. Particular emphasis should be given to families where the decision to go to Court would be crossing a thin red line – where the decision to remove a child, could go either way. These circumstances, every effort should be made to avoid the truly burdensome and costly action of initiating care proceedings.
7. Finally, great care must be taken not to undermine progress in child protection practice. Where permanence for children can clearly not be secured within family networks or without Court involvement, swift and skilful practice must lead to Court action without delay.