Children's hearings redesign: consultation analysis

The Children’s Panel and Children’s Hearings

A redesigned Children’s Panel

Question 50: Do you believe the Children’s Panel element of the Children’s Hearings System should retain the unpaid lay volunteer model in whole or in part?

• 57% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 64% said “Yes” and 36% said “No”.

Question 51: Would you support some measure of payment for panel members, over and above the current system of expenses, in return for the introduction of new and updated expectations?

• 51% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 74% said “Yes” and 26% said “No”.

Question 52: Do you have any views on the introduction of new roles into the Children’s Panel?

• 31 respondents selected “Paid chair”.
• 27 respondents selected “Paid specialist panel member - possibly including care-experience”.
• 27 respondents selected “Paid panel member”.
• 21 respondents selected “Volunteer panel member”.

Respondents had mixed views on this topic, especially in relation to the payment of panel members. Some rejected entirely the proposal to introduce new roles or make changes to existing roles in the context of the hearings system. Many were torn between their belief in the principle of the volunteer model and the issues currently facing the system in terms of panel member recruitment, retention, and the expertise needed to tackle complex cases.

Paid chairs

Although respondents highlighted the importance of the original voluntary ethos of the panel system, many acknowledged that given the increased complexity of the role of chairperson, the number of cases, and the additional workload and responsibility demanded by the role of chair in comparison to other panel members, it may be beneficial to introduce payment (beyond expenses alone) for the chair:

• “Not everyone wants to chair. There is so much work involved, and responsibility and I do think chairs should get paid but not make it compulsory [to] go for chair training” [R11, CH Org].
• “The role of chair is a complex one that requires specific skills and experience, this might be enhanced if the role was paid.” [R30, LA/SW Org].
• “Consideration could be given to a paid chairperson which would create a blended approach to how the panel system incorporates both volunteers and paid members” [R31, LA/SW Org].
• “The voluntary element of Children’s Hearings has been a valuable principle but as time has moved on, issues are complex and panel members can be difficult to recruit, and competent chairs are essential, there may be room for the chair to be paid, this role could also include particular training or expertise” [R34, LA/SW Org].

Paid specialist panel members (care experience)

Although respondents generally felt positive about the idea of introducing panel members with care experience, not all respondents agreed with the proposal that they should be paid or that they should be considered “specialists”. Some respondents advocated the retention of the current volunteer model, albeit with the addition of certain paid specialists, which could include those with care experience. Some said that including those with care experience on panels would go some way to alleviate the perceived “disconnect” between the lives of most panel members and those of children and families in the hearings system. One respondent (who did not support the idea of paid panel members or chairs) commented that “effort should be put towards identifying and removing barriers to [people with care experience] applying for, and being recruited as, panel members” [R74, U/O Org], but in a voluntary capacity – not as a paid specialist. Another respondent who was sceptical of the idea of paying some panel members and not others agreed that care experienced people should be supported to become panel members and warned that “the assumption that care experienced people are less likely to volunteer their time” [R96, LA/SW Org] should be avoided.

Panel members (paid and voluntary)

There was little agreement across the responses to this question in relation to whether or not panel members should be paid. Those who disagreed with the idea of paying panel members stressed the importance of the voluntary nature of the role and the original ethos of the hearings system more generally, raising concerns that paying panel members (or paying some and not others depending on their role) could be divisive and would undermine the core principles of the system. Several respondents worried that abandoning the volunteer model would “attract people for the wrong reasons” [R08, PM Indiv]. Others commented that paying panel members would not necessarily improve the quality of decision making. Some respondents said that retaining the volunteer model “supports community involvement in the lives of children and young people” [R96, LA/SW Org]. It was also suggested that the volunteer model ensured that panel members could freely state their opinion and that panel members were less likely to be biased as a result of not being paid.

Those who agreed with the proposal to pay panel members and thought that the volunteer model was no longer sustainable cited the stress of the role, the demand on panel members” time, the training requirements, and the need to attract a diverse range of people to the role. It was also suggested that a paid panel member model would facilitate better accountability and commitment, and that creating a paid role would allow certain expectations to be built into the role in order to deliver lasting change for the children within the system.

Other issues and concerns raised in response to this question included:

• The issue of resourcing payment of panel members.
• Concerns about trying to do the current system “on the cheap”.
• The need to improve the “quality” of panel members through both payment and training.
• The need for those making life-changing decisions about children – panel members – to have specialist skills and knowledge.
• The suggestion that panels should operate in a similar way to mental health tribunals.
• Whether the introduction of any paid panel members would fundamentally and detrimentally alter the founding principles of the hearings system.
• The importance of taking into account the potential impact of the “power dynamic” at panels.
• Rejection of the proposal to introduce any new roles to the hearings system.
• The danger of inadvertently creating a “two-tier system” if some panel members were paid and some were not.

Question 53: Recognising that payment of panel members/chairing members would represent a significant new national investment in decision making, do you have views on priority resourcing for other parts of the system?

• 66% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 69% said “Yes” and 31% said “No”.

Respondents had a broad range of views and raised a number of issues in response to this question. Many answered by saying that they felt strongly that the entire hearings system was in need of better resourcing. However, many respondents thought that money would be better spent elsewhere, for example, on education, mental health and wellbeing services, social work, and support for families. Some said that the hearings system should be part of a broader system of early intervention, which, if properly resourced, could prevent more extreme and expensive interventions further down the line (such as residential care, secure care, criminal prosecution and prison, and poor health outcomes impacting NHS budgets):

• “The whole system is under-resourced. The Scottish Government is currently well on-track to fail to keep the Promise. The system needs significant additional investment. This could come from tax revenue from higher tax brackets. Within the system itself, resources could be diverted by removing private providers from the market (as indeed is happening in Wales, and plans are afoot in England to tackle profiteering with the Children’s Wellbeing bill). It is astonishing that the Scottish Government (and the Promise Team) has thus far shown little interest in prioritising this reform” [R28, LA/SW Indiv].
• “Children are our future, and not to invest [in children] has consequences for their futures and [society’s] future. [We do] not have a “position” in relation to payment of panel chairs and members, but, as noted earlier, are of the view that whatever is required must be done to ensure that the right individuals with the right skills and knowledge and ability to deal with trauma and difficult decisions, are attracted to the role. Members have commented that the level of skill required for a Panel Chair is unlikely to be achievable without renumeration. We are also concerned that the whole system is considered – chairs, panel members, safeguarders social workers Reporters etc. No one part of the system is more important than others and it would be dangerous to consider capacity and resources for one part without paying similar attention to the rest of the system” [R40, LA/SW Org].
• “Leaving aside the wider impacts of poverty and the benefits of removing children from poverty, there are many areas of under-resourcing that impact the effective operation of the Children’s Hearings System. The adequate resources of local authority services to support children and families in need have to be the priority, with the potential for effective early intervention to prevent the need for referral to the Reporter in the first place” [R58, R Indiv].

