Hello, and welcome to another Pre-Spring Monday morning, and our question for this week, which focuses on the relatively new concept in family law, of the voice of the child.
The voice of the child in the family justice system typically refers to the process whereby children in family proceedings can voice their opinion on matters impacting them. This is especially important in adoption cases and divorce or separation cases, where children’s lives are often deeply impacted by decisions made on their behalf by the courts.
Simon Hughes, our justice minister, has spoken several times in the last year on amplifying that voice and making it heard, in a system which often fails to listen carefully to what children are saying and which in turn can lead to poor outcomes for children. His recent initiative, in which he hopes to help children express their wishes and feelings, and give them due weight, is long overdue, but….
Do you think this will make a difference or will nothing change on the ground?
Researching Reform 
Unfortunately in my experience when children do get to see a judge in chambers they are invariably accompanied and watched over by a social worker/guardian/or Cafcass officer who has rehearsed with them what they must say.Parents are ALWAYS excluded from the interview and too often (but not always) children are intimidated and dare not say they are unhappy and perhaps being abused in fostercare and want to return home.
If parents were allowed to be present as observers that would be fair but that alas would never do………………………
LikeLike
To date judges, since 2011, were only able to discuss the process of the case with children, not even the children’s own wishes and feelings and they were obliged under the guidelines tell the kids that whatever they told them would have to be relayed to others. Nothing was in confidence. Added to which, most judges are no good at making children feel at ease, so they’re not going to confide in a remote figure head that seems unreachable, even if they’re sitting right next to them.
The issue of parents in the room is more complex. There will be times when that makes sense -when the parents are involved and their conduct appears to be making it hard for the child to speak his or her own mind. Sometimes it helps if kids don’t feel they have to say what their parents want to hear. Other contexts though, are different. Sometimes, children want their parents with them for support. It’s all about getting the right balance, to my mind.
LikeLike
I agree with you. This is not how to do it.
LikeLike
Recently in the family court a child aged nearly 14 spoke in the court to the judge and told the judge in no uncertain terms the wishes wants and feelings the judge agreed and wrote all in the staement BUT ONLY TO DO AS THEY ALL DO AND THAT WAS TO PASS THE BUCK BACK TO THE SOCIAL WORKERS writing and saying i hope you will agree with the childs wishes and wants, well it has not and will not happen it is a fact that “In a child’s best interest” the way out for all is to continually pass the buck and no child will ever have a true saying.
And why do we have in the news constantly the missing three Islam girls where is the publicity for the 10.000 kids missing from care, who are in care who are screaming to be heard but no one listens to them not even the courts.
LikeLike
I totally agree Maggie.
I was present when a judge agreed with the children in chambers, then apologized and said HE HAD TO OBEY THE SOCIAL WORKERS??
Using Hitlers energy signature of best interest of the child in 2015 speaks volumes considering what he did to children in their best interests.
LikeLike
Maggie, Lady P,
The current culture surrounding children in social work is such that there is a strong belief that the social workers know best, as you’re aware. That would be alright if the training was top notch, the culture surrounding children was positive and progressive and these professionals could actually tell the difference between what a child needs and what they don’t. All too often, though, that is not the case. Personally, I think training is right at the heart of this – both in terms of the level of skills and the culture taught in the sector. This field needs to raise the bar and recruit only the best, most dedicated and intelligent people for the job. Otherwise, you have a bunch of scruffy, badly trained social workers who can’t even fill out child welfare reports properly. And that happens far too often.
LikeLike
i do not think that it will makle any difference because the child has to be ten years of age before it is deemed all right for them to be allowed to speak to a judge, this is to late in the majority of cases, because there are not many ten year olds awaiting adoption,in the foster care system, it is certainly too late in the case of my own children, who are not yet of that age, they can be tested as gillick competent at the age of 5 and 7 by local authority clinicians, yet are not allowed to speak for themselves in court, the system is a farce, but by no means a laughing matter.
