Agenda item

Briefing  report on case management in public law proceedings in the family court.

A briefing was provided to the Members of the Corporate Parenting Committee and Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice on how children’s social care cases are managed through the family courts.  The Joint Committee noted that there were: currently 600 looked after children, over 300 children subject to Child protection plans and also over 300 children that were the subject of 156 court proceedings. It was noted that, in the past 18 months, the number of proceedings had increased by over 17%. This had significant cost implications for the Council as the cost per set of proceedings was £4825. The circumstances and procedures for application to court for care and supervision orders were set out in the report. It was explained to the Joint Committee, that a care order would provide the Local Authority with parental responsibility for a child or young person, parents would not lose their parental responsibility and the emphasis was that the local authority would work in partnership with the parents. The thresholds for meeting a care order requirement, which the Local Authority must evidence, were outlined along with the main principles underlying court case management and the overriding objective in public law proceedings. There was also information on the duties which the courts and the Local Authority had in regard to the timetable for the Child.  These guidelines were to ensure that there was due regard given to the significant steps in a child’s life, these would include social, health and educational steps. There was also an update on the action being taken by the Local Authority to reduce the delays in the court care proceedings; this included having a dedicated team which had responsibility for children in care proceedings. There were currently proposals for external local performance improvement groups that would be multi agency and linked to local courts to provide a forum to deal with issues which arise locally such as delays in proceedings.

Members sought an understanding on the length of care proceedings, and whether these delays were being experienced solely by the Council. Members asked how the Local Authority could influence the court process to ensure that the children/young people, subject to the court care proceedings, faced as minimal amount of disruption and upheaval as possible. It was noted that the Director of Children and Young People’s has been involved in discussions with the Greater London Family Panel (all judges and magistrates across London hearing care cases) and their chair (and Lead Judge for London) HHJ Altman.  This has culminated in the Director being invited to join the London Family Justice Panel.  This Panel, chaired by HHJ Altman, is the practice body for all London care courts where practice is monitored and new approaches developed to try and improve the work of the courts. The Panel meets quarterly and the Director will join the Panel for the first time in June 2011, though he is involved in work prior to those reviewing proposals by the Panel to the Family Justice Review being undertaken by the Government. The aim of this participation was to be in key position to communicate with principal legal counterparts the impact of delayed care proceedings and be in position to expedite them. There had already been preliminary discussions on reducing the number of court appearances. It was noted that some cases from Haringey would last over 60 weeks. The service was seeking to reduce this to at least 40 weeks. The Committee noted the causes of delays which were the number of independent expert witnesses statements being required and residential assessments. The high number of cases coupled with the delays to proceedings due to requests for extra information was also placing an increased pressure on support services for Children.

In terms of the Local Authority’s role in the court process and the submission of evidence, it was noted that it could be more straightforward for the courts to consider evidence which showed physical neglect to a child with reports and photographic evidence, however it could be challenging to prove the detrimental impact of neglect on a child. Although photographic evidence of living conditions and additional reports provided by local authorities was considered, it was often the case that external expert evidence was also again requested. The Committee were assured that the Council’s management of cases through the court process was seen to be paramount.  The Joint Committee learned that court reports are seen by managers and Legal Services before submission.  The care plan for the child in question would need to be signed off by the Head of Service. The Committee were reminded that the Children’s service had been re-organised to enable the formation of a team dedicated to dealing with children’s social care proceedings.  This team work closely with legal and has a high level of expertise and skill in working with the Court process.

The information provided was noted by the Committee.