Several respondents commented on the need for panel members to be better trained, but again, there was little consensus on the topic of paying panel members, echoing the previous question. Those who thought panel members should be paid referred to panel members not feeling valued, suggested that paying panel members could make the panel more inclusive or diverse, and thought that this could create stability, continuity, and accountability within the system. On the other hand, some thought that paying panel members would attract panel members “for the wrong reasons” and feared that introducing renumeration for panel members would reduce available resources for other parts of the system. One respondent who felt strongly that panel member should not be paid said that resources should be invested in creating a wider role for independent advocates and safeguarders instead. Concerns were also raised about the potential negative impact on the panel community of introducing paid chairs but not paying other panel members.

Other comments and concerns raised in response to this question included:

• Support for the “professionalisation” of panel members through specialist members and paid chairs.
• The need to better resource early intervention schemes and the likely long-term savings of this kind of investment.
• The idea that investing significant resources in the administration of the hearings system would have little meaningful impact on children and young people in need of support.
• The importance of having consistent decision makers making important decisions about children’s lives.
• The need for the hearings system to “shrink and specialise”.
• The far-reaching impact of poverty and other structural inequalities on the lives of children in Scotland.
• Perceived lack of understanding of the role of social workers on the part of panel members.

Question 54: Each children’s hearing currently consists of 3 panel members, with one chairing: -

i. Should care-experienced members be considered “specialist” given their experiences of the system?

ii. Should all panel members, on completion of appropriate training, still be required to chair hearings?

iii. Should some Children’s Panel members be paid for “specialist” knowledge, while others” involvement remains voluntary? E.g. a specialist panel member may have a particular qualification or expertise in childhood development, ACEs, or be a professional with prior experience of working with children in some other capacity.

iv. Should care-experienced members be considered “specialist” given their experiences of the system?

None of the proposals that made up this question received significant support from respondents; most respondents who answered responded “No” to each of the four sub-questions. Respondents were particularly against the idea of reducing the required number of panel members at a hearing, with just five respondents responding “Yes” to this proposal, as demonstrated below.

To the question: Should care-experienced members be considered “specialist” given their experiences of the system? 13 said yes, while 30 said no. To the question: Should some Children’s Panel members be paid for “specialist” knowledge, while others” involvement remains voluntary? 10 said yes while 34 said no. To the question: Should all panel members, on completion of appropriate training, still be required to chair hearings? 10 said yes while 36 said no. To the question: Should the number of panel members required for each hearing be reduced? 5 said yes while 43 said no.

Engagement with the chairing member before the children’s hearing

Question 55: Should the chairing member of the hearing meet the referred child, their family or representative to welcome them to the centre and offer any appropriate explanations and reassurances before the actual children’s hearing?

• 39% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 71% said “Yes” and 29% said “No”.

Reasons in favour of engagement with the chair before the hearing

Those who agreed with the proposal cited one key reason for doing so: that in meeting with the chairing member, children and families may feel less intimidated and consequently more comfortable in sharing their views and participating in the hearings process:

• “The children’s hearing process and attending a children’s hearing can be anxiety provoking. Meeting the chair could assist children and families to feel relaxed and engage as best they can” [R43, LA/SW Org].
• “Again, we have be[en] told by children and families that Hearings can be unsettling and unorganised. If the Chair took the time to better explain the current Hearing and how as Chair, they would operate that may ease fears. The Chair would outline their role, which is to manage the dynamics and conduct of an inquisitorial approach. This time would also offer children and families [the] chance to feel more at ease and safe” [R53, 3^rd S Org]
• “Yes, this could help reduce anxiety, promote understanding of the process, and create a more supportive environment, which aligns with trauma-informed practices and The Promise’s focus on making the hearings system more child-centered. It would also ensure that the child and family feel more comfortable and informed, contributing to a more effective and empathetic decision-making process” [R91, Leg Org].

Young people in particular were strongly supportive of this proposal. Other reasons cited in support of the proposal included: that it would align with the move towards a more “inquisitorial” approach overall, and that it could help children and families understand the process.

Reasons against

Those who disagreed with the proposal were concerned that the meeting could add another layer of complexity to the process or that it could cause confusion about the process for children and families. Several suggested that this kind of meeting could compromise the independence and fairness of decision making during the hearings process and highlighted the potential for problematic “blurred boundaries” within the process. A number of respondents said that they did not think it necessary to meet in advance of the hearing, but that it was important for the chair to introduce themselves, to meet the family, and to briefly explain proceedings just before the hearing. One respondent, in contrast to the majority of those who agreed with the proposal, said that the proposed meeting may cause more, not less, anxiety to children and families. Concerns were also raised in relation to whether this proposal sufficiently addresses the recommendations made in the Hearings for Children report.

Many respondents did not provide a clear “yes” or “no” response to this question. Some used this space to express the view that existing arrangements were working well, that something similar to the proposal is already being done, or that they felt this function was already being fulfilled by the Reporter.

Other comments

Several respondents answered that hosting the proposed meeting should depend on the specific circumstances or wishes of the child and their family and suggested that the meeting should be optional. Some noted that an extra meeting should not require the child or their family to incur additional expenses, for example, in relation to travel. Other issues raised included: the skills of the chairing member, the risk of conflict of interest, the need to ensure independence and fairness, and the suggestion that the proposed meeting could be done digitally rather than in-person. Several respondents who agreed with the proposal highlighted the importance of having safeguards and guidance in place to protect independent and unbiased decision making, if the proposal were to be implemented.

Question 56: If a meeting is held in the hearings centre with the chairing member, would you support this being an informal meeting?

• 56% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 71% said “Yes” and 29% said “No”.

Although two respondents answered that they thought it should depend on the child’s circumstances or the type of hearing as to whether an “informal” meeting in the hearings centre with the chairing member should be held, most respondents answered definitively with a yes or no, with slightly more respondents supporting this proposal than rejecting it.

