We are pleased to share this series of blogs on pre-proceedings, delving into the critical aspects of managing and supporting families within the Public Law Outline (PLO) process.
The first blog, 'Approaching the threshold for proceedings - can we avoid getting there?' explores early intervention models such as Early Help, multi-disciplinary formulation, and the Family Safeguarding Model, which aim to prevent families from reaching the threshold for pre-proceedings. This second post emphasises how using the pre-proceedings period effectively to gather evidence and support families, can increase the chances of diverting them from court whenever possible. The third blog, 'This is not the end’ – Assessments and Support in Pre-Proceedings', highlights the value of dynamic assessments and the potential role of the Family Drug and Alcohol Courts model (FDAC) in providing tailored interventions that can prevent families from entering care proceedings. All three underscore how proactive, collaborative, and supportive approaches in pre-proceedings achieve better outcomes for children and families - and give practical examples of how to implement them.
When a family meets the threshold for pre-proceedings, a view from the outside might assume that entering this process means that a smooth court proceeding is in some way “the goal”. There is a perception that all the evidence that is gathered, the assessments that are completed, the statements that are written – must be thoroughly prepared in order to make the court process as smooth as possible.
A number of factors (lack of time and resource, difficulties contacting family members, slow turnaround time for assessments, the list goes on) can often make it feel as though triggering pre-proceedings is failing in some way, or that ending up in court is inevitable or unavoidable – and despite the period of pre-proceedings to gather further evidence, the right puzzle pieces may still not be in place. But getting through court proceedings painlessly isn’t the goal at all - using the evidence gathered, and process by which it is gathered, to divert away from court is.
In the previous blog, we highlighted that early help and intervention does not mean that all families should be prevented from entering pre-proceedings, as there will always be times where this is the necessary step to take. The same is true of entering pre-proceedings, in that some families should still proceed to court. However, pre-proceedings still remains a critical pathway for resolving as many issues as possible before reaching court.
So what can local authorities do to make use of the pre-proceedings period more effectively? There are three separate areas to address: the systemic issues that lead to ‘case drift’, how practice can provide families and children with the support and interventions they need, and what can be done to make the process clear and accessible.
Assessments also form a key part of this process, but we will address this in our follow-up piece: ‘This is not the end’ - Assessments and Support in Pre-Proceedings.
Effective tracking and planning
The first critical factor starts before pre-proceedings has been triggered, and comes down to effective tracking throughout a family when pre-proceedings commences. LAs need the right systems and procedures in place to know where a family in pre-proceedings is up to. Many LAs do routinely track and review pre-proceedings so that social workers and managers can see what needs to happen when, and learnings from Ofsted inspections suggest this strong management oversight could reduce drift and delay in families’ cases.
However, this is not always a consistent picture, and there can be a mismatch of expectations about what has been done and when – and so it is essential that there are clear protocols between partners, and detailed plans for how the 12-16 weeks will be spent, including clearly-defined trigger points that all agencies sign up to and follow, and regular reviews to ensure progress is being made.
These are some of the key features in Swansea’s redefined pre-proceedings process, which previously suffered from a high number of families coming into proceedings, poor preparation of cases and crisis responses to families.
There are now:
Clear trigger points for a legal planning meeting (also known as a legal strategy meeting or legal gateway meeting);
All paperwork is submitted and reviewed by the Lawyer and Service Manager from social workers in advance (and if the papers are late, the meeting is adjourned);
Lawyers at the legal planning meeting play the role of a ‘critical friend’ to social workers to clarify their concerns, scrutinise interventions that have already been offered, and help social workers to be as clear as possible about the evidence which establishes significant harm or likely significant harm;
The legal planning meeting considers what has been provided to the family to meet their needs so far and what else could be provided. Social workers also bring a genogram to the meeting to discuss contact with the wider family; and
Following the legal planning meeting, a detailed plan is developed and the case returns within 12 weeks for review. If a decision is taken to start pre-proceedings, all parties focus on making sure the plan and the expectations are clear to both the parents and the social workers.
Ultimately, this approach meant that the number of proceedings issued stopped rising, fewer people were making decisions, there was more consistency and less drift in the process and better communication between partners.
Share decision-making with the family
The pre-proceedings period also offers a valuable window to work intensively and directly with families outside of court. In particular, engaging families in shared decision-making processes to address complex familial issues can resolve issues and avoid care proceedings. Shared decision-making meetings, when done well, have been proven to make a huge impact on whether a family needs to continue to court or can be de-escalated. Research by Coram and Foundations, involving more than 2,500 children across 21 local authorities in England, found that children whose families who were supported through a Family Group Conference (FGCs) referral were less likely to go into care than those who were not: 36.2% went into care, compared to 44.8% children whose families were not referred for FGCs. The study also found that families referred for FGCs were less likely to have court proceedings issued – by the end of the study, 59% of children referred for FGCs had care proceedings issued, compared with 72% of children whose families were not referred.
Along with FGCs, there are several similar models that will be familiar to most (such as Family Group Decision-Making, Family Unity Meetings, ‘Thinking Together’ meetings). What Works for Children’s Social Care guidance outlines three core non-negotiables that any model must follow to improve its chances of success. Any shared decision-making model should:
Allow space for collaboration and engagement;
Create an environment that builds trust and reduces shame; and
Make sure that family and children can fully participate in the decision-making.
Make the process clear and accessible
Clear communication is vital in ensuring that families understand the pre-proceedings process and what is expected of them; however, it is also just as important that the children involved receive the same right, as there have long been concerns how the views of children are represented in pre-proceedings.
This is not just about the language used in the Letter Before Proceedings; which as a baseline should be clear about the necessary changes needed, the expectations for the parents and the support available – it can go further than this.
Accessibility also means considering the support that the families and children need, and how easy it is for them to reach. Recent research by Pause has indicated that many families are prescribed particular therapies or support systems that are based so far outside of their local area that they cannot meet this expectation, which sets them up to fail as pre-proceedings comes to an end. Support must be targeted, but it can – and should, where appropriate – be based in the local community.
And most importantly, accessibility is about using the pre-proceedings process to speak with children directly and to understand their feelings during a process that ultimately concerns them most of all.
In short, it is still possible to make meaningful changes throughout the pre-proceedings period. While current data regarding diversion during pre-proceedings is not yet fully consistent (research suggests that it could be as low as 12% in some areas, and as high as 40% in others), strong rates of diversion in some areas mean that this approach could continue to provide improved outcomes for children and families. And even when court is the only option, a rigorous pre-proceedings approach will lead to a case that is already well-evidenced, supported by all partners, and understood by the family.
If you would like to discuss the Trailblazers programme further, please get in touch with morgan.nasir-finlayson@mutualventures.co.uk
Comments