Hearings for Children report: response
The Scottish Government's response to the Hearings for Children: The report of the Hearings System Working Group.
Summary of Scottish Government responses to specific HfC recommendations
The following paragraphs itemise the responses to HfC report recommendations and sub-recommendations overall. From these, 63 are accepted, 26 are accepted with conditions, 42 will require consultation or exploration and 7 have been declined.
It is clear there is much emphasis placed on the specific recommendations in relation to paying the system’s decision-makers. The central thesis of a salaried chair and remunerated panel members is an anchor point for other recommendations contained within the report. The Scottish Government is of the view that while the case has been made to increase capacity in the hearings system it is not clear that removing the volunteer element entirely and moving to salaried and pensionable fulltime Chairs, along with wholesale children’s panel remuneration, is the appropriate route at this time.
Ministers have reached this decision based on a variety of factors.
There is a golden thread within the children’s hearings system which has sustained it since its inception. The community links between the panel members, and their motivations for being involved in the system, must not be minimised or diluted. The value of local people making decisions about children who live in their local area, the vast array of experience and expertise brought to the system by ordinary people, offering extraordinary time and energy, should not be underestimated.
Ministers must also consider the necessary resource issues and the wider services landscape. We must be mindful of the consequences of creating roles which will, by necessity, need the expertise and experience of others already within the system.
There are concerns that capacity in other professions and disciplines, critical to the safe operation of children’s hearings, may be adversely affected by the creation of new fulltime professional chair roles.
We are grateful for the detailed financial work commissioned by The Promise Scotland and provided following the publication of the report. This work confirms that the resourcing and financial implications of the report would bring significant new burden to the public purse.
We are clear, however, that there is a need for capacity and continuity issues to be addressed, to develop consistency within the system as well as to improve the support structures around the tribunal. To this end, Ministers will commit to exploring alternative options, including those with a remuneration dimension, with a view to consulting on the best approach for the future composition of the tribunal.
Accept
Recommendation 1.1: All children and families must be able to access the help and support that they need, in the way that they need it, in line with the conclusions of the Independent Care Review.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 1.2: There must be concerted and coordinated leadership, oversight, investment, and prioritisation of the provision of appropriate, high quality, accessible, early help and support for children and their families, and realising the commitment to 5% preventative spend. A national plan must set out how this will happen in Scotland by 2030.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 1.3: Multi-agency partnerships must be supported to be clear and ambitious about developing accessible routes to holistic whole family support and how these are central to the development and delivery of each area’s Children’s Services Plans. This includes universal access to holistic, whole family support and more intensive support for families that need it.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 1.4: Work should be done to review the impact and effectiveness of help and support for families working voluntarily alongside local authorities, to ensure that there is not a sense of a two- tier system of help and support for children who are on legal orders and children who are not, and to improve outcomes for children and families and uphold their right to help and support.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 1.5: The challenges relating to the recruitment, retention, and resourcing of child and family social work teams must be urgently resolved. This requires sustained investment, developing practice, and implementing the specific conclusion of the Independent Care Review around supporting the workforce so that they alone do not feel the burden and responsibility of statutory involvement in children and families’ lives.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 1.6: There must be serious, sustained attention on maintaining and sustaining the children and families’ workforce to ensure that they are able to undertake the complex work that is required of them in a way that is characterised by a rights-respecting, trauma-informed approach. This includes the third sector workforce.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 1.8: The implementation of these recommendations must be linked to the national work to reduce poverty and to meet the child poverty targets.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 2.2: There must be a coordinated approach to establishing an appropriate, considered, and non-judgmental language of care in Scotland. A clear plan must be developed for identifying and implementing systemic policy, practice and legislative changes required to ensure consistent use of this language across all 32 local authorities.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 2.4: There must be national oversight by the Scottish Government of the resourcing and provision of training in the impact of trauma, childhood development, neurodiversity and children’s rights for everyone involved in the children’s hearings system.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 2.5: There must be a clear understanding at all levels of a redesigned children’s hearings system about what children and families’ rights are and how they should be accessed and upheld.