Reasons in favour of an informal meeting

The majority of respondents were supportive of the proposal to hold an “informal” meeting in the hearings centre with the chairing member, in order to help familiarise the child with the hearings room, to greet and welcome the child and their family, to reassure the child and their family and put them at ease. Several respondents thought that children and families would feel more comfortable in an informal setting. It was also suggested that this informal meeting could facilitate better attendance and engagement from the child and family during the hearing. However, respondents” support for this informal meeting was largely conditional on the point that no procedural or substantive matters should be discussed during the meeting, and that it should not be an in-depth discussion. Respondents also noted the need for appropriate safeguards and clear parameters in relation to this informal meeting. Several respondents commented that they felt they could not fully answer this question without more information about the proposal.

Reasons against

Those who said that they did not think that the meeting should be an “informal” one said that:

• They did not support the introduction of this kind of meeting as it was unnecessary.
• The meeting and its formality should reflect the seriousness of the situation and the binding legal powers of the system: “any illusion that this is informal is unfair and misleading for the child and family” [R45, 3^rd S Org].
• Holding this kind of meeting between participants and the chair may compromise the chair’s independence or introduce an element of bias, impacting the chair’s decision making.
• Meetings do not need to be “informal”- they can be formal while also being “child-friendly”.
• The chair should meet with the child and family to welcome them and make them feel comfortable immediately before the hearing, but not any further in advance of it.

Children’s hearings decision making in a redesigned Children’s Hearings System

Question 57: Do you support the proposal that the children’s hearing should have a brief period of recess/adjournment before reaching their decision and sharing it with those present?

• 44% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 69% said “Yes” and 31% said “No”.

Question 58: Do you agree that the majority decision making approach should be maintained?

• 39% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 97% said “Yes” and 3% said “No”.

Question 59: Should the children’s hearing be asked to reach a unanimous decision during adjournment, in order to minimise repetition and potential retraumatisation?

• 44% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 38% said “Yes” and 62% said “No”.

Question 60: If a majority decision approach remains, would you agree that any dissenting decision should be noted and explained?

• 34% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 100% said “Yes” and 0% said “No”.

Decision making and specificity of measures in a Compulsory Supervision Order (CSO)

Question 61: Do you agree that it is desirable or necessary to introduce clearer authorisation for particular interventions with children, or particular interferences with their liberty, on the face of measures included in an Interim Compulsory Supervision Order or Compulsory Supervision?

• 60% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 66% said “Yes” and 34% said “No”.

A high number of respondents did not provide a response to this question, with some stating this was because they were unclear on the question, but likewise a number of respondents who had not answered the quantitative part of the question provided qualitative responses. In addition, whilst some respondents provided a yes or no answer, they often expanded in a more balanced way, citing both benefits and risks or that this might be appropriate in some situations but not others.

Reasons in favour of clearer authorisation of measures

Where respondents were in favour of this approach, the main benefit cited was that this could enhance specificity, clarity and understanding. This included of the assessments that should be undertaken; resources made available; and interventions that could be used, their rationale and authorisation for use, which young people who responded cited as being particularly important and expressed a high level of support for this proposal. This could include mental health support, education, contact specifications, and the promotion of interests and hobbies.

A similar number of respondents commented that such an approach could support the upholding of children’s rights, with children’s rights to safety, best interests, family life, freedom of association, fair trial, and to liberty, with the safeguards where deprivation of liberty was necessary, particularly cited. A further benefit was that this could afford greater accountability of implementation authorities, particularly where decisions were being driven by resources, and this in turn providing the basis for children and their families to challenge or appeal: “…There are situations where a child’s liberty is restricted by interventions/ interference resulting from measures which do not necessarily fall within the higher measure criteria currently set out by the legislations (i.e., movement restriction and secure accommodation authorisation). Given the move towards a more trauma informed and rights-based approach, we agree that Children’s Hearings should have that overview, level of scrutiny and be more prescriptive when it comes to cases where children are placed away from home and those arrangements may infringe upon the child’s liberty. It would also help to ensure a greater sense of accountability and transparency by those providing the child’s care” [R84, Leg Org].

Reasons against

However, for almost all of these benefits, counter arguments were provided by other respondents. The main argument being that this change was unnecessary, for two main reasons. Firstly, this would be too prescriptive and could therefore detrimentally impact on the exercising of professional and organisational autonomy to provide responsive care to children. Secondly, that existing children’s hearings legislation and guidance was sufficiently wide to enable a range of measures to be utilised as part of an order, including to restrict a child’s liberty, with particular reference made to sections 83(2), (b), (h), and (i) of the 2011 Act. Decisions should already be recorded, and local authorities have duties as implementation authorities, that if not upheld could be challenged. Further reference was made to existing legislative coverage of children’s rights and the need to uphold these, which again could be legally challenged: “This is unnecessary. The statute identifies the specific classes of measures that may be made…. We consider it unrealistic to expect an order to make exhaustive provision for, or withhold provision for, all interferences that might occur under the auspices of an order. This proposal risks overcomplicating legislation, or making decision making unduly legalistic” [R72, Leg Org].

Other comments

A number of respondents utilised this opportunity to highlight their concerns that these proposals could permit and legitimise the use of restraint, potentially resulting in increased use. Respondents cited that this would be counter to the Promise: “This proposal risks restraint being legitimised and the unintended consequences could be that its use could increase rather than decrease...Rather than making specific excuses for ensuring a child’s rights are not being upheld or their liberty is being interfered with, there should be an expectation and understanding that restraint must only be used to keep people safe. There are no caveats or exceptions to that” [R93, O/U Org].

Instead, these respondents called for a coherent policy, legislative framework and guidance regarding restraint, and cautioned against a siloed approach.

A small number of respondents suggested alternative approaches to legislative change, including more research and evidence of the issues and existing practice; development of guidance; and training, supervision, support for those caring for children, and recording of interventions used, particularly where these were restrictive and/or for the child’s safety, and why.

Question 62: If so, do you agree that a “maximum authorised intervention” is an appropriate means of delivering that clarity to children and to professionals?

• 75% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 27% said “Yes” and 73% said “No”.

The most frequent response to this question was that the question was unclear or not understood.

