Orders and Care Planning Options: Thinking Grid for Child Welfare Cases, Study notes of Law

Download Orders and Care Planning Options: Thinking Grid for Child Welfare Cases and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! ORDERS AND CARE PLANNING OPTIONS THINKING GRID In the light of recent case law, this table or “thinking grid” is designed to help you think about the range of orders and care plan options which are available to the court, the merits and de-merits of each one with RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS and the kind of LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPPORT WHICH CAN BE PROVIDED. Also included is information about SOUTHWARK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Research overviews: 1. The Ministry of Justice November 2011: Outcomes of Family Justice Children’s Proceedings – a review of the evidence. 2. Decision-making within a child’s timeframe. An overview of current research evidence for family justice professionals concerning child development and the impact of maltreatment. Brown & Ward. October 2012 outcomes-family-justice-childrens-proceedings (2).pdf Decisions within a child's timeframe 2012.pdf See also: Biehal, N., Ellison, S., Sinclair, I. (2010) Belonging and permanence: outcomes in long-term foster care and adoption. London: BAAF Simmonds, J. (2011) The role of special guardianship: best practice in permanency planning for children (england and Wales). London: BAAF Wade, J., Dixon, J. & Richards, A. (2010) Special guardianship in practice. London: BAAF Following recent case law, when writing section (g) of the welfare checklist in the final statement you will need to cover all the different legal powers and options available to the court for the specific child/children you are concerned with. Refer to the evidence when highlighting the advantages and disadvantages. In concluding analysis consider whether in your opinion the case is heavily weighed in favour of a particular option or if it’s finely balanced and what then tips the balance in favour of what you are recommending. It is not appropriate to write in a general, formulaic way, e.g. the child needs a loving permanent family via adoption. It is more appropriate to write in a child specific way as in the child permanence report where there is a plan for adoption. See also: The Children Act 1989 Guidance & Regulations Vol. 1 Court Orders DCSF Statutory guidance on Adoption. July 2013 DfE Special Guardianship Guidance (SGO Regulations 2005) The thinking grid below should not be reproduced in the statement. The statement should go through the range of powers as usual but talking through the advantages and disadvantages of each one before your concluding analysis and recommendation where the options are weighed up. You don’t need to do every single one but you need to cover realistic options, especially for adoption matters. Section (g) of the Welfare Checklist – the range of powers available to the court under the Children Act 1989 No order –should always be considered preferable outcome because least interventionist approach, however, must not be preferred if evidence indicates that child’s welfare is compromised. The legal effect The advantages The disadvantages Parental responsibility will lie with  the birth mother  the birth father if married or on the birth certificate  other person (with a Residence Order or SGO) The Local Authority does not have any share of parental responsibility and no specific mechanism to assist the child/family unless the child meets the criteria as a child in need and there is full co- operation to work with the family under this framework. Child remains with birth parents/family. Least intervention in family life Consider any expressed wishes and feelings in favour of no order particularly if this increases partnership and the child is of sufficient age and understanding to work in partnership also. Consider the evidence of significant harm and whether SH has been established; if not no ground for removal; if established is child still at risk of harm- what is the harm?- can child be protected from it in future? Why or why not? Consider if there are any practical ways to provide the parent/s with the level of support required to ensure the safety of the child. Comment on whether it is possible for the child to be placed in the care of either parent, or and any other assessed person. Consider any history of lack of co-operation and incapacity to work with professionals and the impact that would have on the child’s welfare if RO might be under consideration for a kinship/connected person in or out of the country so research to that effect might be applicable (see SGO) Local authority support will be as above. PARENTS DO NOT RECEIVE ANY FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR LOOKING AFTER THEIR CHILDREN. They are expected to claim appropriate benefits. Other persons in contention for a Residence Order may qualify for a Residence Order Allowance which is means- tested. There are different rates for inner and outer London. This is subject to annual review. There are no other statutory provisions for support under a Residence Order. Any financial support needs prior approval