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 2.7: There must be a review of the current, respective functions of CHS and SCRA to ensure that the redesigned system operates effectively and efficiently for children and families and adequately supports and resources the discrete legal functions of the National Convener and Principal Reporter. This must be overseen by the Scottish Government as part of the broader work to implement the recommendations in this report and to keep the promise by 2030.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 3.1: Updated national referral guidance must be issued to those working alongside children and families, which encompasses the core aims of the redesign. This must include the particular needs of babies and infants and their developmental milestones and should be clear that referral processes should be rights-based and underpinned by the key principles of proportionality, consistency, and timeliness.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 3.2: The workforce must be supported to work relationally alongside children and families, to ask their views and listen and act on the responses they receive about the help and support that would make the most difference in their lives and to use their judgement about whether a referral to the children’s hearings system is appropriate route for a particular child and their family.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 3.4: All organisations within the children’s hearings system must ensure that they have adequate audit arrangements in place to review and openly report on the quality, consistency and impact of their decision-making and outcomes for children.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 3.5: The role of the Reporter prior to a referral being made to the children’s hearings system must be enhanced. The engagement of the Reporter must routinely be considered during other child protection and care and support meetings and discussions, and there must be a consistent approach to partnership working between agencies and the children’s hearings system.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 3.7: Specialist training must be provided to decision makers within the children’s hearings system and those working as part of the children’s justice system or directly alongside children in conflict with the law so that they know and help children access and understand their rights and the way in which the children’s hearings system interacts with the criminal justice system. This includes for Reporters, Chairs, Panel Members, police officers, social workers (including community justice social workers) and lawyers as a minimum—some of this has already started and must continue.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 3.9: All children and young people up to age 18 who are convicted at Court should have the opportunity of either a remit to the children’s hearing or a request for the advice of the children’s hearing by the Court (an Advice Hearing), in accordance with the terms of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 4.1: There must be changes to the way that advocacy is offered:
4.1.1 If a child does not already have an independent advocacy worker, there should be an immediate offer of advocacy at the point of referral to the Reporter for all children. This must be fully explained to children in ways that they understand so that they are aware of what an advocacy worker is and the role that they can play.
4.1.2 The Promise Scotland’s work to develop a lifelong advocacy service for care experienced children and adults should include the extension of advocacy support beyond the entry point to the children’s hearings system to children working voluntarily alongside local authorities and to parents and carers too.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 4.2: Children should be fully informed of their right to legal representation and there should be an exploration and understanding of whether the current mechanisms for them to access legal aid and their right to legal support is sufficient.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 7.3: CHS and SCRA must be fully supported and resourced to adapt and flex to the changes required by the redesign.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 7.4: The children's hearing must be clearly seen as the principal legal decision-making forum for children after grounds are established. Children and families must understand the role and added value of the children’s hearings system and how it correlates to the other inter-related processes and meetings in their lives.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 7.5: There must be a national review of multiple ongoing child protection, care and support processes and meetings, including review meetings, to identify where unnecessary duplication takes place, where drift and delay is introduced, and where information could and should be better shared collaboratively with the Panel or Reporter to better inform decision-making.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 7.6: The discretion of the Principal Reporter to decide whether a Reporter should attend a children’s hearing should be retained. Reporters must only attend a Hearing when they have a meaningful contribution to make and, in their view, it is in the best interests of children and their families.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 7.7: Clear measures should be in place to explain the role of the Reporter in a hearing in a way that children and families understand.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.1: There must be a more robust preparation phase in advance of a children’s hearing, which must involve children and their families.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.3: Local authorities, CHS and SCRA must work together to consider how best to plan and prepare all children and families for optimal support, understanding of, and participation in their children's hearing.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.7: The feasibility and potential positive and negative consequences of pre-hearing planning meetings must be explored.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.8: In a redesigned children’s hearings system there must be a separation between procedural decisions relating to the hearing itself and the decisions made by the hearing.
