Written Evidence from Cafcass (CWS0007)
Education Committee
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
a) As currently drafted, the Bill puts the requirement to have a FGDM meeting at the point where the letter of pre–proceedings is about to be issued. This is a crisis point for families and the local authority and is not the best time to be seeking alternatives to the removal of children. In addition, for very young babies or children, time will be of the essence and delaying for a meeting that will be hard to set up is not advised given the risk this will present to young children who need to be in stable attachments. Additionally, in the case of children still at home living with risk and harm, to delay further at this point where the local authority is so concerned as to be about to issue proceedings, delay at this time could cause further harm. To this end, Jacky Tiotto suggested that the meeting be convened at the point where the formal child protection arrangements for the children are failing to address the harm and risk of further harm to the child/ren. At this point, the local authority is still working consensually with the family, and it would be reasonable to hold a FGDM at that point, rather than after the threshold for legal action has been crossed and the protection and welfare of the child are paramount to resolve within a clear timescale set down in the public law outline.
In the event that proceedings are issued and an FGDM has been held at an earlier stage than is currently proposed, family network members will already be identified, and this may be helpful in reducing potential delays which are often attributed to the late identification of family and friends as carers for children in public law proceedings.
b) If this were achieved, then the local authority in normal circumstances (other than in an emergency removal to police protection or similar short notice – in which case it is unlikely that a FGDM would be viable), would be able to convene a child protection conference with an associated FGDM. It is possible there could be a two-part meeting where the child protection conference core group members can set down the risks that continue for the child/ren and what needs to happen for them to be protected. They should in our view also have secured through the social worker, the views of the child (or if very young/without speech – the carer on their behalf) before this meeting.
Then for the second part (called the FGDM), the family network could be invited to attend to consider alternatives and to consider what protection could be put in place for the child/ren. This would be the Family network influencing the child protection plan, setting out the care and protection they can and will offer as well as the local authority being clear about alternatives if the harm or risk of harm continues – i.e. that PLO will start. This would also be an opportunity for the local authority to
advise that the family seek legal advice about what is available by way of options – it ISN’T the same as the letter before proceedings which entitles formal legal aid to start.
c) In cases where domestic abuse is the main, or one of the main, risks for the child/ren, there will have already have to have been local consideration and discussions with the perpetrator and the victim child/ren and adult about attendance and safety at all meetings. For example, the perpetrator may be spoken to by the conference members alone, by the social worker alone or with a manager (or in combination). The perpetrator may not be permitted to attend at all, but local authorities do this work every day and in our view nothing additional needs to be drafted into guidance regarding exemptions for FGDMs where domestic abuse is a, or is the, key concern. The provision of FGDM for families where domestic abuse is a risk to children, is an opportunity to set down in ‘Working Together’ statutory guidance that the local authority should make sure their own guidance and practice accommodates the protection of child and adult victims.
d) What is important is that separation from the perpetrator must not be considered to be protective for the child or adult victims and the same risks as would have been considered had the adults not separated must be factored into the provisions for the FGDM. The perpetrator will have a view/possibly an entitlement (if they are the birth parent) to give a view, and it must be taken but this needs to be assessed and does not need to be through physical representation at the FGDM.
e) The provision to involve/inform the IDVA or MARAC chair and to take their views will be an important consideration for the FGDM.
f) There is however the key and fundamental point about parental responsibility where the FGDM is being considered in public law proceedings. Regardless of their abuse or otherwise, the birth parent if they are the perpetrator of domestic abuse will have and will retain parental responsibility (in the case of unmarried parents, for the father if he is named on the birth certificate) for the child. This is what needs to be explained and considered in the FGDM space since the perpetrator will have a right to be informed about the child protection plan and the actions of the local authority, including the provision of a FGDM meeting. This in our view is what needs careful drafting into guidance/regulation so as not to fall foul of the legal provisions of parental responsibility where this is relevant.
g) For adult perpetrators who are not the birth parent of the child/ren but who are living with a parent who is the birth parent and does have parental responsibility, the logistics of the FGDM regarding this responsibility and the risk of harm or further harm to the child will be relevant and important. Again, the local authority will not be condoning an adult with a history of known or reported violence to be in meetings with victims of domestic abuse and family members. This however is not about exemptions; it is about safe enactment of the FGDM and proper consideration about how the birth parents/other adult carers who present and are a risk to the child are to be considered and informed but through arrangements that are safe for the child and adult victims.
h) In respect of the new kinship considerations, where the FGDM is offered and the outcome is to pursue a child arrangements order (with or without special guardianship) in private law proceedings, then Cafcass would have to follow the same provisions for protecting the child and adult victims as had been put in place by the local authority. This is something that needs consideration in guidance given that it is a likely outcome in a significant number of cases where an FGDM is offered and the family members step in to become protective carers for the child/ren.
i) We would ask the committee in addition to consider that whilst the concerns expressed about adult and child victims being further abused/traumatised by the presence of a perpetrator (known or alleged) at an FGDM are real and important, the local authority and Cafcass would have to be convinced that any family members coming forward to care for and protect the child/ren could do so if approached by/coerced by/threatened by the perpetrator. Therefore, the arrangements agreed at the FGDM must absolutely address the known, existing and potential risks of harm or further harm and will have to be drafted into the plan for the child/ren. This is as important as the protective arrangements for the meeting itself in respect of the future protection for the child. In addition, it is our view, that regardless of the outcome of the FGDM or whether it takes place earlier than the current Bill proposes , the child protection arrangements for the child/ren must formally remain in place and be monitored closely by the local authority as part of the care and protection plan for the child and until such time as there is a court outcome or otherwise. This must be drafted into the revisions to Working Together statutory guidance in our view.
February 2025