by the Head of Service (FST). If child remains in LBS on RO there is the prospect of an SO to LBS to provide a statutory framework for support. See below. Family Assistance Order/Supervision Order The legal effect Advantages Disadvantages Parental responsibility will be with  the birth mother  the birth father if married or on the birth certificate  any other person e.g. person with RO/SGO The local authority does not have any share of Parental Responsibility but has a duty to assist, advise and befriend the child and family for the period of the Supervision Order. In order to fulfil this duty there needs to be a positive relationship of partnership between the Local authority and family. There may be conditions to a Supervision Order to address specific problems. The LA can bring the matter back to court before the expiry of a Supervision Order if they want to extend the period of supervision. This cannot happen with a Family Assistance Order which is often limited to 6 months. Child remains with birth parent/family. Consider any expressed wishes and feelings. A level of local authority intervention in the family. Consider the evidence of significant harm and whether SH has been established; if not no ground for removal; if established is child still at risk of harm (refer to evidence and impact of harm)- what is the harm?- can child be protected from it in future? Why or why not? Consider if there are any practical ways to provide the parent/s with the level of support required to ensure the safety of the child. Comment on whether this is not a suitable option in relation to each parent and any other assessed person. Comment on any history of lack of co-operation and incapacity to work with professionals and family support strategies. Consider any issues if this involves the child/family living in a different LA. Consider any expressed wishes and feelings. It is most likely that either of these orders will come into play to provide a legal foundation for a period of limited support for rehabilitation. Please see the research findings on rehabilitation under no order above. LA support will entail the allocation of a social worker. A written agreement is a helpful way to spell out the expectations of how the family and children’s services will work together. It might specify referrals and or attendance for specific interventions as appropriate to the case. A meeting involving any team for transfer may be appropriate before the actual IRH or final hearing so they are involved and owning the written agreement might be useful. Getting parents to identify back up carers and family support, possibly via Family Group Conference can be a good way to bolster support for rehabilitation and minimise risk of disruption and return to care. Wardship This has limited application where the court may need to determine a very particular course of action in order to meet the needs of a child, e.g. medical treatment where parents are in disagreement. Care Order The legal effect Advantages Disadvantages Parental responsibility is shared between  the birth mother  the birth father if married or on the birth certificate or has acquired PR by order  the Local Authority The child remains in care until the age of 18 or the order is discharged beforehand. The child remains legally connected with their birth family and can continue relationships via contact, supported by the Local Authority. Fostering and residential placements receive ongoing multi- disciplinary professional support. IRO oversees progression of care plan with minimum x2 p.y. review meetings. Prospect of siblings remaining together in good quality matched placement for children The child is “in care” which can be experienced as stigmatising especially by teenagers, because Local Authority intervention continues at a high level, e.g. 6 weekly visits by a Social Worker as minimum, x2 per year Personal Education Planning meetings at child’s school, x2 p.year review meetings at placement and annual health checks. No guarantee of placement stability and risk of disruption increases with age of entry to care and in adolescence. Leaving care at 18 can be a difficult transition and some young people return to their birth families. in middle childhood. Consider any expressed wishes and feelings. Removes child from circumstances where suffering harm- refer back to evidence of harm. High correlation between placement disruption and educational disruption particularly if moves between LAs occur. Risk of residential care outside community following repeated fostering disruption. Consider any expressed wishes and feelings. Consider any separation of sibling issues. Consider also if the foster carer is going to continue fostering additional children with competing needs. A care order usually means a plan for long term fostering although on occasion in might mean residential care or residential school. If the plan involves kinship fostering see research on SGO below and make sure the kinship foster carer (which may have been a reg 24 placement) is approved by the Fostering Panel (within 16 weeks). Research on long term (stranger) foster placement stability: “A distinction has been drawn between planned and unplanned moves.... There