There should be an assessment to understand which procedural decisions a Chair can take without the need to convene a full Panel in advance of a hearing. This should include scrutiny of whether anything needs to change in legislation or procedural rules to better facilitate decision-making and eliminate structural drift and delay in the system.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.10: The rights of brothers and sisters to participate and be part of their siblings’ hearing must be upheld.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.11: For people who might find it difficult to physically attend a hearing due to emotional or practical concerns there must be ways for information and views to be shared in advance, either through a written report or a recording.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.12: The existing obligation for a child to attend must be removed and replaced with a presumption that a child will attend their Hearing, with some limitations. There must be no presumption that babies and infants will attend their Hearing.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.13: The existing range of options available to help facilitate children’s attendance within the children’s hearings system should remain in place and expand in accordance with emerging research, evidence and shared learning from other tribunals and ongoing improvement work.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.14: If a child does not wish to attend their hearing, then there must be clear mechanisms in place to help the child understand what was discussed at the hearing and what decisions were made.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.17: All reports must be shared with plenty of time for Panel Members to review them.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 8.19: A child and ‘relevant person’ must be given appropriate time to read and understand the information that they receive.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 9.2: Children and their families must be helped to understand their choices and rights relating to their participation in their hearing.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 9.4: The provisions in section 3 of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 with respect to a child being given an opportunity to express their views in a manner they prefer or a manner suitable, must be commenced.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 10.3: Social workers’ training must cover the purpose, processes, and structure of the children’s hearings system in adequate detail and must support them in developing the reports that decision makers will need to inform their decision-making.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 10.4: Social workers who attend Hearings must have an in-depth understanding of the lives of children and families to whom the Hearing relates.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 11.12: Orders must have a high degree of specificity to ensure safe, loving, mutually supportive relationships are upheld and protected.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 11.14: There must be clear processes for a Hearing to inquire about what is working and what is not working with respect to contact arrangements as part of regular review processes.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 11.16: If families are not engaging in the support that is available, the tribunal must inquire about the circumstances surrounding this and seek to understand what alternative provision may be more appropriate.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 11.19:
11.19.1 There must be sufficient resources and multi- agency planning and collaboration with the Children’s Hearing to ensure the additional, specific needs, of all 16 and 17 year olds are met.
11.19.2 The tribunal must have oversight of the transition plans for children who are nearing their 18th birthday so that there is no ‘cliff edge’ in terms of help and support when they become an adult.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 11.23: The right to appeal must be accessible and understandable to children and families.
To ensure feedback loops play a role in the continuous improvement of Hearings, Sheriffs should request a copy of appeal decisions be included in Hearing papers.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 12.1: The application of compulsion should remain with a child, but there must be a strengthened understanding of the importance of their family and the support they require as part of the link between the order and the Child’s Plan.
Status
Accept : 1
Recommendation 12.7: A Review Hearing should be seen as an opportunity for a full and frank discussion alongside the child and family with the benefit of an independent Chair, and not a place for adversarial proceedings. They should be characterised by curiosity into what has gone wrong and what is needed to change. In an inquisitorial system, the Review Hearing should be the place for an open and honest inquiry into what progress has been made, where the strengths of the family lie, and what challenges there might have been in meeting the terms of the order.
Status
Accept : 1
Accept with conditions
Recommendation 2.1: An overarching principle in primary legislation or procedural rules and a shared set of national standards for the workforce should be made that explicitly describes the children’s hearings system as inquisitorial. This will foster an inquisitorial approach and culture within the children’s hearings system and ensure there is a clear understanding across the entire system of what this means.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 2.3: Consideration must be given to the specialisation of Sheriffs for involvement in Children’s Hearings Court hearings and other proceedings relating to children and families. Sheriffs must have a clear understanding of trauma, childhood development, neurodiversity and children’s rights and the dynamics of domestic abuse.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 3.3: Changes to the statutory referral criteria and to updating and modernising the language of ‘protection, guidance, treatment and control’ in section 60(2) of the 2011 Act must be considered.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 5.5: Interim orders must be in place for a length of time that is in the best interests of the child.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 5.6: There must be no requirement for young children to agree with the grounds for referral. When all relevant persons agree the grounds and Statement of Facts, this must be sufficient to consider the grounds as agreed, with no need for additional proof proceedings.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 7.1: The way in which a consistent Chair engages with children and families must change. The Chair of a redesigned children’s hearings system must be at the centre of the decision making model, maintaining the integrity of an inquisitorial Children’s Hearing. The Chair must work relationally alongside children and their families; assess the information provided to the Panel; uphold the rights of children and their families to be involved in decisions that affect them; preside over a robust and clear decision-making process; work collaboratively alongside others; and have clear oversight of the order and the Child’s Plan.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 8.6: There must be exploration of the feasibility relating to CHS being the organisation responsible for deciding on a date and location of a children’s hearing. This should be part of the aforementioned review of CHS and SCRA’s respective functions.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 11.3: Home supervision orders must have the same degree of specificity and urgency as orders that require a child to be looked after away from home.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 11.10: For children for whom there are clear indications that the circumstances that their families face are too challenging for them to remain at home, there should be earlier review by the hearing, in collaboration with the implementing authority, of what a longer-term plan for their care might look like.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 11.20: There must be a mechanism for the children’s hearing to identify when a child has been subject to compulsory measures of supervision for longer than two years, after which there should be an in-depth review to determine whether this is in the best interests of the child or whether alternative, longer-term arrangements should be made. This review should include scrutiny of the efficacy of the Child’s Plan.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 11.21: All children and families and implementation authorities should understand what is expected of them and what needs to happen to ‘exit’ the children’s hearings system.
