1. Interim findings from the Coventry and Warwickshire Pre-proceedings Pilot. Dr Karen Broadhurst and Paula Doherty, Lancaster University. Kim Holt and Dr Nancy Kelly, Bradford University. Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

2. The Family Court Advisor joins pre-proceedings when a decision is taken to issue a LBP  Visit children and families  Review records  Attend and input to PPM  Hold case discussions, before and after PPM  Produce short written case analysis Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

3. 1. Independent representation for the child:  parents and the LA are entitled to representation  the threshold is in principle met  concern re drift in interim s.20 placements 2. Sharing the Family Court Advisor’s expertise:  ‘poor or late assessments can lead to delayed or re- scheduled hearings... result in courts commissioning evidence-gathering elsewhere’- FJR, 2011  Long-standing suggestion that the expertise of the Family Court Advisor should feed into mainstream practice (e.g. Hunt et al., 1999) Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

4.  Public Law Outline requires earlier written/oral evidence from the Family Court Advisor – emphasising a stronger advisory/analytic role  An early process evaluation of the PLO (Jessiman et al., 20o9) suggested that the timing of the Family Court Advisor’s input should be reviewed  Further direction of change with the Family Justice Review and the Family Justice Modernisation Programme. Mr Justice Ryder: judiciary should be able to identify cases that will take a ‘standard’ 26 week pathway at the first contested ICO hearing.  Emphasis within the Family Justice Review on closer collaboration between stakeholders Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

5.  Project aimed to recruit 30 Cafcass Plus cases and to compare the quality of assessment/progress of these cases in regard to 30 comparator cases (quasi experimental design, transparency, rigour).  Comparator cases also enable research team to establish ‘typicality’ of the cases  Implementation issues – slow recruitment of Cafcass Plus cases, 27 cases recruited by December 2011.  Evaluation C&W extended to enable the tracking of cases until February 2013. Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

6. Total Sample Care Proceedings Issued Care Proceedings pending or Likely ‘In pre- proceedings assessment’ Closed to pre- proceedings Coventry Cafcass Plus 144352 Coventry Comparator Cases 155 X X X Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

7. Total Sample Care Proceedings Issued Care proceedings pending or likely In pre- proceedings assessment Closed to pre- proceedings Warwick Cafcass Plus 133190 Warwick Comparator Cases 1510XX X Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

8.  May 2011- Feb 2012 (stage 1, pre-proceedings impact)  Feb 2012, Feb 2013 (stage 2 tracking) Stage 1  What is the reported impact in pre-proceedings from the perspective of case holding social workers, social work managers, LA and parents’ lawyers and the Family Court Advisors?  Interviews (55) and file analysis Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

9. Types of positive impacts reported:  Improvement in social work pre-proceedings assessment  Change in parenting behaviour re engagement  General management of the PPM  Head-start for the Family Court Advisor  Single stakeholder (positive)  Multiple stakeholder (strong positive)  Negligible  Negative Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

10.  We were able to review 20/27 cases in detail.  Positive impact was recorded in 15/20 cases  In 12/15 cases that impact was agreed (multiple stakeholders)  In 3/15 cases, that impact was cited by a single stakeholder only (FCA)  In 4/20 cases –negligible  In 1/20 cases- negative Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

11.  I certainly feel that the positive impact of the Guardian stimulated change and so far, that change is being sustained, albeit with us keeping a close watch on the situation  SW in diverted case  I have done a few PPMs with the Guardian present and found it very helpful. The G is in a position to put the perspective of the child from an independent perspective…in one case…the mother listened to the Guardian  Legal rep Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

12.  I felt with all the cases, if any of them went into proceedings it would give me a really big head start…I know what has gone on…I have really got a grip of it…you have got an accurate picture and a great starting point if they go into proceedings.  FCA  In a follow up interview this FCA reported that her views had been confirmed when one of his/her cases went into court. Paperwork had been seen and parents had been visited prior to issuing of care proceedings and the FCA felt more decisive in giving evidence at the first court hearing Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

13. Type of ImpactEvidenceNotes Head -start UnequivocalConfirmed by FCA’s experience in court where cases have progressed - Management of the PPM & parental engagement ConsistentFCA’s independence and ‘mediating’ skills Improving pre-proceedings assessment/narrowing issues Mixed Sharing Expertise vs duplication Advice re specialist assessments couldn’t always be followed because of cost issues for LAs/fear of duplication once case gets to court Negligible/negative impactMinority Window between the LBP and PPM can be very short parental consent Variable FCA involvement Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

14.  Judge is only as good as the evidence he/she is presented with  Dependent on effective advocacy outside the court room  Overwhelming consensus from the FCAs that the ‘head-start’ model would better enable them to advocate for the child. Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

15.  Guardian just one ‘cog’ in the Family Justice System  Now need to track cases as more go into court and compare with the comparator sample  New pilot to start in Liverpool which will address some of the implementation issues  Broader learning resulted from the pilot and improvement in relationships, whether model continues or not. Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012

16.  Stage 1 report available from the Child Welfare Research Unit at Lancaster University and Cafcass web-site. http://www.cafcass.gov.uk/pdf/Interim%20pre- proceedings%20report%20April%202012.pdf  Debating article – Family Law Week (Wed 18 th of April) Action for Children. Family Justice Review Workshops. Leeds June 19th 2012