Judge expresses regret at ending of pilot and disbanding of team behind only Family Drug and Alcohol Court in Wales

A circuit judge sitting in the Family Court has expressed his “obvious regret” that funding could not be secured for the Cardiff and Vale Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) Pilot to be extended, noting the “clear implications” for families and professionals involved in cases still before the court.

The case of Vale of Glamorgan Council v M & Anor [2024] EWFC 84 (B) (29 February 2024) concerned ‘D’, a girl aged eight months old – the daughter of ‘M’.

The judgment came at the end of care proceedings which for a time proceeded within the pilot of the Cardiff and Vale FDAC.

His Honour Judge Muzaffer said the mother had come to the attention of the local authority when just 16 as her father had returned home drunk and assaulted her. It was around this time that she also became involved in an abusive relationship, and was introduced to alcohol, drugs, and criminality.

“Substance misuse then remained the constant in M's life as it descended into chaos," the judge said. The mother received 25 convictions over more than a decade, and in 2021 she received a 12-month custodial sentence for assault.

During her pregnancy with D, M continued to drink and use drugs. D was born prematurely and experienced “significant symptoms” of withdrawal, said the judge.

The mother agreed that D should be placed in foster care once ready for discharge from hospital. The local authority then issued its application for a care order in June 2023, with an interim care order being made by consent at a case management hearing later that month.

By this point, the local authority had already highlighted M as being potentially suitable for FDAC.

The FDAC sign up took place at the Further Case Management Hearing (FCMH) in July 2023. HHJ Muzaffer observed that M “visibly thrived” in her work with the FDAC team.

He said: “Her physical and emotional recovery from years of abuse was slow but evident fortnight to fortnight. Issues such as her time keeping and perhaps an over dependency on support workers were worked upon and improved, but it was her apparent willingness to start trusting professionals that felt like it could be a pivotal change. Sober, M appeared to have a new lease of life.”

After three months of abstinence, M smoked crack cocaine over two weekends in October.

The FDAC team's parenting assessment recorded that M had made “significant progress” in starting to overcome the problems identified at the outset of the proceedings, but noted the “recent lapses” and M's “initial reluctance to be open about her use prior to test results being received”, said the judge.

The FDAC team concluded that further work and assessment was required before a final recommendation could be made, and endorsed an extension to the proceedings to allow this to happen.

Due to the Cardiff and Vale FDAC Pilot concluding on 30 November 2023, it was not possible for any further assessment to take place within the ‘Trial for Change’.

“Given the close working relationship that M had established with the FDAC team, this was clearly regrettable to all”, said HHJ Muzaffer .

The local authority took D's case to a legal gateway meeting in late November, which resulted in a change in the care plan to one of adoption. The timetable for final evidence was set and an IRH listed for February 2024.

HHJ Muzaffer said: “I note with immense sadness that M's life has once again spiralled into devastating chaos in the intervening period. On the occasions that she has contacted the social worker, she has accepted continued use of crack cocaine, cannabis, and alcohol.”

Concluding the case at the final hearing, the judge found that D would be placed at risk of “significant harm” if placed in the care of her mother.

He said: “I thank M for committing to the FDAC process in the way that she did, with both dedication and dignity, but the reality is that her period of stability and abstinence was short lived. M continues to feel unsafe in relationships with professionals, and this manifests itself in avoidant behaviour.

“I hope that she will one day be able to reflect on the progress that she made when she started to allow herself to trust those wanting to work with her. Community support remains available, and her time sober gave clear insight into the type of person she has the potential to be.”

He made the following orders: 

1. A care order on the basis of the final care plan before the court.
2. An order dispensing with the consent of the parents to a placement order.
3. A placement order.

Finally, expressing his regret over the ending of the Cardiff and Vale FDAC pilot, His Honour Judge Muzaffer said: “The Cardiff and Vale FDAC Pilot, the only FDAC court to have ever operated in Wales, concluded as scheduled in November. It is a matter of obvious regret that funding could not be secured for the Pilot to be extended, as this had clear implications for families and professionals involved in cases still before the court. The reality is that a talented, committed team have now been disbanded, and it will be a question of starting from scratch should the go-ahead ever be given."

The judge noted that the pilot had been the subject of a thorough and detailed evaluation report.

"Once finalised and published, I hope it is given the attention and scrutiny that it deserves by both those holding the purse strings and the wider public. There is now a wealth of positive evidence supporting the use of FDAC as an alternative form of care proceedings in the Family Court. Of course, there will still be cases in which reunification is not achieved, but this is just one of the outcomes that FDAC is able to work towards whilst remaining within the timescales for the child, and ought not to be regarded as the mark of success or failure."

HHJ Muzaffer added: “Cases such as this demonstrate just how hard it is for parents to escape entrenched harmful patterns of behaviour. Although M was tasked with the considerable challenge of breaking a cycle that had started in her early teens, she was always treated as an individual and given a real chance to engage with targeted treatment and support. Had this been of benefit to M, it would have been of benefit to D. That must surely be the more humane and constructive way to conduct care proceedings of this type, even if the outcome here was not the one hoped for.”

Lottie Winson