The concept of a child’s ‘exit plan’ out of the children’s hearings system, with clear targets and timescales, should be developed and tested in local areas.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 12.8: The Reporter should be given the discretion to call for a Review Hearing without the need for new grounds to be investigated and established, where appropriate.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 13.2: Through the inspection process, the Care Inspectorate should consider how CSOs are supported and prioritised with implementing authority planning processes.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Recommendation 13.4: There must be a single point of access for children and families and others who wish to make a complaint about an aspect of the children’s hearings system.
Status
Accept with conditions : 2
Explore or Consult
Recommendation 1.7: There must be consistent high quality provision of Family Group Decision Making and restorative justice services across Scotland.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 5.2:
5.2.1 A child and families’ experience at Court should align as much as possible with the experience at a Hearing in terms of the physical environment and the expected conduct of an inquisitorial approach.
5.2.2 Wherever possible, there should be a consistent Sheriff throughout the process who is specially trained and skilled.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 5.3: The appointment of a Safeguarder must be routinely considered during the process to establish grounds.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 5.4: The reasons for structural and systemic delays in establishing grounds must be identified and eliminated. Potential solutions considered must involve the legal profession and must include:
5.4.1 The benefit of a statutory three month set time limit for the determination of grounds, with scope for this to be extended in extreme circumstances, at the discretion of the Sheriff.
5.4.2 Measures to prioritise the developmental needs of infants and babies where systemic delays may impact on their ability to form lasting and consistent relationships.
5.4.3 Understanding whether a flat rate fee structure or changes to legal aid would make a difference in terms of reducing the drawing out the processes.
5.4.4 Sheriffs must use the tools at their disposal for the expeditious determination of disputed grounds for referral.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 7.8: Where possible, a Reporter attending a child’s hearing should be the same Reporter that children and families will have engaged with as part of the referral processes and establishment of grounds.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 8.2: The first information that a child receives about the Hearing must change. After grounds are established, any communication sent to the child and their family relating to the processes and decisions of the hearing should come in the name of the Chair. The mechanisms for this change should be included in the review of CHS and SCRA’s functions referred to earlier.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 8.4: In advance of a hearing taking place, the child or young person and their family should be offered an opportunity to meet the Chair outwith the formal setting of a hearing.
Consideration should be given to the production of a note of the meeting shared, with the permission of the child and their family with everyone who has a right to receive information relating to the children’s hearing by the Chair.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 8.5: Children’s hearings must be planned to the individual needs of each child and their family.
Arbitrary time limits for the length of children’s hearings must be discontinued.
