A pilot scheme at the Inner London Family Court designed to support parents with drug problems is showing encouraging signs of success, writes Louise Creighton.
It is a fantastic day when a young mum with drug problems leaves the family court with a final supervision order made by consent. The advocates congratulate the mother and chuck the baby under the chin, recalling the first hearing, over a year ago when the child was removed on an interim basis from her care.
The depressing reality, though, is that even the most veteran family lawyers can recollect this experience of a successful rehabilitation only a handful of times. It is this reality which drove the resident District Judge based at the Inner London Family Court, Nick Crichton to devise and pilot a scheme known as the Family Drugs and Alcohol Court [FDAC]; it is based on a model from the US. FDAC operates within the framework for Care Proceedings for S31 Children Act 1989 Proceedings and so the issues of establishing the threshold criteria remain the same as in usual court proceedings.
The scheme, which received some government funding together with funding from three Inner London Boroughs, forms part of a pilot project which will last three years and combines a 30 month study by Brunel University. The system has now been running since January 2008 and the outcomes are becoming known. The questions are: How does it work? Does it work? Will it be rolled out?
The Inner London and City Family Proceedings Court serves 15 London boroughs and it is estimated that more than 80% of cases before the court have an element of substance misuse. Following the removal of children within care proceedings, the court and advocates attempt to identify what steps the parents should take to address their, often deep-seated, addiction problems.
Attempts are made to access those services which will help to deal with the myriad of psycho-social difficulties prevalent within the family, for instance domestic violence, drug misuse, and neglect. Counselling and mental health interventions as well as often daily contact and expert assessment are set in motion.
A coordinated approach
FDAC aims to streamline this process by offering a coordinated assessment and service provision at the court, signposting the clients to outreach services and employing a cross-borough network of support. The idea is that the services will be brought to the parents.
The advantages to the local authority in this arrangement are that the unenviable logistical task of co-ordinating the parents’ attempts at recovery are shifted from the busy social worker. It is intended that the assessment services are tailored to meet the parents’ needs, leaving no gaps in the evidence. There is frequent monitoring of progress with regular drugs screening and fortnightly hearings.
There is no wait for an expert to become free as FDAC are working with the Tavistock Family Centre, which is a multi-disciplinary resource of psychiatrists, psychologists, independent social workers and so on. The costs of the assessments are generally by way of block funding. Lawyers are not required to attend all the hearings which saves time for the local authority lawyer.
Where contentious or substantive issues arise, it is usual that the lawyers will be asked to attend. It must be said that, at times, what the FDAC team recommend or consider an appropriate course of action, can be at odds with the local authority's view. It is not unusual for there to be a differing of opinion between the professionals. At those times, the court would, of course, adjudicate.
Early warning
The theory is that failure on the parents’ part to engage or remain abstinent will be detected early on. The parents cannot coast whilst their children drift in the care system.
It appears that the parents value the continuity of the judges in non-traditional interventionist roles and value the input of the FDAC team. This enhances their ability to work with professionals including the social services team.
The scheme has provided support and assessment for 63 families in the last 20 months. Eleven parents have exited the project early, placing the children within their family or for adoption. Nearly half of all the families entering the FDAC programme from the three pilot boroughs had been known to social services for over 5 years or more. Nearly a quarter of the children were over one.
What is clear from the first year and a half of this project is that rehabilitation takes a long time, there are nail biting lapses by the parents and entrenched life style choices for the parents to extricate themselves from. But the long road to recovery existed as an option for the court before the FDAC scheme was in place. What the local authority and the parents are supposed to obtain from FDAC is a more cohesive testing system, designed to detect difficulties early on to enable earlier more decisive planning for the children.
The signs are promising
Will FDAC become a feature in all our family courts? The interim evaluation report by Brunel University in September 2009 shows notable successes. So far 12 families have come through successfully and hopefully it will be 14 or 15 by the end of the 2009.
Success is, of course, uncertain for another five years but ongoing local authority monitoring can be achieved by way of a supervision order. Success can also be measured by finding out more quickly that a child cannot remain with his birth parents and moving the child on to alternative permanence that much sooner. The interim report sets out that the project’s strengths lie in the commitment of the innovative and knowledgeable team and their determination to drive assessments in care proceedings forward.
Back to the fantastic day, before the buggy has reached the lift, a residual doubt and anxiety settles over the professionals and lawyers as they worry about whether this mum can make it with the stresses of parenthood and the pull of substance misuse. But the FDAC model provides for regular testing, a prompt gateway to the appropriate support and resources alongside rigorous assessment and if there is any hope for maintaining the family unit, it is surely worth a try.
Louise Creighton is senior partner of Creighton and Partners
