Family Court Welfare Research Articles

Disability, abnormality and criminal law: sterilisation as lawful and ‘good’ violence

This article analyses the place of the intersections of the criminal law of assault and the Family Court's welfare jurisdiction in rendering Family Court authorised sterilisation of girls with intellectual disability a legally permissible form of violence. The article does this by examining court authorised sterilisation of girls with intellectual disability by reference to the concepts of ‘legal violence’ and ‘abnormality’. The article's central argument is that Family Court authorised sterilisation of girls with intellectual disability is a form of lawful and ‘good’ violence against abnormal legal subjects. Such girls are – by reason of their incapacity – positioned outside the group of ‘normal’ legal subjects of assault who have the capacity to decide to consent to contact with their otherwise ‘impermeable’ and legally sacrosanct bodies. As the girls with intellectual disability are deemed to constitute ‘abnormal’ legal subjects of assault, the lawfulness of the contact involved in the act of their sterilisation is not dependent on the consent of the girls themselves, but instead on the consent of their parents as authorised by the Family Court acting in its welfare jurisdiction. In the course of authorising parental consent to sterilisation, the Family Court not only renders an act of sterilisation ‘lawful violence’, but also ‘good violence’ through the characterisation of girls with intellectual disability as absolutely different to individuals without disability, and through the characterisation of the act in legal, familial and medical terms.

Rethinking Treatment for Children with Gender Dysphoria and the Family Court's Welfare Jurisdiction

The authorisation of treatment for children with gender dysphoria has been found, inappropriately, to fall within the Family Court of Australia’s welfare jurisdiction. For a particular medical treatment to attract the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction it must be found that the child is not competent to consent to the treatment themself and the treatment must fall within the ambit of what the Court has called a ‘special medical procedure’. The intent behind the exercise of the Court’s welfare jurisdiction is to safeguard the best interests of children.Contrary to previous decisions of the Court, treatment for gender dysphoria does not fall within the factors identified by the majority of the High Court in Marion’s Case as being indicative of a ‘special medical procedure’. The practical effects of this mistaken characterisation are, paradoxically, detrimental to children with gender dysphoria. In addition, the ability of mature children to authorise partially irreversible treatment for themselves has been unnecessarily complicated, and measures should be taken to clarify and standardise the law in this area.

CHILDREN, THE UNCRC, AND FAMILY LAW IN ENGLAND AND WALES

There is no doubt that, overall, there has been a great deal of activity in relation to children's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) since it was ratified by the UK government in 1991. Of particular significance in the context of family law, however, are the provisions of Article 12, which have in many ways proved to be more problematic than other provisions, not least because, in the context of family law, children's participation rights are necessarily juxtaposed with the long‐standing and hitherto unchallenged rights of parents to make important decisions about family life. The reorganisation in 2001 of the family court welfare services in England and Wales with the creation of the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), generated a new impetus for the consideration of children's participation rights and, at an organizational level, considerable progress has been made in embracing the provisions of the UNCRC. More problematic, however, is the acceptance of children's participation in making decisions about their futures by adults using and working in the family justice system. At the level of the courts, judicial attitudes are slow to change and in England, as court judgments often demonstrate, these are firmly rooted in a view of children as being incompetent in such issues; at the level of parents using the system, it is arguable that new discourses about the best interests of the child serve as a proxy for continuing discourses about parents’ rights that have become evident, most recently, in the context of an increasingly influential fathers’ rights lobby; and at the level of welfare practitioners, recent research also demonstrates that, although the rhetoric of children's rights is widely accepted, the willingness and ability to make these real in the context of family proceedings is, for a variety of reasons, less in evidence.

Families in Conflict: Perspectives of Children and Parents on the Family Court Welfare Service

Child & Family Social WorkVolume 7, Issue 2 p. 145-146 Families in Conflict: Perspectives of Children and Parents on the Family Court Welfare Service Ann Buchanan, Joan Hunt, Harriet Bretherton and Victoria Bream The Policy Press, Bristol, 1901, 114 pp. £16.99. ISBN 1 86134 333 7 Simon Arthur, Simon Arthur Norfolk CAFCASS Team ManagerSearch for more papers by this author Simon Arthur, Simon Arthur Norfolk CAFCASS Team ManagerSearch for more papers by this author First published: 24 November 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2206.2002.t01-4-00236.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume7, Issue2May 2002Pages 145-146 RelatedInformation

Reviews : Cornerstones: Anti-discriminatory Practice in Family Court Welfare Work Trigger Video and Workbook Inner London Probation Service, 1998; £65.00

Reviews : Cornerstones: Anti-discriminatory Practice in Family Court Welfare Work Trigger Video and Workbook Inner London Probation Service, 1998; £65.00

Understanding exceptionality: differing perceptions of the family assistance order

This paper discusses the findings of a research project (funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) which set out to explore the ways in which family assistance orders (Children Act 1989) are used in providing help to families after separation and divorce. The research findings are based upon extensive fieldwork with family court welfare teams and members of the judiciary in eight areas with varying rates of use of family assistance orders. In particular, the paper focuses on the notion of exceptionality (given that the orders may only be made in exceptional circumstances) and the different ways that this notion is conceptualized by the various professionals involved in the process of promoting the welfare of children after the separation of their parents. We highlight the difficulties of reaching a common understanding of exceptional circumstances and the issues and problems this raises in relation to those whose responsibility it is to safeguard the welfare of children.

Managing conflict: A psychodynamic approach to understanding court welfare practice

This article will attempt to explore some of the tensions, ambiguities and complexities of family court welfare practice, a relatively new and little-known area of social work activity, that has developed and expanded over a period of considerable social and political change. It explores how court welfare practice is affected by the organisational and institutional context in which it operates, particularly the tensions of being managed by the probation service, a large organisation with very different priorities and being accountable both to that organisation and the civil courts. One of the main sources of tension and conflict for welfare officers is that their work involves contact with people, adults and children, experiencing profound emotional distress whilst the organisational and institutional context in which they work is one where the emotional content of experience is, to a very large extent, denied and repressed. Another source of tension is coming face to face on a daily basis with families and individuals facing unbearable personal pain and acting on behalf of a system that, if it did not directly cause that pain, at least indirectly contributed to it by failing to address the social and economic deprivation that exacerbate family distress. Unless unfortunate enough to have been through a contested divorce or a legal dispute about the care of children, most people will not have heard of the family court welfare service, even less know what it actually does. Its job, briefly, is to investigate and assess conflicting applications to the civil courts regarding the care of children in the context of divorce and separation, to mediate between disputing parties and to advise the courts as to the arrangements suited to the 'best interests' of the children. Most disputes are between two parents, a mother and a father, but other interested relatives and carers of children can and do make applications.

Working On Another Canvas: The Future For Family Court Welfare Practice?

The forthcoming Green Paper is likely to herald profound changes in the organisation of the Family Court Welfare Service and in the day-to-day practice of Court Welfare Officers. In this article, Brian Cantwell takes an in-depth look at some of the best practice possibilities from the inevitable changes, and finds grounds for a degree of optimism about the future.

Dominant Stories, Reflecting Teams and Family Court "Welfare

George Ford describes a method of Family Court Welfare practice which combines ideas associated with narrative therapy with an alternative approach to co-working. He provides both a helpful conceptual framework and practical advice on effective practice through the use of 'reflecting teams'.

Whither Court Welfare- Past, Present Or Future?

The Family Court Welfare Service is on the verge of one of the most fundamental changes in its history. Alison Jones, Senior Family Court Welfare Officer in Inner London, traces the development of the Service over the last twenty years, arguing that notwithstanding the impact of external factors such as the Children Act, National Standards and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), practitioners have had a significant influence in shaping that change. Consequently, she urges that the experience of, and continuing dynamic debate amongst, family court welfare practitioners ought to be an integral part of the process of planning a quality service for the future.

What Works In Family Court Welfare

The concept of effective practice or 'what works' is normally applied to the Probation Service's criminal work. Gwynn Davis, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies in the Department of Law at the University of Bristol, explores the ways in which a 'what works' framework might be applied to family court welfare practice, cautioning against crude measurements of the impact of the court welfare officer's intervention.

Reviews : Family Court Welfare Inspection

Reviews : Family Court Welfare Inspection

Re-thinking Domestic Violence: Where Next in Family Court Welfare Practice?

In the last five years the Probation Service, like most social work agencies, has been developing policies and practice guidelines in belated response to the demands of domestic violence. From her perspective as a Family Court Welfare Officer in Greater Manchester, Anne Ashworth warns of the limitations of the dominant orthodoxy of radical feminism and argues for a less prescriptive, multi-dimensional analysis of the diversity and complexities of intimate relationships.

The Dynamics of Relationships in Family Court Welfare Practice

Rachel Pollard, formerly a court welfare officer with Greater Manchester Probation Service and now a Counsellor at the University of Manchester, argues that to ignore the admittedly unfashionable insights of psychoanalytic thinking serves to impoverish the theoretical base of court welfare practice in understanding the interaction between the welfare officer and family members.

The Curious Case of Co-Work in Family Court Welfare

Co-working, in its various forms, has been a feature of family court welfare work for many years. However, it has never become universally accepted by practitioners (or endorsed by their managers), as has been the case in group work and work with sex offenders. From his previous experience as a Senior Family Court Welfare Officer in Humberside and latterly as a trainer with the National Induction Programme, Brian Cantwell proposes that a firmer and more articulate commitment to the shared work ethic is needed if family court welfare practice is to develop, flourish and perhaps also compete successfully, in the belief that a culture of collective responsibility will become increasingly important in maintaining staff skill and confidence.

Lean and Mean: Public Protection in Westchester County

Having recently spent four months in the United States, with the opportunity to visit a number of correctional agencies, primarily the Westchester County Probation Department, Christine Sheppard, a probation officer with Norfolk Family Court Welfare Service, reports a number of innovations over there which may indicate the shape of things to come over here.

Children's wishes, children's burdens

Abstract The authors are both practising family court welfare officers of more than ten years' standing, who draw on their experience of reporting to courts in contested private law applications for s.8 orders under the Children Act 1989. Taking the guiding principles of the Act as their starting-point they seek to locate the child's place within such proceedings. They discuss the concept of parental responsibility and give their views on the responsibilities of the court, court welfare officer and legal representative, as well as reflecting upon the rights and responsibilities of the child within those interrelationships. Proposing that ascertaining the wishes and feelings of the child is ‘no simple matter’, Cantwell and Scott make detailed reference to their own case material. They also link their commentary to some of the research findings in relation to children whose parents' separation is conflictual

Domestic Violence, Children's Safety and Family Court Welfare Practice

Anne Ashworth, Court Welfare Officer with Greater Manchester Probation Service, reviews contemporary research findings about the impact of partner violence on family life, with powerful implications for safeguarding the welfare of children in private family law proceedings following parental separation.

Listening to Children

Brian Cantwell, Senior Family Court Welfare Officer in Humberside, and Liz Trinder, Research and Development Officer with Save the Children North and East Division in Hull, report the initial findings of their recent research survey of court welfare work. The Children Act's requirement upon courts to have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child in contested applications has clearly places renewed practitioner emphasis on ascertaining children's wishes, but there remains considerable variation in interpretation of 'good practice'.

Reviews : The Criminal Process UEA Social Work Law File, 1991; £6.95 pbk Family Court Welfare Law UEA Centre for Family Law and Family Policy, 1991; £6 pbk

Reviews : The Criminal Process UEA Social Work Law File, 1991; £6.95 pbk Family Court Welfare Law UEA Centre for Family Law and Family Policy, 1991; £6 pbk