1. Family Justice Board Seminar 22 February 2017
Serious Case Reviews
Jane Booth, LSCB Chair

2. Statutory requirement
Serious Case Review must be considered(see page 75 of Working Together) for every case where abuse or neglect is known or suspected and either :
A child dies; or
A child is seriously harmed and there are concerns about how organisations or professionals worked together to safeguard the child;

3. Additionally
“Seriously harmed” includes, but is not limited to, cases where the child has sustained, as a result of abuse or neglect, any or all of the following:
a potentially life-threatening injury;
serious and/or likely long-term impairment of physical or mental health or physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development.
This definition is not exhaustive. In addition, even if a child recovers, this does not mean that serious harm cannot have occurred. LSCBs should ensure that their considerations on whether serious harm has occurred are informed by available research evidence.

4. Must do’s Cases which meet one of the criteria require an SCR.
Consideration where the child died by suspected suicide.
Concerns about inter-agency working – unless no concerns.
Even if one of the criteria is not met SCR required when a child dies in custody, in police custody, on remand or following sentencing, in a Young Offender Institution, in a secure training centre or a secure children’s home.
Where a child dies who was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 or where a child aged 16 or 17 was the subject of a deprivation of liberty order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

5. Decision making SCR sub-group recommends to Chair
Decision rests with the LSCB Chair
Peer consultation scheme
National advisory panel
A decision should normally be made within one month of notification of the incident

6. National Panel of Independent Experts on Serious Case Reviews
Boards are expected to have regard to the panel’s advice on:
Application of the Serious Case Review criteria: whether or not to initiate a Serious Case Review;
Appointment of reviewers;
Publication of Serious Case Review reports.
LSCB Chairs and LSCB members should comply with requests from the panel as far as possible, including requests for information such as copies of reports and invitations to attend meetings. However the decision remains with the Board Chair.

7. Publication and national repository
Expectation of publication via LSCB website and accessible for one year.
National repository held by the NSPCC and can be searched by area or by theme or date.
NSPCC Library will provide analysis and information on request
Sometimes only published via NSPCC to avoid identification of victim
Completion or publication often delayed by parallel proceedings

8. Methodologies Guidance changed in 2014
SCIE recommended methodology/ Welsh government model
No Management Reviews
Brief chronologies
Family engagement
Practitioner engagement

9. Local picture
Bolton – 1 Manchester – 7 (2) Oldham – 3 Rochdale – 2 (1) Salford – 1 Stockport – 5 Tameside – 2 Trafford – 3 Wigan – 1 Bury - 0

10. Cases involving family proceedings
None in GM but two in recent past in North West:
Child N - Long-standing private law dispute re residence and contact; Residence awarded to father and contact to mother; Mother failed to return child but ordered to do so; Killed child and self.
Child O - Father sought contact with child following separation; Mother and child disappeared from public view; Father raised concerns re safety of child; Mother found and disappeared again – killed child and self.

11. Reflections from the Judiciary
“… for constitutional reasons it is not appropriate for the judiciary to participate in serious case reviews … the principal of judicial independence prevents Judges from participating in a review conducted by a government or local authority agency, which is often based on non-disclosable confidential information, and which deals with wider issues
……….. but

12. Judicial interest
In both cases there was a helpful response from the Judges in the cases.
Judge in Child N revisited the papers and gave advice re application for access to papers;
Judge in Child O also went through the files – very little of relevance due to lack of engagement but reflected on process and problems when child missing in the UK

13. Child N
August 2009 – eight days after Child N was born the father applied for a Residence Order but which resulted in the mother being granted a Residence Order and the father being granted a Contact Order.
September 2012 – Liverpool Children’s Services were granted Interim Care Orders on Child N and Half Sibling 1 due to concerns about their safety and welfare. Private and Public law applications were consolidated. The Court determined that the care of Child N should be transferred to the father and a Residence Order was granted to him in January 2013 and the mother was granted a Contact Order. A Family Assistance Order was also granted to Liverpool Children’s Services.
October 2013 – Child N’s mother made a further application to Court as contact arrangements had broken down.
April 2014 – Child N’s mother applied for a Child Arrangements Order.

14. Child O
Application to the Family Court for contact by Father.
Family Proceedings Court, first hearing. Mother did not attend, adjourned for further safeguarding checks and listed for a Review Hearing in November.
Proceedings transferred to Plymouth County Court.
Family Court Hearing (County Court): Court informed that Child O now registered as missing. Prohibited Steps Order made to prevent the mother leaving the Country. Order for DWP6 to provide the mother’s address.

15. Child O continued
Family Court Hearing (County Court)- mother did not attend and a further hearing listed for January.
Family Court Hearing. (County Court): An address for the mother had been provided by the DWP. Section 7 report ordered from Cafcass. The address provided was her address in Devon, at which she was no longer living.
Cafcass file the Section 7 report with the Court. Attempts to contact Mother had been unsuccessful.
Family Court (County Court): Child O made a Party to proceedings and the Cafcass officer appointed as the Children’s Guardian. Case adjourned to be heard by a Circuit Judge on

16. Issues Non-engagement resulting in delayed assessment of risk
Finding the family is not the same as securing engagement
Complexity where allegations are made by both parties
Enforcement of orders

17. The future Children and Social work Bill Other changes
Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews
Determination of significance – local or national
Regulation of review authors
Other changes
Establishment of Local Safeguarding Partnership (demise of LSCB as we know it)
Changes to CDOP arrangements