SISTEMAS DE AIRE ACONDICIONADO Y VENTILACIÓN

Before the court is able to make a SGO, it must receive a local authority report evaluating the background and suitability of applicants and the views and circumstances of birth parents and children. The coverage of this report is prescribed in Regulation 21. Regulation 14 also specifies that, if the local authority proposes to provide specific support services, a written support plan must be prepared (Department for Education and Skills, 2005). These are complex tasks that need to be completed within a relatively short timeframe. The expected period is 13 weeks after

the carer’s notification although, as we shall see below, this timeframe is now being influenced by the expectation that public law cases be completed within 26 weeks.

The success of a family placement will depend to a large degree on the quality of assessment that is undertaken, the preparation the family has for the task they are taking on and the degree to which sufficient safeguards exist to quality assure the decisions that are being made. Of course, where prior assessments have been undertaken under fostering regulations, these should provide a foundation for the Special Guardianship assessment. In these respects, the earlier York study identified a number of challenges for local authorities. These included the perception by social workers that there was insufficient time to complete analytical and reflective assessments, especially where the child and carer relationship was relatively new, and to adequately prepare carers for the task; a lack of provision within the regulations for the child and carers to ‘settle in’ and start to make a relationship, as would be the case with adoptive placements; and variations in procedures to quality assure decision-making from one local authority to another. In contrast, most kinship carers felt that, in their experience of the assessment, there was sufficient time to explore the main issues. Indeed, some were frustrated by its overly intrusive nature, the proliferation of visits by different workers and at overall delays in the process, especially where their children had been living with them for some time (Wade et al., 2010).

There is clear evidence about the importance of providing an assessment that is supportive and relevant to family and friends carers (Farmer and Moyers, 2008; Hunt, 2009). Many relative carers have not chosen to provide care or, in the case of grandparents, to resume a caring role. They tend to be thrust into it through force of family circumstances. Many also do not want to be

mainstream foster carers and some would fail to meet its more rigorous assessment requirements; nor do all want a continuing link with the local authority, beyond the particular support they might need (Hunt, 2003; Broad, 2007; Farmer and Moyers, 2008).The challenge for practitioners is therefore to balance the need to safeguard children through a robust assessment process with a clear focus on the parenting capacity of carers, while simultaneously developing a flexible and inclusive format that is not too off-putting to family carers. In this regard, two of our local authorities had adapted the unified model of kinship care assessment developed by the Family Rights

Group.18

The timescales for public law proceedings have also been subject to change and have created a new environment within which local authorities are required to operate. The final report of the

Family Justice Review, published in November 201119, produced wide ranging recommendations

to improve the structure, procedures and operation of the family court system. Amongst these recommendations, resulting from long-standing concerns at the duration and complexity of care proceedings and the consequences of these for children and families, was a recommendation to reduce the expected timescale for these proceedings to a total of 26 weeks. This recommendation was first operationalised through the Revised Public Law Outline and has been included within the provisions of the Children and Families Act 2014.20 In the public law context, these changes have 18

Available from: http://www.frg.org.uk/involving-families/family-and-friends-carers/assessment-tool 19

The Family Justice Review Final Report is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/family-justice- review-final-report.

20

The revised Outline is available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/protecting-the-vulnerable/care-proceedings-reform. 51

significant implications for identifying family members early in the process and almost certainly in the pre-proceedings work undertaken by the local authority. In the private law context, while these provisions will not apply, the severe restrictions on legal aid currently being implemented are likely to mean that there will be greater pressure on family members to make their own representations in court.

Evidence from our policy interviews highlights a continuing concern about the timescales set for assessment and preparation of court reports in Special Guardianship cases. Where children were placed in foster care or where notification was received from a relative carer in the community, local authorities could exert more control over the timing of the process. Although 13 weeks still represented a tight timetable for many, there was rather more room for negotiation to delay the application in circumstances where more time was needed to complete assessments in more complex family situations. As suggested above, greater concern centred on the growing number of cases arising in the context of care proceedings. In these circumstances, tighter timescales were more commonly being set by the courts in line with the new 26 week rule.

‘The days of being able to ask for 12 week assessments for family members are long

gone here.’

(Local authority solicitor, Area 2)

‘The assessments have taken anything from 12-20 weeks. But we now have guidelines

to complete them in 10 weeks because of the new 26 week framework for care

proceedings.’

(Service manager, Area 6)

While the court could offer some flexibility for relatives that arrived late on the scene during proceedings, there was a general consensus in all areas that timescales for assessment were generally being reduced. Practitioners tended to worry that rushed assessments might lead to later placement problems; especially where family structures and dynamics were complex or children were not already settled in placement.

‘I have some concerns about the pressure being put on us by the courts…The courts

are obviously concerned to meet their timescales and therefore are pushing us…I do have concerns about quick assessments when you have very complicated family

structures.’

(Service manager, Area 3)

‘We’ve had one or two breakdowns that have occurred, I think, because we were forced

to complete the assessments in a much tighter timescale…So (in these cases) the assessments were done in a couple of weeks, which is just not okay…You can’t get a

proper picture of the family or the type of care the child needs in that amount of time.’

(Team manager, Area 1)

Concern was expressed at the limited time that would be available for reflection, analysis and the appropriate preparation of carers for the task ahead. It is important that the avoidance of delay does not come at the expense of good analysis and decision-making (see, Simmonds, 2011).

‘The educative aspect of doing an assessment I think is quite important. You are there not only to find out if they are suitable, but to give them information that might just stick

there to help them in the future and there isn’t time to do that anymore.’

