Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

Amendment 4

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert— “(1A) A family group decision-making meeting must be offered by the relevant local authority when a family is going through private law proceedings.” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to reduce the conflict in private law proceedings by offering a family group decision making meeting, allow other family members to support the child as well as to identify where there are significant safeguarding risks to the child/children. It seeks to strengthen the intention that mediation and reconciliation out of court are better for the child.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 4, 6 and 17, which are in my name. They present a more ambitious use of family group decision-making processes. I am keen to understand whether the Government have considered these at all and, if so, why on balance they were excluded from the Bill. If they have not considered them, perhaps there is room to reconsider. For many children, being able to live with another family member, even if they still require support, is a better outcome that going into stranger foster care or a children’s home. This group aims to test the Government’s appetite to expand the scope of family group decision-making further.

Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making process to private law cases, which is something the noble Lord, Lord Meston, questioned in his earlier remarks. I think the Minister will be aware that this was raised as a recommendation in evidence in the Public Bill Committee in the other place by the chief executive of Cafcass. Two-thirds of Cafcass cases are private law proceedings. The Minister knows just how acrimonious these can be; indeed, we heard about that from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. That includes, of course, cases of domestic violence and abuse.

My amendment would move these cases into scope. I understand that this would extend the scope of family group decision-making significantly and there are resourcing implications, but I would like to understand the Government’s logic in using this approach with some cases with material safeguarding concerns but not others that share many of the same characteristics about the risks posed to children. We know that, tragically, a number of child deaths have happened after family proceedings rather than proceedings in public law or child protection.

I have not put down a specific amendment on this point, but, in a similar spirit, I wondered what consideration the Government have given to a situation where a Section 7 welfare report is requested by the court. As the Minister will know, a Section 7 report is a court-order document, prepared under Section 7 of the Children Act 1989, and is ordered when parents cannot agree on arrangements for their children’s care, usually only if there are any aspects of the children’s welfare that require further investigation. My question is: could this also be an area where family group decision-making might apply? If the Government have not considered these options, can the Minister, as a minimum, commit to considering them and working out the practical implications? This is exactly the kind of situation where the wider family could help but where the involvement of child protection professionals is needed.

My Lords, unusually, I entirely disagree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has put forward by way of an amendment. It is not just overambitious—in my view, it is plainly wrong, for two reasons.

Although there is—thank goodness—a minority of almost insoluble family cases, there are other ways in which to deal with mediation. Some of the work, although not all of them do, and I do not think that a local authority should interfere in private law cases. Perhaps more importantly, there is a brilliant system started by the then Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, and the present President of the Family Division; I think it is called Pathfinder, but I am not entirely sure. It has been rolled out in four places. When a family starts contentious divorce proceedings, all those involved with the family—the local authority specifically, Cafcass, the police, local health people and anybody else who may be involved with the family—meet to decide whether it is a domestic abuse case, in which case it goes through a longer channel, or a case in which the parties are behaving properly but cannot agree.

In the majority of cases, as the President of the Family Division has told me—he also gave evidence to one of the Select Committees in the House of Commons on this, perhaps the Home Affairs Committee—he or other family judges get rid of the case within two hours; they are completed. It would be unnecessary and unsuitable to have a family meeting of the sort proposed. There are real dangers to it in the other cases, particularly since there are other systems. So unusually, as I very often agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this occasion I think that she is wrong and very much hope that the Government take no notice of her amendment.

My Lords, I, instead, speak in support of Amendment 6. As we have heard, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care but, sadly, the number of children who re-enter the system remains far too high, as many reunifications break down due to lack of support. There is currently no strategy by which to support reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit that the support that they provide is inadequate.

A breakdown in reunification not only is tragic for the children and families involved but costs the Government around £320 million annually. Action for Children estimates that the cost of providing family decision-making support to meet the costs of all reunifying families across England would result in significant cost savings of a potential £250 million.

On the basis that this is accepted and viewed as a positive step among professionals, should be in the best interests of care for children leaving school and, finally, has the potential to provide cost savings to the Government, which could be recycled into the system, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on including in the Bill a duty to offer family group decision-making during reunification.

My Lords, this was a very reasonable sounding amendment, then the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, took a sledgehammer to it. Will the Minister give us a little guidance on the Government’s thinking on this? When people with experience on both sides are talking it is best that we hear the whole thing, but I will be very interested in what the Government say because if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—probably our biggest expert in the Chamber—says there is something wrong, I would be very inclined to listen to her. But, as I said, it was a reasonable sounding discussion that brought it forward.

My Lords, I have already expressed my views on Amendment 4, but I think I need to emphasise, particularly as my noble and learned friend has just made the same point, that I think it is unrealistic and unnecessary for private law cases. Many disputes resolved in private law cases are minor and concern perfectly manageable—I will not say “trivial”—problems over contact arrangements and so forth. That cannot justify a family group meeting.

In any event, as my noble and learned friend has said, the existing mechanisms are already well tuned to dealing with disputes. Cafcass gets involved at an early stage; there is what is called a safeguarding report; and if the dispute does not go away, Cafcass produces a Section 7 report. Along the way, there is a dispute resolution hearing in front of the judge, and noble Lords can take it from me that the judge applies a fair amount of pressure to resolve the matter and to explore the realities of settling the case, which quite often involves exploring what can be done with the wider family. Of course, the wider family may have the time and the resources that the parents lack and help sort it out, but it does not really need a meeting; it just needs someone getting the parties in a room in the court with the Cafcass officer to sort out the practical realities of where things are going. I wish to emphasise that I do not think that Amendment 4 will assist.

I recognise that the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is to test the extent to which family group decision-making can be used in other circumstances. I think it is a tribute to the significance and efficacy of family group decision-making that people are so keen to test where else it can be used in the process. I will respond to the two examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has identified and then address Amendment 17.

As we have heard, Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making and, I have to say, was ably opposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in seeking to ensure that as many families as possible are offered the opportunity of family group decision-making, including those outside of public law proceedings. The Government recognise the importance of supporting families in private law proceedings. We want to help families resolve their issues quickly and without coming to court. That is why there are already requirements and processes—one of which the noble and learned Baroness talked about—that support families at this point. There is already a requirement, for example, that anyone wishing to make a private family law application must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting to discuss options to resolve their issue outside court, through mediation or other means. The Government also fund the family mediation voucher scheme, providing families £500 towards the cost of mediation. This scheme has helped nearly 40,000 separating parents. The noble and learned Baroness talked about other alternatives as well.

On the Section 7 welfare report, the explanation was ably given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but my understanding is that, as a welfare report, it can be requested by the court in any family proceedings where there are concerns about the welfare of a child. It is mostly done in private court proceedings, by the local authority if it is involved or by Cafcass if not. I am not convinced, for many of the reasons we have talked about, that this would be an appropriate point to mandate a family group decision-making meeting. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured about the other routes for supporting families in these cases.

Amendment 6 also seeks to extend the mandatory offer for family group decision-making, as we have heard, at the point of reunification. I have sympathy with its objective and can see the point of family group decision-making at this point, not least because of the points made by noble Baronesses opposite about the challenge of reunification and the need to ensure that it is supported. I talked in group 2 about the reason why the Government identified the particular time at which we think there should be a legislative duty to offer a family group decision- making process. Just because it is not mandated in this case does not mean that it is not potentially a good idea. Regulations are already clear that, where a child is returning home to family from care, local authorities should consider what help and support will make reunification a success, which could include family group decision-making. Our Families First Partnership Programme will strengthen this through the family help offer. I hope that gives the noble Baroness suitable reassurance that we have thought about it and think that it is appropriate but should not be mandated in legislation.

Finally, to clarify, in the first part of my response to Amendment 19 I started with a little preamble relating to Amendment 17, but I nevertheless answered the point about Amendment 19 in that response. Amendment 17 has the laudable aim of ensuring that children are safe. However, to reiterate, it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to assume that every child going to live with a family member needs a child protection plan. I heard what the noble Baroness said about whether there might be some other type of protection plan related to kinship care, but I am not sure that needs a legislative response.

However, it is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm. To be clear, even when a child has gone through this process and is living with family members or in a kinship situation, local authorities retain the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need, including those in kinship arrangements. There is a duty that continues in those circumstances but, in relation to this amendment, it does not seem right to turn that into a child protection plan because, as I said previously, it is important that we do not intervene in family life where children are safe, loved and supported. However, the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need continues in those circumstances.

Given those explanations and assurances, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendments.

I thank all noble Lords for their comments on this group. Obviously, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have day-to-day experience of this area. This amendment was raised in Committee in the other place, and I will read briefly from the oral evidence given by the chief executive of Cafcass:

“We see 140,000 children through proceedings every year. The Bill tends to focus on those who are in public law proceedings. Two thirds of the children we work with are in private law proceedings, where there are family disputes about who children spend their time with and where they live. Very often, those children are in families where conflict is very intense. There are risks to them; there is domestic abuse. The Bill is silent on children in private law proceedings, and I think there is an opportunity for that to be different”.

This is a real concern. Maybe there are different ways of approaching it, but the concern about harm to a minority of children in private law proceedings is a valid one.

On Amendment 6, my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park put it extremely well when she said that this is a relatively small and discrete group. The work has been done on what it would cost to offer this. I hear what the Minister said, and I probably often said similar things when I was on the other side of the House. However, the fact that it is not mandated in a world where resources are understandably tight risks it not happening. If we really are going to focus on such things in the Bill, this is a small group, and this amendment could make a real difference to the stability of their return home. I hope the Minister might think on it a little bit more.

To be clear about Amendment 17, we were not assuming that the local authority would need to have a child protection plan for a child in kinship care, but, again, in real life we hear that it is difficult for the local authority to get right the balance between keeping eyes on the child to make sure that everything is okay, and supporting the family without being overly intrusive and behaving like the heavy hand of the state. It is a real issue that practitioners are worried about, so I hope that, together with colleagues in the department, the Minister will consider it some more. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendment 5