Children's hearings redesign

• Continue with the principles of ‘needs not deeds’ in line with the Kilbrandon Report to underpin a redesigned hearing system.
• Independent decision-making
• Wellbeing of the child drives decisions
• Inquisitorial approach
• Voice of the infant, child, young person is at the heart of all decision making.
• Inclusion of advocacy
• Trauma informed lens adopted within the hearing room, with trauma informed principles adopted (safety both emotional and physical, choice, trust, collaboration and empowerment)
Incorporating principles in legislation could assist in promoting/building an understanding the role of the children’s panel, to professionals, families and the wider community

• To be honest the principles should be built in without requiring to be in legislation however this could then be inline with UNCRC enshrined in law.

'control' 'treatment'
• We are aware of the tensions between making the language accessible to all while ensuring that it had sufficient legal precision. All in favour of clarifying and simplifying the language.
• Need more thought around terms like guidance and support fitting with the need for compulsion. Control is a highly emotive term but it does sit with the child being a risk to themselves or others.
• The use of SHANARRI indicators would be understandable to professionals involved with the child, possibly also to families. They could be used to unpack the grounds to give a more accessible statement.
• Language within the grounds creates barriers and needs to be more simplified and accessible as per proposal.

Yes, agree that the proposed amended referral criteria including: the child or yp is in need of safety, protection, care, guidance and support is appropriate. By adding in the term support this may in fact have an impact of bringing more children and young people into the hearing system.

• Language that is understandable will not create or compound stigma.

• An increase of the number of children/young people referred due to the addition of the support term.

• Careful consideration required.

• likely to be needed rather than might be necessary provides more of an indication of the exact detail for the referral test and what is required

• There is a case for “screening” of potential relevant persons to be done by the Reporter in advance of the hearing, Discuss of Relevant person status can slow down the conduct of a hearing and get in the way of the main business. However, it is essential that participants have the opportunity to express their views on designating someone a relevant person.
• There is the need for clarity on whose responsibility it is to gather information about those involved in the child’s life. Legislation could assist with this – but also mindful of potential workload burden on whoever is doing it. Need to avoid risk of slowing down referral process.
• There is the additional class of persons at the moment, those with “sibling-like” involvement in the child’s life. It is not widely understood or used, and seems to be a workload issue also. Would one, wider category be simpler?

• This is currently included within 1995 act and 2011 with regards to non birth parents. However, PPR could be further explored.

• It would be good to expand this to perhaps given specific circumstances when those with PPR who have not made an legal efforts to be involved in their child/young persons care particularly if a young person has the view that their information should not be shared with this adult.

Advantages
• This would ensure relevant persons are fully aware and informed prior to the hearing.

Disadvantages
• Keeping the child/young person at the centre rather than becoming about the adults.

• This would not be necessary as robust systems are in place to obtain referral information, education, wellbeing assessments inclusive of those involved in the child’s life inc 3rd sector, advocacy…

Advantages
• This may be beneficial to the wellbeing of the child or young person (someone important to that child/young person who knows them well)

• None identified

• While we should always promote the voice and participation of young people at their hearings there are times where they experience high levels of anxiety. Young people are entitled to advocacy workers to ensure decisions are understood and their voices are heard. Young people are also encouraged to complete our digital app to include their views regarding meetings and hearings.
• Fully understand the move towards removing mandatory attendance for children and young people as attendance is low currently.
• The risk however then is that the child’s voice is only heard in a filtered or mediated way. This relates to more robust provision of advocacy
• The requirement to attend on offence ground is overseen through Kilbrandon principles.

Not required

• Advocacy to be in place for young people going to hearings
• Any decisions sent out to young people be in a format that is easily understood
• Highlight the use of technology and if young person would like to attend virtually.
• Opportunities to meet with Reporter

• Wellbeing assessments will cover views/observations of baby/infant
• Non-instructed advocacy could be used for babies and infants
• Depending on maturity for young children advocacy can always be utilised
• Health visitors look at attachment/behaviours

• Advocacy should be flexible and offered at anytime to ensure an independent view point.
• Chair offers advocacy at each hearing, we don’t need a constant reminder
• The take-up and impact of advocacy is highly variable and the term “offer” could be replaced by “promotion” to make explicit the need to present the benefits and opportunities arising from advocacy. Linking the child to advocacy could be made at the point where the need for a hearing is identified.
• Advocacy can be provided for very young children, where advocacy worker set out the child’s rights and needs.

• Rights of parents overarching rights of the infant/child
• Children’s voice should be paramount, ensuring advocacy is in place if possible
• Non instructed advocacy can be utilised
• Non instructed advocacy can be utilised
• UNCRC should be central
• Reinforce the importance of advocacy/schools being part of the hearing
• Earlier provision of advocacy promotes relationship building and trust

• Yes, so full services are aware of situation
• Advocacy and social work can work together to support
• There are still a number of people who do not understand the advocacy role and advocacy are best placed to explain this.

• Social Work Wellbeing should cover the offer of advocacy and the child’s views
• Report should be clear on this.
• Advocacy serves can assist at this stage but not from a best interest model
• Social Work Wellbeing is multi agency at present and covers these views, social work reports and good practice will ensure this is done.