Reasons in favour of a “maximum authorised intervention”

Those respondents who supported the proposal stated this would provide the panel with oversight and authority in certain circumstances, whilst also allowing any restrictions or interventions to evolve as the child’s circumstances changed:

“A “maximum authorised intervention” may be advantageous as it would allow any restrictions or intervention requirements to reduce in respect of the changing needs and best interests of the child, ensuring any restriction of liberty is for the shortest time possible...This would allow the child’s plan to flex and stretch as required, facilitate support and care that reflects the dynamic nature of children’s lives and the need to respond to progress by relaxing restrictions on liberty, or increasing measures that respond to increased risk” [R56, O/U Org].

Often support was caveated that this would require clear and understandable explanations for everyone involved, with safeguards such as ensuring this did not become a blanket approach, and regular reviews.

Reasons against

Two main issues were cited. Firstly, the term does not explain the intervention in practical or meaningful terms and would be unclear or confusing including to children and adults:

“In our view, ‘maximum authorised intervention’ does not sufficiently explain what that might mean in practical terms for the child or their family. Instead, more work needs to be done to consider the types of interventions and restrictions and name them explicitly to ensure there is no unnecessary or disproportionate intervention in the life of a child under the umbrella of ‘maximum authorised intervention’” [R49, 3^rd S Org].

Secondly, conditions can already be included as part of a CSO and explained as part of decision making which some respondents suggested already provided greater clarity for the child, relevant persons, primary carers and the implementation authority. If there were issues with clarity and specificity, it was suggested these could be addressed through training of panel members rather than legislation. There were also concerns that it would be difficult to set timescales for such “maximum authorised interventions” which could result in children being disappointed and losing trust in the system.

Other comments

Other responses stated the focus should be elsewhere:

“Principles of minimum intervention and ensuring an approach from the start that every effort will be made to keep interventions time limited and that the services providing the before, during & after stages are adequately resourced would produce better outcomes” [R15, PM Ind].

Specifying a minimum authorised intervention as part of an order was suggested in one response.

Timely notification of children’s hearings decisions

Question 63: Is the current time frames for written confirmation of the decision by the children’s hearing (5 working days) still appropriate?

• 56% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 73% said “Yes” and 27% said “No”.

Support for the existing five-day timeframe

Those who agreed with the current timeframe of five working days saw no reason to change it, and commented that this timeframe was reasonable and appropriate, allowing time for practical and administrative demands to be met while also leaving sufficient time for an appeal to be lodged. Some said that it was difficult to see how this timescale could be shortened in practical terms, unless the format of delivery was changed (for example, using email instead of post).

Disagreement with the existing five-day timeframe

Those who disagreed with the five-day timeframe said that five days was too long for children and families to wait. Some highlighted the fact that despite verbal communication of the decision, often children and families struggle to fully take in what is being said at the hearing, so need to see a written decision which they can digest in their own time after the hearing. Others saw no reason for it to take as long as five days for the decision to be communicated in writing, given that panel members “compose their written reasons for decision[s] on laptops either at the end of a Hearing session or immediately after the Hearing” [R99, 3^rd S Org].

Instead of the current five-day timeframe, some respondents suggested that three days seemed like a more appropriate window than five days. Some respondents answered that the timeframe should depend on the type of hearing and its urgency: for example, some said that a secure care decision, or one that otherwise involves the restriction of a child’s liberty, should be communicated and confirmed as soon as the hearing is concluded; others said that in particularly contentious or complex cases where an appeal is likely, a shorter timeframe may be required. Finally, a number of respondents suggested that written confirmation should be conveyed securely and electronically, rather than sent via postal service.

Other comments or concerns raised in response to this question included:

• That the timescale of receiving written confirmation was not important.
• The delivery of the verbal decision at the end of the hearing should be done in a way that the child and family fully understand, making the receipt of the written version a less important consideration or area for redesign.

Question 65: Should certain children’s decisions (e.g. for an ICSO) have accelerated notification timeframes, relative to the urgency of the decision?

• 62% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 64% said “Yes” and 36% said “No”.

Support for accelerated notification timeframes

The majority of respondents agreed that certain decisions should have accelerated notification timeframes, relative to the urgency of the decision:

• “Yes, if there are urgent decisions made, it would be helpful for these to be shared sooner than 5 days, particularly when decisions involve imminent changes to family time or placement. An option could be introduced allowing an attendee to request written decisions earlier than the standard 5-day timeframe. Practice guidance would need to define what qualifies as “urgent” and specify the associated time limits” [R30, LA/SW Org].
• “For example when a child’s residence has changed or their liberty has been restricted” [R43, LA/SW Org].
• “In line with our previous responses, we view uncertainty in the life of a child as something that should be minimised as much as possible. Accelerated notification timeframes, relative to the urgency of the decision, can mitigate the feelings of uncertainty and ensure that relevant organisations and people can implement support and other measures in a timely fashion. Accelerated notification timeframes may also reduce the burden on children and families to communicate decisions made by the panel, reducing the risk of re-traumatisation” [R49, 3^rd S Org].
• “The more urgent the implementation of the decision, or the shorter the appeal timeframe, should lead to quicker notification” [R54, R Indiv].

One respondent also highlighted the need for decisions of non-disclosure addresses to be communicated to key protection agencies, such as social work, the police, the NHS, and education services immediately, bypassing the five-day notification.

Disagreement with accelerated notification timeframes

Those who disagreed with the proposal to introduce accelerated notification timeframes gave a range of reasons for doing so, including:

• They could not see how decisions could be further accelerated in practical terms.
• Having different notification timelines for different decisions would add further unnecessary complexity to the system.
• There would be little benefit to children and families of making changes to this timeframe.
• The existing timescale of five working days is appropriate, reasonable, and realistic.
• All decisions should be expedited, regardless of the circumstances or the “type” of decision.

Continuity of panel members in children’s cases

Question 65: Should consistency or continuity of chairing members be the default position for each child’s hearing?

• 39% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 65% said “Yes” and 35% said “No”.

Question 66: Would you support one single Children’s Panel member’s consistent involvement as an alternative approach?

• 39% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 68% said “Yes” and 32% said “No”.

Substantive vs procedural decisions

Question 67: Should Children’s Panel members or chairing members, for certain procedural decisions, be able to take decisions without recourse to a full three member children’s hearing?

• 51% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 47% said “Yes” and 53% said “No”.

Responses provided much more nuanced views to this question than the statistical analysis may suggest. Likewise, young people who responded expressed mixed views.