is evidence that some children go through a number of placement moves while in care but there is great variation between local authorities.” Ward 2009 found that just under one in five children stayed in the same placement, another fifth had 2 placements and about two fifths had between 3 and 5 placements and just above one in five had 6 or more placements.” In order to succeed with a recommendation of Care Order and plan for long term fostering you will need to set out details of the placement and why this is a good match, how transitions may be handled and how it will be supported. Matching is likely to be raised in the legal arena as this is seen as helping to secure a placement as “permanent”, especially by Guardians however this is rarely done before final order. Southwark’s fostering recruitment and assessment is outsourced and therefore there is no discreet family finding service for LBS long term foster care like there is for adoption. Occasionally people express an interest in long term foster care and so a possibility of assessment with view to matching can take place but usually foster carers are approved as temporary carers because they want to see how it works out and so does LBS. What often happens is that temporary foster carers express an interest in keeping children long term. Where appropriate, a matching report is prepared jointly by the child’s social worker and the supervising social worker with recommendation to Fostering Panel to change the approval status and recommend the match for this “named child”. This is then goes to the Director for formal decision by Fostering Agency Decision Maker. for children with long term foster carers, rapidly over time Special Guardianship has become the preferred route for a family member or connected person to acquire parental responsibility with a statutory framework of support. It is essential that any proposed SG has the capacity to not only parent the child in the long term but protect them from the risk of further harm, which is why they are in proceedings. Research evidence: “There is some evidence (Farmer and Moyers 2008 and Hunt et al 2008) that formal kinship placements tend to be more stable than unrelated foster placements. However, this may be linked to the fact that kinship placements are generally planned as permanent placements whilst many unrelated placements are often seen as a transition to a stable placement.... Other evidence, however, highlighted how kinship placements may be at risk when relatives have difficulties themselves. Ward et al (2010) found that among their high risk sample of infants suffering or likely to suffer, significant harm, many relatives had extensive difficulties themselves, had offending histories or had children with poor outcomes themselves. Other children were placed with distant relatives, often unknown to the child. Many kinship placements in this study were close to breakdown by the end of the study when the children were three years old.” General research points to concern amongst practitioners that SGO assessments are undertaken very quickly in the context of legal proceedings and lack the same degree of rigour & scrutiny as those for fostering or adoption. Wade et al 2010. Also Simmonds 2011 points to how much less preparation and immediate post placement support goes into SGO compared to adoption and fostering. Special Guardians do not receive the learning & development input which goes into to adoption prior to approval and foster carers prior to and post approval. Between 31.12.2005 and 31.03.2012, 99 children became the subject of SGOs in care proceedings issued by Southwark. Of these, there were 8 children whose Special Guardianship subsequently disrupted. The themes in these disruptions were 1) the management of contact between the child and their birth parents or other family members in the context of complex family dynamics; 2) challenging behaviour from children which could have been a result of contact problems; 3) difficulty accessing LA or CAMHS support . Source: Special Guardianship Orders: an exploration of placement breakdowns within one Local authority Tom Schaub-Jones, CLA0-12 Service This is consistent with MoJ findings. Contact arrangements often change over time and if boundaries are not maintained, they can de-stabilise arrangements. Black & minority ethnic children are more likely to achieve permanence through SGOs than adoption, in LBS and especially those of Black African origin. While SGO & adoption is predominantly used for children under 5, children on SGOs are significantly older on average as a group on age of entry to care than those who became subject to adoption. There is no significant gender difference. 20% of children had not resided with the person who became their special guardian prior to the order being granted, and 31% had resided with their special guardian for less than 2 months. SGOs are predominantly being used for family placements and the grandparent generation, including great aunts and uncles (67%). 57% placed with maternal relatives, 40% with paternal family and 3% with others. 5% of children subject to SGO were also subject of a SO. 25% were part of a sibling group. Source: Permanence Analysis – Adoption & Special Guardianship 2006 – 2012 Jennifer Skirrow, CLA0-12 Service. LA support should be set out in the SGO support plan. Financial assistance is means tested and there are differential rates for inner and outer London which can be a problem if they are then less that the reg 24 allowance if the child is placed already under fostering regulations. The support plan will be subject to annual review. There is not usually support with contact so the prospective SG needs to be able to manage this. Sometimes a Supervision Order is made in order to facilitate this transition although changes of team/social worker are unlikely to be helpful. Head of Service (FST) needs to approve SGO support plans including any financial support. A Supervision Order may be made as well as a SGO if there is a need for special support around transitions, particularly if the child is not living with the prospective Special Guardian during proceedings so the arrangement is untested or if the order is made against the recommendation of the LA and therefore is considered ill-advised or weak by the LA. Care Order & Placement Order with a plan for Adoption – should be an option of last resort where there is no other way to secure the child’s welfare “nothing else will do” The Legal Effect of Adoption Advantages Disadvantages  The Parental responsibility of birth parents is extinguished forever.  Adopters have parental responsibility  The Local Authority does not have parental responsibility once an Adoption Order is made  An adoption order is life long and cannot be discharged.  A next of kin relationship exists between the child and the adopters & their family while they live. The child has a family life, albeit in an adoptive family rather than his/her birth family, which is permanent and life long. There is no ongoing relationship with the Local Authority although there will be a post adoption support plan agreed and provided for the child, birth parents and adopters. Birth parents can access independent post-adoption counselling if they wish. Because an Adoption Order is life long the child will have a sense of belonging and emotional security. Legal relationship with birth family is severed. An emotional relationship will not develop or will be curtailed with limited indirect contact. Consider any expressed wishes and feelings and comment on birth parents lack of consent. Disruption rate increases with age. Consider any separation of siblings issues. Together or apart assessment. Consider any expressed wishes and feelings and particularly the child’s understanding of adoption, if they are of sufficient age & understanding. Adoption for young children, particularly infants has a very low disruption. Removes child from circumstances where suffering harm- refer back to evidence of harm. Consider any issues which could be a challenge for timely adoption family finding – age, gender, ethnicity, health issues. Research evidence: “Children who are adopted before 12 months of age are as securely attached as their non-adopted peers, whereas children adopted after their first birthdays showed less attachment security (i.e. more evidence of attachment disorders) than non adopted children.” The rate of disruption increases by age. Dance & Rushton (2004) found that children placed for adoption between the age of 5 and 11 just below a third of placements had ended six years after placement. Children under the age of 3 are 10 times more likely to be adopted than children over that age at the time of Agency decision. Courts will want evidence from family finders about steps to implement a care plan for adoption with minimal delay. They may be thinking that any likely delay in placement for adoption gives an opportunity for another option to be more appropriate. In 2012/13, Southwark as an Adoption Agency arranged 20 adoptions per year which is below the national average of 12% of adoptions from care. 1.7% of children over the last 3 years were over 5 years old. There is no significant gender difference. The length of time children wait correlates to age but is improving significantly. There has been a 70% increase in the number of adopters recruited in 2012/2013 with 19 adopters being approved. Boys take longer to match. Over the last 3 years, 20 were white British, 11 of white & black Caribbean background, 6 black Caribbean and 6 white & black African children. Southwark foster carers continue to make up a significant proportion of adopters with 21% of all LBS children adopted by foster carers in the last 2 years, many for BME children. No LBS adoption with LBS assessed adopters has disrupted to the knowledge of LBS. There have been 2 adoptions by other agencies with adopters living in LBS which have resulted in children coming into LBS care. These were adoptions of older children. In the last 10 years, there have been 3 placements for adoption (all boys) with non LBS assessed adopters which have disrupted. 2 of the children in these circumstances have been rematched for adoption with substantial support and intervention. The other child is still waiting for an adoptive placement. Southwark has an Adoption Task Force with an improvement plan working on reform to increase family