Greater consideration must be given to the flexibility of Hearing times and locations to accommodate the needs and preferences of children and their families. It may be appropriate for hearings to take place later in the afternoon or in the evenings, or perhaps even at the weekend and in places close to them, or where they feel comfortable and safe.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 8.9: The preparation phase prior to a hearing taking place must give particular consideration to the information held by the people who know the child best, including those working closely alongside them, and foster, kinship and adoptive parents. These people must be able to participate appropriately and share their views. Legislative or policy changes may be needed to the definition of ‘relevant person’ status to facilitate these changes.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 8.15: National standards for providing reports to the children’s hearings must be prioritised, including the development of a standardised pro forma report template that works across all 32 local authorities and captures all the relevant information held by the different agencies and organisations to aid robust and evidence-informed decision making by the Panel. This should be operational across the children’s hearings system, recognising different assessments and approaches across Scotland but one that creates a standardised reporting process. This must be led nationally but include multi-agency and local authority representation.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 8.16: The Child’s Plan, accompanied by clear succinct information and recommendations from other multi- agency forums, should form the basis of the information that the Panel receive and how they make their decisions.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 8.18: Children and families must be fully supported when their papers arrive from the hearing.
Information shared with children and their families must be proportionate and necessary and steps should be taken to minimise trauma, distress, and misunderstanding.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 9.1: Children and families should be recognised as experts in their own lives and must feel included in the decision-making process and gain a sense of working alongside the Panel to make strong and competent choices and decisions in the best interests of the child.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 9.3: The voices and experiences of babies and infants must be captured and shared with the Panel.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 9.5: There should be a full examination of the potential benefits and consequences of recording hearings. This should include a full assessment of the impact this would have on the rights of children and their families.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 10.2:
10.2.1 There must be active management of the role of Safeguarders as the changes around the children’s hearings system are implemented, with consideration of regionalised approaches if required.
10.2.2 The governance processes must enable highly skilled and qualified Safeguarders and should continue to facilitate excellent oversight and review to ensure the conduct and contribution of Safeguarders matches the ethos of the redesigned children’s hearings system.
10.2.3 At every point of instruction of a Safeguarder, there must be clarity about what is being asked of them and what the focus of their enquiry and contents of the report should be.
10.2.4 Children and their families should be clear what the role of Safeguarders is and how this role aligns with the other people that are attending and contributing to the discussions about their lives.
10.2.5 There must be an understanding that Safeguarders appointed at the stage grounds are established may not require to remain involved at the stage of the children’s hearing, but that their continued involvement may add value and be in the best interests of the child. There should be consideration of the legislative provisions around appointment of Safeguarders to support this approach of active consideration of the need for the Safeguarder as proceedings move from Court to the children’s hearing.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.2: There must be a closer relationship between what is in an order and the help and support that a family needs to address the challenges that are in their life. All orders must be specific about the help and support that the child and family require.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.4: Panels must be empowered to create space for restorative justice and FGDM processes to take place, by deferring hearings for a sufficient time.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.7:
11.7.1 The Hearing must ensure that, wherever possible, children remain with consistent caregivers when it is not possible for them to remain safely at home.
11.7.2 Children’s hearings must question and test the extent to which implementing authorities are fulfilling their legal and policy requirements with respect to providing consistent, safe, protected, and loving homes for children and ensuring that the legal tests that exist in statute are being fully exercised.
11.7.3 Where relationships have broken down, an inquisitorial approach to the children’s hearings system must allow for conversations about how to rebuild these in the best interests of children and their families.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.8: There must be closer links between local authority decision-making relating to adoption, permanence and residence orders and the legal tribunal of the children’s hearing. Efforts must be made to streamline aspects of decision-making when a Permanence Order or Adoption Order has been applied for.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.9: There should be consideration of a set timescale for the length of time a child can be accommodated in what is intended to be long-term placement before a local authority decides to progress an application for an order which provides legal, permanent, and physical security for the child.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.11: National best practice guidance around the issue of ‘contact’ and maintenance, repair and development of safe relationships must be developed.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.13: For siblings who each have individual Child’s Plans and orders through the children’s hearings system there needs to be consistency of approach, so that there are not competing orders in place with differing ‘contact’ requirements.
Recommendation 11.15: The hearing must seek clarity regarding the provision of help and support set out for the family, including foster, kinship, and prospective adoptive families, in the Child’s Plan and must be clear about its expectation of the implementing authority and multi- agency partners. This should include any financial support a family may need to receive to maintain contact arrangements or to mitigate against any changes in income when a child is no longer living at home, including to benefits.
