Ms Ceili O'Callaghan:

My submission focuses on the current court system and on how child protection services, the Child and Family Agency, assess their concerns and the circumstances of families in respect of whom applications have been made to the courts. I wish to highlight three primary issues, namely, the adversarial nature of court proceedings and the impact of this on children and their families; the lack of evidence-based child protection assessments put forward by social workers who take the lead role in this regard; and the outsourcing of assessments to private providers by the Child and Family Agency.

When an interim care order is granted by the District Court, it is accepted that in most cases a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the child's circumstances will be undertaken, prior to possible reunification with his or her family. During this time, the child is placed in the care of alternative carers. In general terms, it is accepted that the required assessments can take between 12 to 16 weeks to complete. This is known at the outset of proceedings. At a minimum, a social work assessment involves an examination of parental capacity. More often than not, the assistance of a psychologist is required in order to gauge cognitive functioning. In addition, psychological assessments of the children involved and, quite possibly, attachment assessments are required. It is quite a lengthy process.

While assessments are ongoing and as Dr. Coulter noted, the court can grant an interim care order for 28 days unless parental consent is forthcoming. In my experience, this adds significant stress to parents who are already in difficult circumstances and can result in an unnecessarily fraught and adversarial relationship between families and the assessing professionals. Children learn from their parents, social workers or guardians that the matter is re-entered on a monthly basis. This causes uncertainty for children who need to develop a sense of security in respect of their foster carers. It can also cause unnecessary anxiety and hope on the part of those who simply want to return home every month. Many parents are vulnerable adults in their own right. In my opinion, the adversarial nature of proceedings can be compounded for a parent with a learning difficulty who requires the support of an advocate. For both parents and children, the hope or stress involved is unnecessary when assessments are outstanding and it is unlikely that reunification will occur in the absence of completed assessments.

Current delays in the assessment process relate to the Child and Family Agency's inability to identify the professional input required, whether from a psychologist or some other suitably qualified individual. In many cases, parties put forward their proposed independent professional whom the agency then funds. This process can often delay proceedings by a number of months. A possible solution might come in the form of consensus. Once the Child and Family Agency has met the grounds for an interim care order, a mediated meeting between parties could be scheduled in order that agreement might be reached in the context of the assessments required and an agreed timeframe for same. Agreement could also be reached on whether the parents are willing to consent to the order the court is going to make. This would provide clarity for families in terms of where they stand, what they are specifically being asked to do and what is expected of them. Each month I witness the lack of clarity for families and I am aware that they become confused. Many parents hope each month that their children will be returned to them, despite the fact that everyone involved knows that the assessments are outstanding and that it will be at least a further three months before the court can make its decision.

An extended timeframe would allow time for professionals to engage in multidisciplinary assessments. At present and more often than not, the Child and Family Agency outsources assessments to private providers. In my opinion this is not solely based on lack of resources - in view of the fact that the agency funds private assessments, I suggest that there is a false economy involved here - it primarily relates to a lack of multidisciplinary teams that are either accessible to or to be found within child protection teams. A multidisciplinary evidence-based assessment conducted by a social worker should ideally involve the input of a psychologist in circumstances where parental capacity is an issue. In addition, the skills of a public health nurse or child psychologist - if developmental delay is a concern - should also be available. The list of the potential professionals required is endless.

I am of the view that the Child and Family Agency is currently insufficiently prepared for the key task of carrying out comprehensive evidence-based assessments. Social workers who are expected to take the lead role in these assessments require specialist training in evidence-based assessments of families, including in respect of child development. Social workers are not proficient in carrying out evidence-based assessments because, in my opinion, their training lends to a more lateral approach. Specialist legal training is required in order to ensure that they fully understand both the legal framework within which they work and the thresholds which they are expected to meet - or not - in court.

There is no doubt that court work is a specialist area. Currently, within the CFA it forms part of every social worker's caseload, including newly qualified social workers with no experience in the field of child protection. It would not take a lot to put in place specialist teams. The committee has already heard from my colleagues of the low number of cases about which we are speaking in the grand scheme of things. A specialist team would alleviate a lot of the issues I am raising.
The extended timeframe suggested in regard to mediated agreements could be reviewed through monthly meetings attended by parents. Obviously, all parties have liberty to re-enter. If necessary, a court agreed chair could be nominated to mediate the ongoing progress of the case. The primary advantages of this proposal are a decrease in stress levels for children and their families, which is paramount, a decrease in unmet expectations, which is evident on a monthly basis, a removal of adversarial proceedings for many families and an overall reduction in costs. By way of explanation, in one case before the court where there are two parents separately represented and a guardian ad litemappointed there would be four separate legal teams every 28 days. At times, this would include the use of counsel. As matters progress, independent assessments are often commissioned and in many cases second opinions are sought. I suggest that current child care legislation needs to be reviewed to consider the advantages of longer orders or mediated agreements by consensus. It is also recommended that the Child and Family Agency provide the essential training required to carry out evidenced-based assessments in conjunction with access to full multidisciplinary teams.Also, social workers must be provided with adequate legal training to ensure they are equipped with a full understanding of the legal thresholds which are relevant to their work.