• There is no clear benefit to this. If a child or young person is aware of ground more than 7 days in advance, this could increase anxiety and affect emotional wellbeing.

• This change can increase, could cause an increase in hearing deferrals. We know there can be a challenge in panel members receiving papers with SW reports with 3 days notice. This may cause a further stress on capacity of SW.

• Families and young people require more information around the Children’s Hearing System and the purpose of their grounds hearing in advance of the hearing. This could be partially due to language used throughout grounds of their case or their lack of knowledge around the purpose of CHS.
• Being at a Grounds Hearing must often be an horrific experience for child and family. It can seem like a charge sheet being read out and it has to be questioned how much of the language is understood. The hearing is a legal tribunal, however informally it is conducted, and it is taking very significant decisions.
• There would be benefits of having continuity of language between the hearing and other interventions in the life of the child and family, and the use of SHANARRI would support this. The focus on the child’s wellbeing and where that was being undermined or threatened would also be positive. The consultation document mentions “conduct” and I’m not sure “Safe” in the indicators would cover that sufficiently.
• It is more of an operational issue but the reading of the grounds, complete with reference to the sections of the Act. There should be an exploration of how the grounds can be presented in a less accusatory fashion, whilst retaining a clear statement of why compulsion is believed to be required.
• That would put an additional onus on the hearing chair.

• Grounds hearings are not always effective. When grounds are sent to court for proof it may be more productive for grounds to be established legally ahead of the first hearing. The panel can then be responsible for discharging the grounds or creating CSO.

Further discussion would be required in relation to how this is carried out.

Further discussion around both

• Dilution of social work and advocacy role
• Risk of reporter changing
• For the children this is yet another adult in their life
• Possible delays as reporter has increased workload
• Repetitive information from multi agency
• Where does this happen, requests to attend office will cause stress from some families
• Potential confusion explaining decisions
• Legal reps also involved explaining things differently
• SCRA demand causing new referrals to be delayed and putting children at risk

• Reduction in court time

Further discussion required

Not necessarily.

• Remain as they are.

• Remain as they are

• Further discussion required

• Further discussion required

If parent or parents have understood the groups and indeed accepted these there should not be a requirement of these being referred to the Sheriff. Parents can be reminded of the importance of keeping their children at the heart of every decision.

• Could be longer

Further discussion required

• Further discussion required.

• Further discussion required.

• Early intervention and early discussion is in the best interests of baby in utero and once born.

• Early intervention and inclusion of SCRA at pre-birth stage

Further discussion required, Difficult to agree given multi agency.

• This has been a feature of our discussions as a steering group for some time and very much the view of our young people also to provide them reassurance regarding what to expect.

This needs to be an informal meeting.

It should be clear to young people and their families what is going to happen and when

This could lead to disappointed young people if the timescale would change. Panel members could not dictate appropriate assessments periods etc.

• Almost 100% of referrals should be offering current timescales

• Can’t perceive any benefit to children and families

We feel there need to be robust guidelines to ensure consistently across all panel chairs

Any enhancements that would allow more inquisitive and curious questioning to take place

However, written would be the best method and consideration would be required around how this is stored.

• Future panels would have further information/transcript of previous hearings (if transcript, audio recording would be needed
• Panel training

Yes re summaries – jargon is confusing and we should have a story format for young children.
It is a very positive idea but may prove complex to implement. One of our members has been involved in trying it elsewhere, and it eventually just fell away. Issues of who was to do it, with resulting implications for workload and the ability to complete the summary in a reasonable timescale; age-appropriate language used in each case; ensuring that the summary accurately and fully reflected the decisions made.

It may be one of those where, although it is contained in legislation, its implementation is trialled before being rolled out nationally.

• Difficult family members can removed the child centred focus
• DPA issues, do the children want everyone involved
• Risk – Some children do not understand the risk involved with some family members
• Conflict of orders – CSO for some siblings not able to fulfil as siblings are adopted having family time/contact removed
• Competing rights of siblings
• Individual merit on each case due to complex family dynamics

• Ideally this would be completed before going to a panel, however deferring could prevent compulsory measures and return to panel.

• If SWS had an option to request more time for FGDM/restorative that would be supportive for families

• Less pressure on families, young people, SWS to attend every 3 weeks
• Would give more time for in-depth assessment and time for changes

• Concerned it could decrease priority in assessment due to caseloads of SWS
• The current time limit can add to the stress placed upon children and families. One option would be to extend the maximum time limit for ICSOs but enable a hearing to set an earlier date if they saw a case for doing so.
• I don’t see any benefit in ICSOs being determined by a single panel member. As earlier, it’s a similar form of decision to others and having it taken by one panel member risks undermining the principles of the system.

• Maximum – 12 weeks, based on individual circumstances and risk management and availability of appropriate interventions.

• Responsibility should not be placed on one person due to the range of complexities within an ICSO decision

• Where measures are seen to have been working, and there is clearly buy-in from families and others it may not be needed.

However,

• Young persons voice needs to be central. Transitions need to be mapped out and move at young persons pace.

Further discussion required

• Already reviewed very regularly.

• Storing of recordings of hearings would require consideration

Further discussion required

Further discussion required

Further discussion required