Status
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.17: The hearing should be made aware of any unintended consequences of a child living apart from their family, including isolation due to the contact restrictions which may prevent a birth parent from having contact with their family or attending community events.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.18: Appropriate evidence-based help and support must be available to help families to recover and rebuild their lives after a child has been removed from their care, including with respect to future pregnancies and with an understanding that children may return home once they turn 16.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 11.22: Wherever possible, there must be a consistent Sheriff in the grounds and appeal processes.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 12.2: The hearing must be empowered to maintain oversight of orders and exit plans made by hearings, to consider concerns reported to them regarding implementation, and to take appropriate action in response to those concerns. This will be enacted by putting in place a more immediate and flexible response to concerns that a CSO is changing or might not be being fully or appropriately implemented.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 12.4: There must be a provision that enables the Hearing to make a requirement for the implementing authority to regularly report back to the Hearing on progress.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 12.5: It must be clear that the implementation authority extends beyond social work. There is a duty to collaborate across health, education, justice and other services—and there must be an understanding of the expectation on these other areas and their role in implementing the order.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 12.6: When the hearing is made aware of a concern or a challenge in implementing the order, or that things are working really well and the order should be removed, the Chair must review the information that has been shared and should have the discretion of considering the next steps, and should have a range of options available on how to proceed—informing the child and family about their decision. These may include taking no further action, highlighting the concern to the implementing local authority, or directing that an early Review Hearing is required.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 13.1: The programme for delivery and implementation put in place to oversee the implementation of these recommendations should consider whether there is a role for a new accountability body to ensure ongoing quality assurance, continuous improvement and oversight of a redesigned children’s hearings system.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 13.3: An improved way to effectively and more consistency collect, share and learn from data across the children’s hearings system must be developed:
13.3.1 Local authorities must be supported to hold and provide the data to inform and support national and local understanding of the implementation, impact and outcome of decisions made by the children’s hearings system, to better enable informed and reflective decision making for all partners and improve outcomes for children and families.
13.3.2 Where issues arise due to legislation, for example, GDPR restrictions, all partners should work towards positive solutions. This includes SCRA and CHS fully exploring means of effectively sharing or jointly controlling data in order that the outcomes and impact on the wellbeing of children can be better understood.
13.3.3 The National Convener should seek to share relevant and proportionate information annually with relevant governance structures (for example, Children’s Services Planning Partnerships) to provide local decision makers with relevant, timely reflections on the
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Recommendation 12.3: There must be ways for the child and their family, and the important people in their lives, including those working alongside, them to keep in touch with the Hearing about how things are going.
Status
Explore or consult : 3
Do not accept
Recommendation 3.8: When the Reporter is making a decision about whether to refer a child to a Children’s Hearing on care and protection grounds rather than offence grounds, they must have regard to the longer-term implications of the establishment of grounds for referral on offence grounds and the, albeit limited, reportability or disclosure of this later in life.
Status
Do not accept : 4
Recommendation 11.1: The Hearing should engage in robust scrutiny of a Child’s Plan.
Status
Do not accept : 4
Recommendation 12.9: Mechanisms should be created to enable the Reporter to draw the attention of the Chair to new information that is thought to be relevant to the decision-making of the Hearing, whether or not it reaches the threshold for a new statement of grounds.
Status
Do not accept : 4
Varied responses to sub-recommendations
Recommendation 2.6: There must be changes to the way a Child’s Plan is put in place:
2.6.1 Every child who comes to a Children’s Hearing must have a Child’s Plan, or a clear timeframe for when their Child’s Plan will be in place.
2.6.2 There must be national template for a Child’s Plan.
2.6.3 The Scottish Government update of the GIRFEC guidance on the Child’s Plan must align with the conclusions of the Independent Care Review and the conclusions of this report. In particular, the Child’s Plan must include further consideration of the support needs of the family.
| Status | Do not accept – 2.6.1 | Explore or consult - 2.6.2 | Accept with conditions - 2.6.3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 3 | 2 |
Recommendation 3.6: There must be changes to the way that the Children’s Hearings System engages with a family before a child is born:
3.6.1 When it is considered that compulsory measures may be required immediately upon a child’s birth, the Reporter must be engaged in multi-agency processes and decision making and must be empowered to undertake an investigation and prepare draft grounds for referral before a baby is born.
