Partnership by Law? The Pre-Proceedings Process for Families on the Edge of Care Proceedings

Abstract

The pre-proceedings process was introduced in 2008 as part of the PLO reforms to care proceedings. Its aim was to divert cases of abuse and neglect from the courts, to ensure local authority applications were better prepared and to reduce the time courts took to decide these cases. Local authorities were required to write a ‘letter before proceedings’ to parents explaining their concerns and invite them to a ‘pre-proceedings meeting’ to discuss how proceedings could be avoided. Legal aid was made available so that parents could have advice and support at this meeting. About the Study: The study, conducted in 6 local authorities in England and Wales, examined the operation and impact of the process through analysing local authority case and court proceedings files (207); interviews with social work managers (16), social workers (19), local authority lawyers (16) and lawyers who represent parents (19); observations of pre-proceedings meetings (36), interviews with parents who attended them (24); and a focus group with judges. Observed cases were followed up 6-18 months after the meeting. The research provides an in depth account of the operation of the pre-proceedings process, including how the parents and professionals experienced it, and its effectiveness in achieving diversion from court and reducing delay for children. Key Points: • Use of the pre-proceedings process varies between local authorities. Those in the study used it in almost all cases where there was time to do so, around half of all cases where care proceedings were started. • A third of pre-proceedings cases involved pre-birth assessments. Meetings were used to agree assessments, services and /or alternative care. • Use of the process was supported by social workers and their managers who saw it as a more respectful way to work with families at risk of care proceedings. • Parents felt supported by having their lawyer at the pre-proceedings meeting; for some this helped them to engage with children’s services and improve care. • The pre-proceedings process did succeed in diverting cases from court. Based on the file sample, about a quarter of cases did not enter care proceedings; in a third of these children were protected by kin care or foster care; and in two-thirds by improvements in care at home. • Care proceedings were not shorter where the pre-proceedings process had been used. Courts did not appear to take particular account of this work. • The pre-proceedings process delayed decisions for children who entered care proceedings. Court applications were delayed by attempts to use the process and sometimes by failure to recognise family care was not improving.