Reasons in favour of decisions being made without a full three member hearing

For those who were supportive of this proposal, the most common arguments related to the capacity that this change could lead to reduced delays and enhanced efficiency and practice for substantive decisions. Further benefits included:

• Reduced number of pre-hearing panels.
• Increased flexibility.
• Consistency with other parts of the system where significant decisions are made by lone decision makers.

Reasons against

For those who were not supportive of this change, the main concern related to the potential impacts on balanced, fair, transparent and accountable decision making, with a number of respondents specifically stating this change introduced a risk of bias. A similar point was that the decisions made by a hearing were too much responsibility for one individual and should be shared, with a majority decision reached: “There should always be 3. If there are less there could be a stand-off. The reason there’s three is because there should be a majority vote. One of them should act as a mediator” [R86 O/U Indiv].

In contrast to the above reasons in favour, a similar number questioned how much time this would really free up or that indeed this could add to delays, for example if these decisions lead to greater challenges and appeals.

The need for balance

Many respondents stated this could be a proportionate option in certain circumstances, which would need further agreement and guidance: “There could be times, circumstances & occasions when this would be a sensible, proportionate & reasonable process. However, I do not support a wholescale move to 1 individual making these decisions as “a matter of course”. The independence and strength of 3 persons reviewing procedural decisions is an important safeguard. When & how this is done may need reviewing, but the principle does not need changing” [R15, PM Ind].

There were a range of views as to what decisions could be made without recourse to a full three member children’s hearing including those that were:

• fact finding, legal or technical and did not require a full hearing or the range of experiences and backgrounds three panel members brought to decision making.
• straightforward or a foregone conclusion.
• related to the conduct of a hearing but not the care of the child.

Others said that hearings that involved “procedural decisions” could be made without recourse to a full complement of panel members, echoing the language of the consultation, but there was a lack of agreement on what this term meant and indeed whether the types of decisions described in the consultation really constituted this. There was greater agreement that reviews of child protection orders and deeming or un-deeming relevant person status should not be undertaken by one panel member. However, a number of respondents stated that even “procedural” decisions could significantly impact on children and their families, including their rights: “…Attempts to implement lone Panel Member decision making in any form or on any point, procedural or otherwise, could undermine the basis of the Hearings system and the rationale for this is unclear...There are few scenarios which are purely “procedural” in nature. All decisions made by the Panel have implications which significantly impact the lives of children and their families” [R99, O/U Org].

It should also be noted there were some differing views put forward as to what Reporters and chairpersons could already decide without a full panel.

Other comments

A small number of respondents linked this proposal to those made elsewhere in the consultation document, stating this could be linked to the remuneration of chairs, the greater ownership of hearings of chairs, and the introduction of legal members. There were also broader points that this would link to the experience and expertise of panel members, their training, and approaches, with one young person commenting that as panels could be judgemental fewer panel members could be better and another that some panel members had to be kept an eye on in their use of power.

Some respondents specifically highlighted the need to ensure appeal or review mechanisms were retained, and that the views and rights of all parties, not least children, were taken into account as part of decision making.

Question 68: Are there other areas you would consider appropriate for a single-member decision making approach?

• 61% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 35% said “Yes” and 65% said “No”.

Common themes

In keeping with most respondents answering no to this question, many reiterated their concerns with this approach as detailed in the previous question. It was also highlighted that this approach was not suggested in the Hearings for Children report but instead there were various decisions that the Working Group suggested could be made by the chair within the redesigned system.

A key theme was the need to ensure safeguards and the rights of children and their families, were promoted and upheld, which this approach could either support by enabling less focus on administrative and procedural functions or inhibit: “Having three members considering the views of all involved and the information in the paperwork and being able to challenge each other is a vital safeguard against rights infringements and upholds the child’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR and Article 40 UNCRC, as well as their participation rights under Article 12 UNCRC” [R68, Adv, Org].

Other suggested areas for a single member decision maker approach

Given the small number of responses to this question, the views below often reflect that of one respondent. Where other areas to those detailed in the consultation were suggested, these included:

• Where an order was being reviewed because the child was turning 18 and therefore the hearing would not be able to have further involvement.
• Where no substantive decision can be made.
• Interim decisions such as warrant applications or interim CSO renewals (in certain circumstances like where there is broad agreement), although it is noted this was disputed.
• Non-contentious amendments to an existing order.
• Urgent or emergency situations where convening a full panel could result in delay.
• Decisions on safeguarder appointment or legal representation.
• Decisions about withholding information.
• Pre-hearing decisions, which are usually procedural and are reviewed at the hearing.
• Grounds’ hearings where the child is too young to accept grounds.

Advice to court was one that was contested across both questions, with some respondents stating this could move to a single-member decision but others stating the potential implications were far too significant.

Other comments

Other respondents suggested:

• Specific powers for the chair, for example, the ability to check procedural questions with the Reporter after, rather than during, a pre-hearing panel.
• Increased responsibilities as a paid chair, including to remove disruptive participants.
• Extended role of the chair on the oversight and implementation of the order.

Question 69: Would you propose additional safeguards to accompany these proceedings and decisions?

• 69% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 50% said “Yes” and 50% said “No”.

There were limited responses to this question, but of those who did respond, views were fairly split between no additional safeguards being required, often stating existing measures such as appeal rights are sufficient, and those who suggested safeguards: “…Yes, additional safeguards are essential to ensure accountability, transparency, and the protection of the child’s rights. Safeguards would help maintain the integrity of the process, especially given that decisions would be made without the collective input of a full panel” [R91, L Org].

Identified safeguards included:

• Rights of appeal and to request a review of decisions for the child and relevant persons.
• Establishment of rules to enable the request of an alternative decision maker or full panel hearing.
• Recording of reasons for decisions and the rationale that are promptly shared with the child and relevant persons.
• Clear guidance including on what decisions require a full hearing and to provide a check list for information and decision making criteria.
• Access to advocacy at every stage, including pre-hearings.
• Gaining advice from attendees such as the child’s social worker to inform decision making and guidance from the Reporter.
• Three panel members on subsequent hearings, which could also provide a means for resolving disputes from single-member hearings, or limiting the number of times a single member can make a decision, ahead of a full panel.
• Training for panel members, including on child development and trauma.
• The selection of panel members, quality assurance of chairs and decisions, and paying chairs.
• Further consideration of the role of the legal member.

The powers of the chair during a children’s hearing

Question 70: Would it be beneficial for the chairing member to have a robust and clearly stated set of powers to manage how and when people attend and participate in the different phases of a children’s hearing?