3.6.2 Wherever possible, the Reporter’s investigation prior to a baby being born must involve seeking the voice of expectant parents.
3.6.3 Expectant parents must be offered the support of an advocacy worker and a lawyer at the same time or prior to the Reporter’s involvement. Changes may be required to the legal aid rules to facilitate this.
| Status | Accept with conditions – 3.6.1; 3.6.2 | Do not accept – 3.6.3 |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 4 |
Recommendation 4.3: Once a referral has been received, the Reporter must work more closely alongside children and families, where possible. This should include:
4.3.1 Ensuring the voices, views and experiences of children and their families are routinely part of the Reporter’s investigation (and there must be consideration of a statutory duty on the Reporter to seek the views of the child and family if they wish to share them).
4.3.2 Making connections between other simultaneous child care and protection processes, and removing duplication, confusion and overwhelm where possible;
4.3.3 Reviewing the Child’s Plan (if there is one) as an integral part of understanding the help and support that has been put in place for children and for their families.
| Status | Accept - 4.3.1; 4.3.2 | Explore or consult – 4.3.3 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 |
Recommendation 4.4: The following measures should be considered with a view to reducing the number of ‘repeat referrals’ and increasing coordination between the children’s hearings system and the other parts of the ‘care system’:
4.4.1 The potential value of a ‘closure report’ sent from the implementing authority to the Reporter should be explored.
4.4.2 There must be an option for the Reporter to produce a more specific and detailed written report to the local authority with more of an analysis of the investigation process, particularly if children and families are more involved in discussions alongside the Reporter, where appropriate.
4.4.3 Where appropriate help and support for children and families has not been provided, there should be further collaboration between the Reporter and the local authority, and the potential use of the measure contained within s.68(5) should be explored.
4.4.4 Re-referrals of children to the Reporter within a specific timeframe should be considered as part of a continuation of the previous concern, rather than new circumstances, and wherever possible should be considered by the same Reporter.
4.4.5 There must be improved mechanisms to better capture data to understand the impact of voluntary measures and why children are re-referred to the Reporter.
| Status | Accept – 4.4.2; 4.4.3; 4.4.5 | Explore or consult – 4.4.1; 4.4.4 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 |
Recommendation 5.1: The process of establishing grounds must change:
5.1.1 The drafting of grounds and the Statement of Facts should be reframed to take a rights-based approach to help families to better understand why grounds are being established and recognise themselves in the drafting.
5.1.2 Where relevant and appropriate, the Statement of Facts should include strengths and positive elements of a child’s care in addition to the challenges in their lives.
5.1.3 Grounds must be established in a separate process before a child and their family attend a Children’s Hearing. There must be no more Grounds Hearings.
5.1.4 A more relational way of working to agree grounds and confirm the Statement of Facts should be encouraged, where the Reporter exercises professional judgement to determine when children and families might be able to discuss grounds.
| Status | Accept – 5.1.1 | Do not accept – 5.1.2 | Accept with conditions – 5.1.3; 5.1.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 2 |
Recommendation 6.1: A Children’s Hearing must operate explicitly as an inquisitorial, non-adversarial tribunal where the sole objective is to arrive at decisions that are in the best interests of the child. This includes:
6.1.1 The existing Rules governing a Children’s Hearing must be sufficiently robust to ensure that the Chair is able to manage the dynamics and conduct of an inquisitorial approach to a Children’s Hearing. This includes determining who is present at each stage of a Children’s Hearing, whilst effectively balancing rights of attendance and participation, and having the flexibility to change the speaking order and arrangements and the authority to ask contributors to the meeting to leave the room after they have spoken, if that is in the best interests of the child.
6.1.2 The decision-making model must consist of a salaried, consistent and highly qualified professional Chair accompanied by two Panel Members, remunerated at a daily rate.
