Supporting Families following Care Proceedings: Supervision Orders and Beyond

A sub-group of the Public Law Working Group, co-chaired by High Court Judge, Mr Justice Michael Keehan and Professor Harwin, is carrying out the first review of supervision orders since the introduction of the 1989 Children Act. The overall aim of the PLWG Review is to make recommendations for reform and to produce best practice guidance so as to achieve a ‘more robust and effective form of a public law order’. It is expected to become the main way of keeping families together following care proceedings. This is because guidance from the PLWG, endorsed by the President of the Family Division in 2021 states that care orders at home should only be made for ‘exceptional reasons’.

To inform that work, a new report, “Supporting Families following Care Proceedings”, by Professor Judith Harwin and Lily Golding, was funded and published by the DfE on 31^st March 2022. The study was commissioned by the DfE to ensure the views, experiences and recommendations of parents whose children were made subject to a supervision order or a care order at home at the end of care proceedings can inform the recommendations of the PLWG Review and includes parents’ testimony on pre-proceedings and the court experience to understand the parents’ journey. The study also covers parents’ experiences of pre-proceedings and care proceedings as they helped shape the final court order and what happened after those proceedings had ended.

The report calls for major changes to supporting families to stay together after care proceedings, including revamping the supervision order and creation of a supervision order support fund. It is rich in detail and will no doubt launch further reports and further professional discussions. This article explores some of the concerns raised.

During proceedings

Parents felt that they had not received enough help before care proceedings for the domestic abuse, mental health difficulties and substance misuse that typically triggered the care proceedings. Parents reunited with their children via a court order following care proceedings revealed a lack of ‘humanity’ in the court process with a perception they were ‘belittled’. They felt that a lack of understanding of their parental problems in court made it very hard to present their case well and give them a realistic chance for their child to come home. This included their needs as being vulnerable as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse being overlooked once in Court.

Possible solutions

• Practitioners must treat parents at all times with respect and understanding.
• Practitioners should use everyday language to aid understanding and help avoid alienating parents.
• The process should be more supportive, e.g. instruction of a parent supporter.
• Care plans should come with accountability to see them through.
• There should be a more flexible use of the 26 week timeframe.

Post proceedings: Supervision Orders and Care Orders at home

Most parents interviewed were positive regarding the operation of Care Orders. There were mixed views as to the efficacy of Supervision Orders. They ranged from being a good package with amazing social workers, to a waste of space. They are currently felt to be not fit for purpose. Supervision Orders need to remain but must be revamped.

Possible solutions

• They must have more enhanced multidisciplinary input and link in services re: housing, poverty, parenting and therapy.
• Services should be provided for both children and parents, e.g. guidance should be given on managing behaviour, therapy provided for children.
• There should be regular reviews which should be fully independent of the Local Authority.
• Supervision Orders should have a proper ending process.
• Support should continue after the end of the Care Order or Supervision Order if requested.
• Funding should be ring fenced.
• For Care Orders, there must be a clear end point.
• Parents should have more say in contact arrangements.

Which Order?

When considering which order, parents generally welcomed the greater input under a Care Order. The reality is it is harder to get support under a Supervision Order than it is a Care Order e.g. school placements; access to school and their playschemes; extra summer holiday support and grants. Parents felt more isolated under a Supervision Order. Under Care Orders the parents felt more supported, had regular contact with the Local Authority in home visits, had the support for someone to off load into, and were provided strategies to support the child at home. Without that families ended up back in Court as the Supervision Order was not supporting them enough.

The PWLG reported in March 2021 that Care Orders at home should require exceptional reasons to be made. With the President endorsement, the stage was set for a change in practice. That has not happened consistently, with Care Orders at home being made with much greater frequency in the North and in Wales than in the South of the country.

The type of Order should not affect the offer of services. The PLWG sub-committee will be asked to consider whether a further form of Order somewhere between a Care Order and Supervision Order is the way forward, to bridge the gap in different practices across the country. Other possibilities are a compulsory Supervision Order as in Scotland with a strong element of compulsion on the Local Authority and the family. As a more immediate solution we may see a greater rise in the use of the tool of extending the 26 week timeframe and extended ICOs where the court process is put on hold while arrangements are established at home i.e. a stress test of the proposed rehabilitation plan of the LA.

Conclusion

Parents interviewed felt the court had a major role in facilitating family reunification but called for significant changes in the court experience and a radical shake-up of the court orders intended to keep families together. There should be as much attention to help families stay together after care proceedings have ended as there is to pre proceedings support.

As a follow up to this work, a new PLWG at the end of this month is to start to look a how to make care proceedings more humane, compassionate and accessible. The current sub committee of the PWLG will continue to look at how to make Supervision Orders more effective, with recommendations to be published it is hoped later in the year.