(Team manager, Area 7)

‘I think from a social work perspective, they’re anxious about that. Because…they feel

they are rushing these assessments and that there is less time for reflection…It’s a big ask, isn’t it, taking on somebody else’s child forever? You’re not just dealing with the child but with lots of relationships within families…Often-time they are already fractured or you’ve got mental health or alcohol problems. That just adds layers of complexity to

the task you are taking on.’

(Local authority solicitor, Area 6)

An important emphasis in the Public Law Outline is to encourage local authorities to reduce the scale of documentation presented to the court and for a greater emphasis to be placed on incisive analysis over lengthy description. Local authorities and external professionals recognised the need for improvement. Greater emphasis was being given to streamlining assessment procedures, the development of bespoke assessment tools, changing the content of reports from descriptions of historical biography and introducing a sharper analytical focus on short and longer-term risks and potential difficulties. This was, however, not always a comfortable transition for social workers, especially if it risked jeopardising thoroughness.

‘There’s much more focus now on assessment of the current risk and therefore there’s

probably less space to consider the subtleties of their ability to manage the child’s identity in future years, for example…What we’re faced with is significant risk now, so

that’s what is preoccupying us.’

(Team manager, Area 7)

‘What we’re seeing sometimes is (that) not a thorough enough assessment has been

done. Not enough work with the special guardians about how they will manage this or that situation when this eight month old child is eight or nine…It’s about how thorough that assessment is at the outset to make sure that whatever does come out in the future, people have got an understanding that this was something that may raise its

head.’

(Children’s guardian)

It is a requirement of the Children Act 1989 that local authorities should always first consider placing a child with family members before considering placement with non-related carers. The

Public Law Outline has given much greater emphasis to work undertaken before care proceedings

commence. An important appeal court judgement requires local authorities to thoroughly explore all placement options for the child (including family options) and to demonstrate that these have been clearly considered in all cases where a court is being asked to approve a care plan for adoption or make a non-consensual placement order.21 It is expected that Special Guardianship assessment reports and support plans will be completed before the first hearing (unless a suitable relative is only identified subsequently). Our local authorities had become much more mindful of

21

Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.

53

the need to front-load assessments during the pre-proceedings phase. Greater use was being made of family group conferences at the earliest point, once it had been decided that the child could not remain with their birth parents. Some areas were developing ‘edge of care’ panels to identify all issues that needed to be dealt with at the pre-proceedings stage or engaging in parallel planning processes where care proceedings were thought likely. This enabled social workers to simultaneously consider the potential for rehabilitation with birth parents whilst also identifying and assessing other relatives. Successful assessments might mean that proceedings could move straight to a SGO and avoid the need for care proceedings by encouraging approved relatives to make an application supported by the local authority, thereby diverting children from care.

An unintended consequence of the new arrangements might, however, be the emergence of a tiered pathway towards Special Guardianship in cases where there are concerns about the

viability of the placement, where birth family relationships are particularly complex or conflicted or where the placement has not been properly tested. In these scenarios 26 weeks may be too short a timescale to make a balanced judgement about the right order that is needed to ensure the child’s welfare throughout their childhood. There was a broad consensus amongst local authority and external professionals that this might lead to a stepped process where the local authority seeks an interim residence or care order initially (to keep within the 26 week rule), while (in most cases) the relative is approved as a Regulation 24 foster carer with a care plan to return to court for a SGO should the placement prove successful. It was reported that the courts could agree to a strategy of this kind, even though some considered it to be an undesirable consequence of these changes. It would give time for carers to be properly prepared and for placement relationships to be monitored. The downside would be that kinship carers would require approval for fostering which, as we have seen, not all want.

‘So now you will have a positive viability assessment. Then there will be a court

direction for a full Special Guardianship assessment. The placement will often be made under an interim care regime with the local authority instructed to see how the

placement goes and what sort of legal framework should be the final order. So I think

that’s changed.’

(Association of Child Care Lawyers)

Children’s guardians and legal professionals have an important role in public law proceedings in scrutinising the quality of assessments and, where services are to be provided, the content of support plans. It was also reported that the courts could be assertive in scrutinising support plans and in requiring local authorities to reconsider their plans. A number of local authorities recognised that the quality of support plans had been a weak link. Difficulties were amplified for carers of non- looked after children, where clear care plans that could be incorporated into the support plan were not already in place. Compared to unrelated foster carers, kinship carers were sometimes

considered to be less informed and less able to advocate for a good support package. This was reinforced by the discretionary nature of the regulations concerning carers of non-looked after children, about which some respondents felt there should be greater prescription.

‘I think we have struggled with developing a proper SGO support plan. We clearly have

that with adoption, where we will have a real support plan in place, where it’s very

clear…I don’t think we have that with the SGO.’

(Solicitor, Area 2)

‘They (kinship carers of non-looked after children) have very little idea what to expect

and therefore they don’t advocate well for themselves or for the young person in their care…The solicitors try to but it’s not always easy because there’s so little prescription around Special Guardianship…At the moment the regulations distinguish between those who were looked after and those who were not, but the practical distinction isn’t very much. In one case you have to assess but you don’t have to provide. In the other

case, you don’t even have to assess.’

(Association of Child Care Lawyers)

It was also considered important for support plans to take a longer view, to look ahead at

difficulties that might arise at some point in the future and consider how these might be addressed. Some needs may only arise as the child grows or the circumstances of carers change. Some anticipation of these needs ought to be embedded into plans, including procedures by which carers can return for support and how practically they may access services (such as CAMHS) that may have been promised.

It can look good on paper, but actually there’s no substance to it and no easy way back in to access those services. Obviously that can be where (the plan) fails…I suppose the special guardians can then feel very disheartened…because they took on this child with this package and then it hasn’t come to fruition.

(Children’s guardian)