6.1.3 As far as possible the Chair must be the same Chair each time a child and their family attend a Hearing. This should also apply to Panel Members where possible and desirable.
| Status | Accept – 6.1.1 | Do not accept – 6.1.2 | Explore or consult – 6.1.3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 3 |
Recommendation 6.2:
6.2.1 The decision-making model must consist of three distinct phases: (1) a robust preparatory phase; (2) the Children’s Hearing followed by a pause in proceedings; (3) sharing the decision with a child and their family verbally and in writing.
6.2.2 The final decision will be a majority decision. If there is a dissenting view from a Panel Member, the Chair must reflect that in the written decision.
6.2.3 The Chair must provide the decision within a reasonable time limit.
6.2.4 A framework must be developed for how written decisions should be approached by the Chair.
6.2.5 A summary of the decision made by the Hearing in plain language and in a format appropriate to the age and stage of the child must be shared alongside the full decision.
There must be consideration given to whether this would also be appropriate for family members.
| Status | Accept – 6.2.2; 6.2.3; 6.2.4 | Accept with conditions – 6.2.1; 6.2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 |
Recommendation 7.2: Changes must be made to the recruitment and training of Panel Members:
7.2.1 The competency-based recruitment framework currently used to recruit Panel Members must be updated and developed. For the Chair this must include personal qualities, tribunal skills, and legal competence. For Panel Members this must be based on criteria that focuses more on their personal qualities.
7.2.2 Where possible, Panel Members should be local to the community that the child and family are from, but there should be a focus on matching Panel Members to children and families to whom they can relate and who are empathetic to their experiences, challenges and circumstances.
7.2.3 The training of Panel Members must meet the needs of an inquisitorial children’s hearings system and must include an understanding of the broader ‘care system’. All Panel Members must receive opportunities to continuously develop their skills and reflect on the way that they engage with children and families, and their role.
7.2.4 The potential value of specialist Panels or Panel Members with specialist training should be considered.
7.2.5 The recruitment and training of Panel Members and maintenance of standards should continue to be undertaken by the National Convener.
| Status | Accept with conditions - 7.2.1; 7.2.2 | Accept – 7.2.3; 7.2.4; 7.2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1 |
Recommendation 10.1: The conduct of lawyers representing children and relevant persons throughout the children’s hearings system must be in line with the ambition for children’s hearings to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial:
10.1.1 There must be a review of the pre-existing Code of Practice that lawyers are required to adhere to and of the processes with respect to the register of solicitors eligible to provide legal assistance to children, maintained by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
10.1.2 There must be mechanisms to review practice and to ensure that lawyers are held to the standard expected of them at children’s hearings.
10.1.3 There must be consideration of the development of rights of audience so that lawyers should demonstrate certain skills and attributes before being able to appear on behalf of children and relevant people at a hearing.
| Status | Accept – 10.1; 10.1.1 | Accept with conditions – 10.1.2; 10.1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 |
Recommendation 11.5:
11.5.1 Where alternative options to Secure Care are not available in local areas, this should form part of the hearing’s contribution to the data collection and information shared with the National Convener so that a national picture for improvement can be gathered as part of the ongoing redesign of Secure Care and the ask of the Independent Care Review to ensure community-based alternatives are available.
11.5.2 The Panel must place expectations on the implementing authority with regard to helping children who are living in Secure Care to maintain relationships that are important to them and connections to their family and community, where it is safe to do so.
11.5.3 The timescales for children living in Secure Care must be reviewed to ensure that they are appropriate and in their best interests. There must be no expectation or understanding that children should be living for long periods of time in Secure Care, but rather the presumption should be that it is a temporary measure.
11.5.4 An exit plan must be put in place which helps children to understand that a Secure Care arrangement is temporary and when they can expect to move home or to another place of safety, what needs to happen in advance of that, and how they can be involved in that decision-making.
| Status | Accept – 11.5.2; 11.5.4 | Explore or consult – 11.5.1; 11.5.3 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 |
Recommendation 11.6:
11.6.1 The processes and support available for families where multiple children are engaged with child protection, and care and support processes including the children’s hearings system must be streamlined and connected.
11.6.2 Wherever possible and appropriate, the same Chair should be present at each separate child’s hearing for the same family (brothers and sisters).
| Status | Explore or consult – 11.6.1 | Accept with conditions -11.6.2 |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 2 |
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback