1. and the Public Law Outline

2. 2 The President’s Public Law Outline revises the 2003 Protocol for Judicial Case Management into a 4-stage process: At stage 1 – Issue, the objectives for the court are to ensure compliance with pre-proceedings checklist and to give initial case management directions. At stage 2 – Case Management Conference, the objectives are to prepare the case management template order, to identify issue(s) & give full case management directions. Cafcass will provide an analysis of the issues. At stage 3 – Issues Resolution Hearing, the objective is to resolve, narrow & identify any remaining key issues At stage 4 – Final Hearing, the objective is to determine any remaining issues so that a judgement can be made.

3. 3 What does it mean for Cafcass? The pace of proceedings under the PLO is to be set according to the timetable for the child. The Cafcass Analysis and Recommendations at each stage will be important in setting that timetable. Cafcass has developed a new model of practice to meet the PLO challenges. The ‘public law pathway’ is based on the PLO and this model...

4. 4 Understanding and promoting the child’s immediate and life-long welfare needs, and promoting the child’s active participation, is core to Cafcass analysis, intervention and case management Case management / planning Analysis Child-centred intervention Child’s immediate & lifelong welfare Appraise LA work in the case Focus on key issues Regular information to the court Maximise safety Direct work to understand NWF Appropriate participation so views reach court as directly as possible Work with family, social & professional networks to ascertain ability to meet the child’s NWF Inform child of outcomes Handover to IRO Make information available for child’s lifetime Case planning process focuses on reducing non-purposive delay so timetable meets the child’s needs Narrow the issues / outstanding action / information needed to assist court in case management e.g. experts; level; other parties

5. 5 Allocating on day 1: Early intervention and ‘Shifting the gap’ in service provision, but only if necessary where there is a shortfall in capacity, from pre-allocation to points in the case that can stand it better Implementing processes that guarantee safeguarding concerns are met in all cases Reporting becomes a cumulative analytical process, starting at stage one Working with the child as an active partner in their own case, and identifying issues for ‘the child’s timetable’

6. 6 More changes are: Making an early contribution, with analysis of the pre- proceedings work done by local authority Early identification of the need for any expert evidence Advocates meetings at CMC and IRH – the children’s guardian does NOT attend Contact with the Independent Reviewing Officer after the case ends, possibly alongside the young person, to hand on any concerns about implementation of the care plan

7. 7 More detail about writing for Court reporting at each stage of the case through Analysis & Recommendations documents Working draft for PLO areas –implementation of final version from April 2008 templates provided for: Initial Analysis Interim Analysis Final Analysis Checklist for verbal information at First Appointment (if no time to prepare written document) Guidance notes include a ‘Funnel’ document of questions at each stage …. For example at IRH....

8. 8 Issues Resolution Hearing Extract from The Funnel Narrowing Issues Towards Final Resolution Has all the evidence been filed in accordance with the previous order? Is any other evidence required and/or any other further reports and/or any other expert evidence? In the context of the evidence filed, what are the critical issues to be determined? In the context of the evidence filed, what is the optimum care plan for the child? What is happening for the child/ren? Have their views, needs, wishes and feelings changed? Has the child/ren’s timetable changed? Any relevant issues from the welfare checklist? Are there outstanding issues with the LA care plan (if any) with which the CG does not agree? If the C.G. is not in agreement with the parents’ position why?