LikeLike
Hi Peter,
Hughes has said that the age boundary is flexible. So kids younger than ten could get involved, but unfortunately what’s being proposed is not new. Most kids caught up inside the system are expected to fill out forms and draw pictures – they’re the lucky ones who actually experience protocol, but even they suffer at the hands of those who have no idea what to look for or how to interpret what they’re being told. And frankly, some of the interview methods are very basic and not age appropriate. Getting a 21st century 12 year old to draw pictures to show how she’s feeling, is demeaning. These kids use the internet and have a much greater awareness of themselves and would like to communicate in other ways. But I digress.
The core issue to my mind, is that we have a system which repeatedly makes noises about child welfare and the voice of the child, and yet nothing is happening on the ground. At this point, professionals are so worried about staying afloat given the state of things that these ‘minor details’ are simply swept under the carpet. I rather wish someone would tell everyone inside the sector to calm down and just get on with it.
LikeLike
While the CEO of Cafcass is also the chair of the BAAF, and the President of the directors of Children’s Services is also a director of the BAAF, it looks as though the child is already ‘spoken for’. Since Anthony Douglas has been filling both incompatible roles since 2005, it might be assumed that Simon Hughes is a waste of trousers. Cafcass documentation emphasises that, in the interests of economy, there is no requirement for the Cafcass officer even to meet the child, in order to be its voice. They use the reports of other adults LA social Workers, LA funded psychologists) as the basis of that voice.
LikeLike
Hi Jaipatch,
Could you show me the document which says that officers don’t need to meet the children, if you can please?
LikeLike
Cafcass pretends to be:
‘unequivocally for the child and what concerns them. We are clearly focused on how we can improve the situation for them, which they are in through no fault of their own.’
Their Framework states at page 4:
In all public law and private law cases that go beyond the First Hearing, practitioners need to communicate effectively with children to understand their wishes and feelings, to set these out before the court and, informed by them, to offer an evidence-informed view about what steps will most effectively safeguard and promote children’s welfare.
…and it ‘appears’ that that is what they do. But if you read closely( and all law requires close reading), you will see that there is no specific duty to meet the child, and obtain their point of view.
A little close reading:
At 1.26, the Framework states: Much of our work is about assessing the benefits and risks of contact for a child, including the child’s view of contact…
which paraphrases UNCR Section 9,
but, in the detailed description of contact assessment, Requirement to monitor contact and shared residence(section 11H):
at 4.54: The Cafcass officer will not, unless directed by the court, usually see the child.
Cafcass claim their work is ‘to shine a strong light on children’s needs'(1.12)… but if you read through their Framework you will see that those needs are defined almost exclusively by the Team around the Child, and existent reports.
From the Cafcass Operating Framework” Page 7: (highlighting mine)
Seeing children
1.21 Children are seen in all public law and private law cases that go beyond the first hearing (CMH or FHDRA respectively), with a small number of exceptions, e.g.if the child is living abroad and is seen by a practitioner from that country or jurisdiction.
Practitioners exercise professional judgement in each case about the basis and extent of their direct contact with children. The number of times a child will be seen is proportionate to the needs of each case and the issues at stake. The practitioner needs to have sufficient direct contact to enable them to understand the child’s situation and to reflect this understanding in an evidence-informed case analysis for the court . This evaluation of their own direct work and other evidence/information will reflect not only the direct work with the child but also the perspectives of the adult parties and other family members and professionals, as relevant, who are involved in the case.
1.22 Seeing children is an emotive issue for the organisation. Children’s Guardians were established by law after some children in precarious situations were not ‘seen’, or they were ‘seen but not heard’or they were ‘hidden in plain sight’.We are concerned to emphasise the importance of direct work with children as an essential part of practitioners’ work on behalf of children and to ensure that we continue to act as the court’s ‘eyes and ears’, in recognition of the fact that it remains rare for children to attend court.Seeing children remains a vital source of support and protection for them. There is further information in the Visiting section of this Framework.
Although the 87 page cafcass ‘Operating Framework’ references ‘the child’ throughout, and highlights that, for instance:
The analysis should ensure the child’s needs, wishes and feelings are understood and that the impact on her/him of their situation “leaps off the page”,
at 2.21 in the Visiting section, it is made clear that:
Every visit, whether to where a child is living, a Cafcass office or elsewhere, should be necessary. The framework for visiting is:
To see and hear the child
To gather information that can only be gathered through a visit
In line with the case plan, and normally aimed at producing positive change for the child
At 2.24, the Framework states:
Each interview, whether conducted by telephone or face to face, must have a purpose. Practitioners will determine who needs to be interviewed, and how many times.
Given the economic constraints and Cafcass’s avowed goal of speeding up the process:
‘all internal processes must be proportionate and equally sparingly applied, as the most scarce resource of all is professional time: each hour matters, just as every day matters for every child –not as challenging a timescale as medical care which may need to get it right in seconds, but still challenging compared to the months or years some children’s case take to resolve. Professional staff can be inspirational in brief strategic work, as long as they get to the heart of the issue quickly, engage strongly and work effectively. All Cafcass support staff play an equal part in this ambition –every number on a spreadsheet is a child or a service to a child.’
the end result is that children are seen ‘where necessary’ – and, because the Local Authority assessments are frequently written to achieve a certain threshold – seeing the child isn’t deemed necessary, or, if it is, it is for the purposes of cover and compliance rather than to ascertain the views of the child.
One example to conclude: A 14 yr old boy was seen for 10 minutes by a Cafcass officer before a hearing in which the Local Authority where asking for an ICO to take him into care. he boy was aware of what was going on, felt his mother was being persecuted by the Local Authority, and was angry and uncooperative. The Cafcass officer reported to the court that the parent had given the boy ‘a skewed view of the world’. On the basis of the ‘expert’ Cafcass report, the child was taken into care. He continues to be extremely angry, and feels his voice has not been heard.
LikeLike
Relavent to this is the fjypbcharter,(family justice young persons board) on the cafcass website:
5. Children and young people should be given the opportunity to meet and communicate with the professionals involved with their case including Cafcass workers, social workers,judiciary and legal representatives.
•
Every child over the age of sufficient age and ability should have the opportunity of meeting with a member of the judiciary overseeing their case.
•Every child should have sufficient time to build a relationship with their Cafcass worker.
•
Every child should have clear contact details for their social worker/Cafcass workerincluding office address, telephone number, email address.
•Every child should have the opportunity through the Cafcass worker/social worker of submitting their views directly to the judge in writing.
•
All children should be able to communicate their wishes and feelings with a judge.
•
Every child (age dependant) should have the opportunity of viewing or being informed about the social worker/Cafcass worker’s report.
•
The child or young person should be consulted about the timing and venue for meetings.
LikeLike
Could it be just another illusion to fool the service users into believing there is a change.?
LikeLike
After almost ten years working in this sector, I’ve come to the conclusion that 80% of the time it’s sheer ignorance at play. Hughes is advised by an adviser, who is usually advised by another adviser, who usually has no experience in the field and has done limited research, on the advice of someone who has their own agenda, and so what you get is a piecemeal sound bite designed to make the minister look good.
And even when the adviser is good and offers a complete picture of an issue, the attention span of ministers is so short that before they can do any real good, they’re off onto the next vote spinner. It’s all about the politics, not the problem.
The other 20% of the time, it’s people trying to save their jobs through denial, backtracking or hostility. And sometimes you get a renegade, who tells the truth. They’re usually people who feel they have nothing left to lose, but you have to wait a long time for one of those boats to set sail.
It’s a tough break, but if politicians want to win votes and if the public issues them an ultimatum, it forces their hand. They know that if they please the public, it just might please their political agenda too. Cynical outlook, but there you are 🙂
LikeLike
I’m with you on the 80 / 20 split.
LikeLike
‘ts all about the bias… the bias … no trouble’
LikeLike
Lady P
Although the judge agreed with the child and passed all info to the SS now the SS have turned all around in a letter to say it is the wishes feelings and wants of the person the child asked to be with, and what is amazing is that the email sent by the childs lawyer with the judges statement attached of the childs wishes and wants the lawyer stated it is not the wishes and wants of the child that lawyer has blatently told lies but where do we all go to help the children there are no doors to open only more debates and debates and we the plebs put into promise land to shut us up.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
More to the point, is the ‘establishment’ and the stuck-in-a-rut legal industry ready for a revolution ? Ask most kids and they want to spend more time with their non-resident parent, i.e. their father, than the miserly amount they are allowed under the present dictats.
Will this country achieve shared parenting only because children insist on it ? Or will “adults” persist in claining to know what is best and quash any such trend ?
Before you crush a child’s ambition and their future, hadn’t we better psychologically gird up our loins for such a change ?
If Australia is any yardstick then we had better prepare for an assault from vested interests to reverse such a policy liberalisation (Jenn McIntosh please note)..
LikeLike
More to the point, is the establishment and the in-a-rut legal industry ready for a revolution ? Ask most kids and they want to spend more time with their non-resident parents, i.e. their father, than the miserly amount they are allowed under the present dictats.
Will this country achieve shared parenting only because children insist on it ? Or will “adults” persist they know best and quash any such trend ?
Before you crush a child’s ambition and their future, hadn’t we better psychologically gird up our loins for such a change ?
If Australia is any yardstick then we had better prepare for an assault from vested interests to reverse such a policy liberalisation (Jen McIntosh please note).
LikeLike
The tide is turning against “Shared Parenting’ as more and more people realise the harms it is causing to children. A serious error was made in its introduction into Australian law in 2006, as it was meant to be introduced in a Families Tribunal Inquisitorial model (see Parliamentary Committee Report recommendations 2003). However, this key basis for introducing such a provision was the only recommendation not implemented and it was allowed to be implemented using the discredited and dysfunctional adversarial and combative existing Family Court system which was highly criticised by the Parliamentary Committee for its inappropriate outcomes for children. Resultantly, the outcomes have become even worse for children.
But there are other factors which are now being recognised as inappropriate outcomes from shared parenting e.g.
Joint custody? Overnights away from home affect children’s attachments
Date: July 19, 2013
Source: University of Virginia
Summary:
In joint custody arrangements, infants who spent overnights away from their mothers had less attachment to their mothers, a new study shows.
Babies have an innate biological need to be attached to caregivers. Attachments during that critical first year serve as the basis for healthy attachments and relationships later in life.
Babies have an innate biological need to be attached to caregivers, usually their parents. But what happens when babies spend a night or more per week away from a primary caregiver, as increasingly happens in cases where the parents share custody, but do not live together?
In a new national study, University of Virginia researchers found that infants who spent at least one night per week away from their mothers had more insecure attachments to the mother compared to babies who had fewer overnights or saw their fathers only during the day.
The finding is reported in the August edition of the Journal of Marriage and Family.
Attachments are defined as an enduring, deep, emotional connection between an infant and caregiver that develops within the child’s first year of life, according to Samantha Tornello, the study’s lead author and a Ph.D. candidate in psychology in U.Va.’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.
Attachments during that critical first year serve as the basis for healthy attachments and relationships later in life, including adulthood, Tornello said.
She notes that growing numbers of parents are living apart due to nonmarital childbirth, the breakup of cohabitating parents, separation and divorce. Parents increasingly are choosing to share child rearing in some form of joint custody, and often the legal system must determine custody arrangements for the children of parents who do not live together.
“Judges often find themselves making decisions regarding custody without knowing what actually may be in the best interest of the child, based on psychology research,” Tornello said. “Our study raises the question, ‘Would babies be better off spending their overnights with a single caregiver, or at least less frequently in another home?'”
Tornello pointed out that either the mother or father could be the primary caregiver, but the point would be that the child ideally would be in the care each night of a loving and attentive caregiver and that there may be something disruptive about an infant spending nights in different homes.
“We would want a child to be attached to both parents, but in the case of separation a child should have at least one good secure attachment,” she said. “It’s about having constant caregivers that’s important.”
Tornello and her co-authors at U.Va. and the American Institutes for Research, including U.Va. psychology professor Robert Emery, analyzed data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a national longitudinal study of about 5,000 children born in large U.S. cities from 1998 to 2000. The data was collected by researchers at Princeton University and Columbia University and consisted of interviews with both parents at the time of the child’s birth, and at ages 1 and 3. Additional in-home assessments of the children were conducted when they were 1 and 3.
Of parents who were not cohabiting at the time of the study, 6.9 percent of babies under the age of 1 and who lived primarily with their mother spent at least one overnight a week away with their father. Among toddlers ages 1 to 3, 5.3 percent spent between 1 percent and 35 percent of overnights away with their fathers. Another 6.8 percent spent 35 percent to 70 percent of overnights with their fathers.
Infants who spent at least one overnight a week away from their mothers were discovered to have more insecure attachments to them compared to babies who had fewer overnights or stayed with their father only during the day. Forty-three percent of babies with weekly overnights were insecurely attached to their mothers, compared to 16 percent with less frequent overnights.
In the case of toddlers the findings were less dramatic; greater attachment insecurity was linked to more frequent overnights, but the findings there were not statistically reliable, Tornello said.
“I would like infants and toddlers to be securely attached to two parents, but I am more worried about them being securely attached to zero parents,” said Emery, Tornello’s research adviser.
He advocates parenting plans that evolve, where day contact with fathers occurs frequently and regularly, and overnights away from the primary caregiver are minimized in the early years, then are gradually increased to perhaps become equal in the preschool years. “If mothers and fathers can be patient, cooperate and take a long view of child development, such evolving plans can work for both children and parents,” he said.
________________________________________
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Virginia. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
________________________________________
Journal Reference:
1. Samantha L. Tornello, Robert Emery, Jenna Rowen, Daniel Potter, Bailey Ocker and Yishan Xu. Overnight Custody Arrangements, Attachment, and Adjustment Among Very Young Children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 1 JUL 2013; Volume 75, Issue 4, August 2013, Pages: 871%u2013885 DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12045
LikeLike
There appears to be a lot of adult presumptions and personal axes to grind in much of what I have read in these comments so far.
I meet with, talk with, and receive correspondence from many children and young people involved in Family Law custody and contact cases and who are frustrated and furious that they have been unable to have their views and wishes taken into account in Family Law proceedings because they have been unable to put their views directly to the Court and have been completely misrepresented by adults who have claimed to do so.
By far the majority of those children and young people are equally frustrated and furious with the Family Court decisions which are made regarding their future care and welfare and the devastating impact such decisions have on their lives.
They argue that they want the right to choose whether to give direct testimony to the Court, or by videoconference (surely not so difficult in this high-tech days) or to submit a Sworn Statement of their wishes, written and signed in the presence of an independent adult (CAFCASS workers are NOT independent).
Children have given testimony in UK Courts – a 3 year old girl gave important testamentary evidence in a case of alleged sexual abuse of her by her father. He was convicted and jailed. A 4 year old boy gave testamentary evidence in a contact/ custody case and although the judge was not in favour of his views, decided that he should his wishes should be granted. (I believe the judge was Justice Black who seems to understand the value of children’s testimony and views.).
In Australian Family Courts, children (of any age) must be accepted as competent witnesses and their evidence must be treated as credible and reliable (Evidence Act 1995). Also the Australian Family Law Act gives children (of any age) the right to apply for a Parenting Order or to be joined in as a party to the proceedings by one of the parties.
Unfortunately, such is the adult bias and prejudice of the Family Court judiciary and the legal profession against children’s participation in Family Law proceedings, children are denied this right – the last child to appear in Family Law proceedings in Australia was in 1993 [Francesco Pagliarella and Jennifer Pagliarella and N [1993] FamCA 64; (1993) FLC 92-400 16 Fam Lr 688 (29 June 1993) ]. Since then the judiciary and legal profession have managed to keep children out of the Courts with presumptious arrogance and conceit.
Children and young people should have an automatic right to participate in Family Law proceedings IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO and should have the assistance of an independent lay advocate to assist them in preparing their evidence and submissions.
If they were able to do so, then the outcomes of a great many Family Court custody and contact cases would have greatly improved outcomes.
The term the “Best interests of the Child” is now in complete disrepute because it has been so liberally attached to whatever personally subjective decision an adult makes regarding the child. It should be replaced by a requirement that the recommendation of that adult is “DEMONSTRABLY and MEASURABLY to the benefit/ advantage of the child, in consideration of the identified and carefully assessed emotional, physical intellectual, and social needs of the individual child”.
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
LikeLike
From the help line we hear from so many families and it is also a fact that the courts award all children in care a lawyer with most of the lawyers working hand in hand with the SS, many families ask the the courts and social for an independent lawyer for the child and the courts may agree but BACK COMES a reply from the social cafcass and the lawyer,
THE CHILD WANTS TO KEEP THE ORIGANAL LAWYER AS THEY KNOW AND FEEL SAFE WITH THEM.
There is no way on this planet a family can ask the child do you want to change lawyers. For all of those people “In a child’s best interest” they have no idea of truth only what all of the different departments high flying government funded charities tell them, then its back to debate and debate and the kids in care stay as the silent witnesses. kids are so in fear or their minds have been blanked from all of the different therapies that most are even so scared to use a public telephone or a friends mobile to call their families.
TO ALL OF THE BLOODY LORDS AND MPS AND GOVERNEMT CHARITIES YOU NEED TO LEARN TRUTH OF POOR LITTLE CHILDREN IN CARE WITH NO LOVE NO BEDTIME STORIES AND SLUNG ONTO THE STREETS AS A TEENAGER AND NO ONE KNOWS BETTER THEN I BECAUSE IN THE 80S FOR NO PAY I ORGANISED HOSTELS FOR THESE KIDS FROM CARE AND MOST KIDS FROM CARE WILL NEVER HAVE A LIFE.
LikeLike
well done maggie for being so on the ball, and like myself, putting your feelings on the line; why is the only option that parents who are going through legal wrangles with local authorities the one of having to fight for a say in the legal custody of their children who have been seized by the same authorities using trumped up charges, the one of going through a loaded tribunal with shyster lawyers, barristers etc, who do not put up any struggle for the parents, and therefore lose their case, i asked for my teenage daughter to speak in court, she was being looked after by estranged paternal grandmother, and the response, under a court order, and the response, take her out of the country to tunisia, the same week as the final hearing, my point being; children may be allowed in court at a young age; but it is a very long way off happening; shut down the money train that is family law, foster care, forced adoption etc, let,s get back to good old talking, i believe they call it mediation nowadays, it is on offer to parents going through divorce, with children; but not on offer to parents versus local authority, all there isis the drawn out expensive tribunal; sorry, i meant t o say court hearing!! with not a child,s voice in sight ; either by videolink or in person .abolish the forced foster care, stroke forced adoption,return the children home, stop wasting children,s lives and taxpayers money. there is a movement on facebook to return all children back home by mothers day this year; what a present that would be for all mothers who have had their children removed; will it happen, probably not, the election, or three girls going to syria as maggie says gets more coverage.
LikeLike
CAFCASS are the masters of weasel words, which have no real meaning or are open to a variety of interpretations. They are collusive in the uniquely British system of child removal from natural families for adoption purposes, and which now has worldwide infamy.
CAFCASS workers should be examining what attempts have been made by local authorities to preserve family unity by providing support services to those families, and what approaches have been made to extended family members, in order to maintain children within their kinship network. If they did their job in this way there would be far fewer children being removed into State Care and even fewer into adoption.
LikeLike
Cafcass wrote and reported to the court and told a grandparent who has fought for justice for the grandchild for so many years that the grandparent must take off their campaigning hat if they want to help the grandchild, so no justice for a kid in care screaming to be heard and you the plebs shut your mouths and do as you are told.
It is as i say the childrens welfare system is the biggest army in this so called British Empire with the closed family courts and for every kid in care there are no doors to open untill they are of an age and no money can be made from them,
LikeLike