• 47% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 87% said “Yes” and 13% said “No”.

Question 71: Are the existing powers of the chairing member and of the hearing sufficient to protect the rights of all involved?

• 58% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 67% said “Yes” and 33% said “No”.

Support for existing powers of the chairing member

Most respondents agreed that the chairing member’s existing powers were sufficient to protect the rights of those involved in the hearing, and did not think that any changes needed to be made. Some also commented that chairing members may not be using all of their existing powers, or do not feel confident or empowered enough to use these powers, while some panel members were simply not fully aware of the range of powers available to them. An example of one of these apparently under-used powers was the power of the chair to “remove anybody acting in an adversarial manner from the process” [R68, 3^rd S Org]. For this reason, some suggested that a clearly explained list of powers could be useful for panel members and other participants in the hearing.

Support for introducing additional powers for the chairing member

Some respondents, on the other hand, thought the additional powers were needed, especially in order to regulate the balance of competing voices and complex relationships in the room at a hearing, and to protect the best interests of the child. One suggested that in particular, the chair should have enhanced powers to “manage attendance, participation and sensitive issues” [R91, Leg Org] in order to ensure that the system is inquisitorial in nature, as well as child-centred and trauma-informed.

Additional comments on the powers of the chairing member

Some respondents did not respond with a definitive yes or no answer, and instead used this question to highlight concerns about the need for the chair to manage the balance of rights between the child and the parents in the context of a hearing and to prioritise the best interests of the child. Others said that it was essential that the chair had sufficient flexibility to adapt to different situations and to use their own judgement.

Other comments

Other issues mentioned in response to this question included:

• The need for more and better training for panel members, including chairs.
• Concerns about the potential negative impact on the dynamic of the panel if chairs were to receive additional powers.
• The need to help panel members understand their powers through ongoing training and development; one respondent suggested regular “refresher” training opportunities – instead of making statutory changes.
• That introducing robust guidelines would help to ensure consistency in terms of how chairs carry out their role.
• The neglect of domestic abuse as an area of focus within the context of the chair’s powers to manage abusive behaviour during a hearing.
• Whether the revised position of the 2011 legislation has led to too many adults being allowed to attend a hearing.
• The need to make children and families aware of their right to legal representation and how to access this prior to a hearing.
• Concerns that parents’ lawyers can undermine children’s views during a hearing.

Question 72: What enhancements could be made to the existing powers of the chairing member and the hearing to promote inquisitorial approaches?

A number of respondents commented on the links between this question and those elsewhere in the consultation, making particular reference to paid panel members, the legal member, and efforts to support the hearing system to be more inquisitorial, as well as the greater demands that the changes being proposed within the consultation overall could place on panel members. Others also directly referenced the conclusions of the Hearings for Children report on this matter.

Enhancing the chair’s existing powers

Suggestions submitted in response to this question largely concerned the management of hearings, training, and attendance at hearings. A number of respondents also referenced either the existing focus on, or the importance of, ensuring that the child’s best interests, rights, safety and participation were at the centre of the hearing, which the chair had a key role in ensuring. Crucial in achieving this were chairs being knowledgeable, authoritative and skilled in ensuring children could be heard and keeping them at the centre of the hearing. There was variation in views as to whether respondents deemed chairing members’ current powers to be sufficient or whether these could benefit from enhancement, either through legislation or otherwise. For many respondents, this was less about extending powers and more about improving clarity of the powers that were already available, when and how these could be used, using these powers in practice, and developing skills through the provision of training.

Management of hearings

In particular, respondents raised the topic of the chair’s management of the hearing, with two key elements identified that could support a more inquisitorial approach: excluding certain people from the hearing, and how the hearing is conducted. On the first point, greater use of the power to exclude or remove individuals from hearings or part of a hearing was mentioned by multiple respondents. Respondents raised concerns about difficult, disruptive, or intimidating relevant persons, who could detrimentally affect the child. Managing professionals and solicitors who were behaving in a manner that did not support inquisitorial approaches were mentioned by a smaller number of respondents, too. On the second point – how the hearing is actually conducted – respondents’ suggestions included setting “ground rules” at the start of the hearing for what was to be discussed and in relation to participants’ behaviour and conduct; the structure of the hearing, for example, who speaks first and taking breaks; the role of supporters; and the ability to redirect or close down discussions that are either irrelevant or overly challenging, with the child’s views, experiences and best interests central to these decisions. One respondent suggested these considerations could become a duty.

Training

To support the above, enhanced training and skills for panel members was the most commonly suggested idea, including in managing difficult behaviour, encouraging participation of all attendees, leading discussions and gathering information: “The successful implementation of this recommendation relies on changes to the recruitment and skills of Chairs so that they are able to “hold the room” and possess the legal, tribunal and personal qualities described in the report” [R93, U/O Org].

A smaller number of responses referenced the importance of support and guidance to panel members in supporting inquisitorial approaches, as well as developing their knowledge and confidence, including in understanding rights legislation. Two responses specifically mentioned the verification of panel members competence as having an important role, with one respondent citing that the existing Panel Member Competence Framework could be used more robustly within new and existing quality assurance and monitoring systems.

Attendance at hearings

Who could (or should) attend a hearing and provide information to hearings was another frequently mentioned theme among responses, with the ability of panels to receive information from a range of sources seen as key to promoting inquisitorial approaches. To support this, the potential role of panel members and chairs (rather than Reporters) in determining who should attend panels was highlighted. Similarly, the greater use of the ability to request specific expert or independent reports to provide information, including potentially alternative views and approaches, was cited by a small number of respondents. The potential benefits for relaxing the four-day time limit within which legal representatives of relevant persons or of the child can submit documentary evidence or reports to the hearing, along with a formal mechanism for how this information could be shared at short notice, was also suggested.

Recording of Children’s Hearings

Question 73: In your view, should children’s hearings be routinely recorded?

• 45% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 53% said “Yes” and 47% said “No”.

If yes - which method of recording should be routinely used?

Of those who agreed that children’s hearings should be routinely recorded:

• 14 selected “Written”.
• 8 selected “Audio”.
• 5 selected “Video”.
• 0 selected “Other”.

Question 74: What are the main benefits and risks of this method of recording hearings?

Respondents suggested a wide range of potential benefits and risks of different methods of recording hearings. Most were either strongly for or strongly against the recording of hearings. Some offered additional comments as part of their response. For example, some agreed that hearings should be recorded, but thought that only panel members should have access to the recording. Some respondents suggested that the format of the recording should depend on who is presumed to be granted access to it. Others highlighted the importance of allowing the child to decide whether their hearing is recorded and of obtaining the consent of other attendees. However, this also raises the issue of what should happen if the child is too young to decide whether or not the hearing should be recorded.

Written recordings

Benefits

• Could aid children and families’ understanding of the hearings process and the panel’s decision.
• Would allow those who were not present to know what discussions took place and the reasoning behind the decisions made.
• Would ensure accountability and transparency in relation to those participating in a hearing.
• Would enable better scrutiny of decision making.

Risks

• Inappropriate use of the recording.
• Coud miss out parts of the hearing, whereas audio or video could more fully and accurately capture the proceedings.
• Disputes by participants in relation to the content and interpretation of a written recording.

Audio recordings

Benefits

• A transcript of an audio recording could allow children or other relevant persons who were not in attendance to understand what was discussed and the reasons behind the decisions.
• Could be used for the purpose of submitting an appeal or complaint and useful during the subsequent process.
• Could be used in the context of training and development for panel members and other professionals involved in the system.
• Would circumvent some of the data and privacy concerns relating to audio or video recording.
• Provides a complete record of the hearing without being as intrusive as a video recording.
• Would provide an accurate reflection of the discussion and a more complete record compared to the way minutes are currently taken.
• Better data collection for research purposes.
• Would enable better scrutiny of decision making.

Risks

• May be experienced as invasive and anxiety-provoking for children and families.
• Could make children and other participants feel uncomfortable, impacting their willingness to contribute.
• Risk of recording of proceedings being accessed by individuals not entitled to do so.
• Could be used in future hearings or to inform future decision making.
• Concerns around data storage as the recording of any hearing will contain highly sensitive and personal information.
• Potential for children and others to make self-incriminating statements without appropriate legal protections.
• Technical issues slowing proceedings or impacting the recording.
• Putting women and children at risk of, or experiencing, domestic violence at the risk of further harm or danger.
• Inappropriate use of the recording.
• Concerns about the recording somehow being used against the child at a later stage.

Video recordings

Benefits

• Would allow for more research (especially observational research) into the hearings system and panel decision making.
• Would allow people to see attendees’ body language and hear their tone of voice.
• Could lead to improved behaviour from relevant persons and other attendees at hearings.
• May stop the current practice of unauthorised recording of hearings.
• Could help those who struggled to follow the discussion during the hearing to understand what was said.
• Could provide evidence of abusive behaviour or evidence of things that may be admitted and then retracted at a later stage.
• Would enable better scrutiny of decision making.

Risks

• Could make children and other participants feel uncomfortable, impacting their willingness to contribute or to speak honestly and frankly.
• May be experienced as invasive and anxiety-provoking for children and families.
• Technical issues.
• Could limit “the natural flow of human interaction”.
• Inappropriate use of the recording.
• Concerns about the recording somehow being used against the child at a later stage.
• Data issues such as files going missing or being incomplete or data breaches.
• Would cost money that could be better used elsewhere in the system.
• Risk of negative emotional impact on a child re-watching a recording without appropriate support.

Question 75: If only the decision element of a children’s hearing were to be recorded, would this change your view?

• 56% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 42% said “Yes” and 58% said “No”.

Child friendly summaries of decisions

Question 76: Should there be a statutory requirement for the production of age and stage appropriate summaries of Children’s Hearing decisions?

• 28% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 84% said “Yes” and 16% said “No”.

Question 77: Should the specific needs of other family members, especially other children, be taken into account when decisions and reasons are being prepared and issued?

• 45% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 84% said “Yes” and 16% said “No”.

Again, a lot of respondents here caveated their quantitative answer.

Reasons in favour of taking the specific needs of other family members into account

The main response to this question was that the decisions of hearings could have significant implications for a range of people, not least children and relevant persons, and those individuals needed support to understand these decisions, why they were made, and what they required to implement them: “Every day, Panel Members make legally binding decisions for children in Scotland... These are incredibly important decisions that have a huge impact on a child and family. If a child or their family do not understand these decisions or why they have been made, they are not able to fully participate in proceedings and this can severely limit the possibility of achieving positive outcomes for them” [R39, CH Org].

To achieve this, it was deemed essential that decisions and reasons are prepared and issued in an accessible, suitable manner/format, that took account of the age and stage of the child(ren) involved and the specific needs of all parties. Legislation was for some a means of ensuring this happened. In particular, speech language and communication needs, learning disabilities, English not being the first language, and literacy issues were cited.

With reference to the previous question, age and stage appropriate summaries were mentioned by various respondents as a means to achieving this, although a number of respondents stated more was required. The need for decisions still to be fully explained, including after a hearing, was repeatedly mentioned.

Reasons against

However, various respondents suggested that decisions and reasons should already be being provided in a clear, accessible manner and explained to participants, with some respondents stating this was therefore an unnecessary change. For those who raised concerns about this proposal, the most commonly cited was that this could dilute the ethos of the system by widening scope beyond the focus on the referred child. Some responses therefore stated that considerations of the needs of family members should come second to considerations of the best interests of the child and prioritisation of their views and voice.

Practical considerations

A number of respondents raised practical considerations with these proposals. These related to:

• Complexity of meeting every individual need and to capture legal processes.
• The training, skills, time and resources that would be required to achieve this meaningfully.
• Who would be responsible for considering these needs and making any necessary adjustments in preparing and issuing decisions and reasons.
• Who would decide the resolution of disputes and how they would do so, deciding how and how any disputes be resolved.
• Additional/specialised experience may be required such as that of speech and language therapy.
• Whether this change would only apply to those who already had a right/entitlement to receive information or was wider.

The importance of addressing such considerations was highlighted: “…However, the change in law will only be effective if it sits alongside the language leaders” principles (personalised, involved, balanced and non-stigmatising), a change in organisational culture (hearts and minds), training and awareness raising for those who undertake the task, and enough time for them to do this well and in a way that is tailored to each child’s needs and understanding. It is also important to have a clarification of roles” [R98, O/U Org].

Learning from the development of the National Child Protection Guidance, Language Leaders, and Each and Every Child was suggested, as was a pilot of any such change to inform national roll out. Various respondents made references to rights, specifically of all children, including siblings, and people with disabilities.

Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) and restorative justice

Question 78: Is it appropriate for children’s hearings to defer their decision in order for Family Group Decision Making or restorative justice processes to be offered, or to take place?

• 49% of respondents did not answer this question.
• Of those respondents who did answer this question, 55% said “Yes” and 45% said “No”.

Young people who answered this question were generally supportive of the idea that decisions could be delayed to allow FGDM or restorative justice processes to go ahead.

Respondents were almost evenly split between agreeing and disagreeing with this proposal. Some offered additional comments in response to this question, for example, rather than answering yes or no, some suggested that FGDM or RJ processes could take place in parallel with the proceedings of a hearing, while others said it would depend on the particular circumstances of a case. One respondent provided especially detailed information on family group decision making in response to a number of the consultation questions, which should be considered further in respect of these proposals.

Reasons cited in favour of allowing deferrals for FDGM or RJ

Those who agreed that it would be appropriate for the decision of a hearing to be deferred in order for DGDM or RJ processes to take place highlighted the importance of pursuing these alternatives and suggested other child-friendly approaches that could be taken too. Including:

• “Yes, these approaches foster collaboration and empower families to find solutions, potentially leading to more sustainable and child-centred outcomes” R91, Leg Org].
• “I think all avenues should be explored and restorative justice allows children to deal with offending and understanding the consequences of actions taken by them. The way the children react is an important factor to know before deciding what further actions may be required” [R01, U/O Indiv].
• “Alternatives to panels which are interactive and look for ways to involve the child with otherwise inaccessible resources to enrich their life would be a positive step (with certain grounds)” [R05, U/O Indiv].
• “This could make a difference to the decision that is eventually made. Depending on whether the chid/young person engages with the process, and whether this intervention is successful. This intervention could make a huge difference to a family and may be helpful in supporting with any difficulties and problems. However, if there is no engagement the panel will then have to make a decision based on the lack of engagement by the family, child/young person” [R09, PM Indiv].
• “We believe that family and friends can make plans for children, and hopefully, this would promote kinship-first decisions for families. We have had members who have been denied kinship care for their children, but we also support “share the care”, where family, friends and the community can help children and their families better than the state. Children should only be removed from families after kinship care has been fully explored - FGDM can be crucial to this. We would want a parental advocate to accompany parents to FGDM as we have known parents (mostly mothers) whose ex-partners, family and friends have exploited” [R46, Adv Org].

Reasons cited against allowing deferrals for FDGM or RJ

Those who disagreed with the proposal felt that FDGM and RJ were not always appropriate, were concerned about the potential for added drift and delay and the risk that the best interests of the child could be de-prioritised. Others were concerned that incorporating these alternative processes into the hearings system would compromise the core principles of these models.

• “We oppose the use of both FGDM in civil cases involving domestic abuse and restorative justice of any form either in civil or criminal cases. These are wholly inappropriate processes for dealing with this issue, may actually facilitate the continuation of the abuse are not […] reliably safe for women and children. Similarly, restorative justice is not appropriate in cases where a young person, usually a young woman, has experienced abuse in her own intimate relationship at the hands of a young abuser who has come before the Hearing because of this” [R33, U/O Org].
• “Indeed, I think a focus on FGDM risks confusing process with outcome. The children’s hearing is there to make a decision on what is the best outcome for the child. The basis of the decision is NOT what most of the family wish or would like or would tolerate: the hearing is not a mediation between different interests. But it may well be that a good outcome would be to refer the child to an environment in which family members and the child get together to explore what resources would benefit the child, and which would not. I would much prefer, therefore, any FGDM meeting to be with social services after the dispositive decision of the hearing to make or continue a CSO, in order to discuss openly how best to give it effect. I would NOT make such a meeting part of the children’s hearing process” [R29, U/O Indiv].
• “Incorporating Restorative Justice into the realm of decision making by a Hearing risks undermining a core principle of RJ as a voluntary and non-incentivised process. Restorative Justice processes will involve the needs of two separate parties (as a minimum), both of whom could be children and likely to be from different families. A Children’s Hearing is designed to examine the needs of an individual child and is not framed to openly consider the needs of the other party” [R56, U/O Org].
• “We recognise that Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) and Restorative Justice (RJ) should be important considerations for a panel when determining children’s needs within the Hearing. However, deferring a decision is not appropriate for several reasons. Deferring children’s hearings, especially in the context of limited provision of both RJ and FGDM across Scotland, could result in a “drift” of cases and a risk that substantive decisions are not being made where they are required to meet the best interests of the child” [R56, U/O Org].

Several respondents commented that processes like FGDM and RJ should be explored much earlier in the child’s case, or that a hearing should only be necessary if these options had already been exhausted or were not appropriate to the situation.

Other comments

Other issues raised in response to this question included:

• The additional resources and costs that would be needed to offer FGDM or RJ.
• The need to offer FGDM and RJ consistently across Scotland.
• The idea that it should be up to panel members to make a decision about whether to defer to allow FGDM or RJ processes to go ahead.
• The well-established and international evidence base in support of FGDM and other inclusive, participatory processes for families.

Question 79: What other ways could consideration of these processes feature in the redesigned hearings system?

Several respondents suggested that FGDM and / or RJ should be considered as part of the voluntary support package offered to children and families prior to referral, or as a pathway out of the hearings system if there is evidence of the family’s willingness to engage voluntarily with this kind of process. Similarly, others thought that FGDM and RJ should be prioritised as part of an early intervention, multi-agency response to a child in need of support, or else as part of a parallel process alongside the hearings system. Some suggested that FGDM or RJ be considered during the process of establishing grounds.

Several respondents said that a panel should be able to decide whether to refer a child to FGDM. Some suggested that FGDM or RJ could be offered after a panel’s decision is made, alongside other options to help support the family. Others thought that a representative from FGDM could attend the hearing to represent the views and wishes of the wider family, and to confirm what kind of support might be appropriate. It was also suggested that FGDM or RJ be included or introduced as a measure that could be attached to a CSO or ICSO, facilitated and reviewed by a social worker.

The issue of geographically uneven availability of services like FGDM and RJ was also highlighted; several respondents pointed out that there is not yet a standardised approach to FDGM across Scotland and said that provision of these services was limited or non-existent in several areas.

Finally, a number of respondents used this space to express their disagreement with the overall proposal to offer FGDM or RJ as part of the hearings system.