Mr. Terry Dignan:

I thank the committee for inviting us to address it today. EPIC, empowering people in care, is a national advocacy organisation that works with children and young people in care with care experience. The work of the advocate is to support the child, to allow the child to understand issues affecting him or her, to access information and to access the entitlements they have. All of our advocates are professionally qualified and experienced child care professionals.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss the critical issue of guardians ad litemwith the committee in the context of the Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2017. EPIC’s position is that every child involved in legal proceedings requires a guardian ad litem. It is a crucial aspect of the system that the child’s best interests are represented in any court proceeding that will have an impact on the child’s life. It is important to note that such proceedings can be very intimidating and confusing to a child. This is especially true for children in care, for whom court proceedings can determine their separation from their parents, siblings, community and the extent of their contact and access to their birth family. EPIC believes it is crucial that all children involved in legal proceedings have a right to have their voice heard and have their best interests represented. We also recognise that guardians ad litem can be appointed for a limited period of time. Children involved in care proceedings should have the support of both a guardian ad litem and, where possible, an independent advocate with whom they have had time to develop a trusting relationship. We are encouraged that the joint committee has dedicated time to examine the importance of the voice of the child and we are grateful for the opportunity to put forward the opinion that children with care experience or in care must have entitlement to both a guardian ad litem and, where possible, an advocate.

Guardians ad litem and advocates provide different yet complementary support to children in care. While guardians ad litem will outline the child's wishes and feelings and defend the child’s best interest, the role of the advocate is solely to support the child in having his or her voice heard. This is a particularly significant distinction given how disempowered children can feel in care proceedings where decisions are being made about their interests and future. Due to the difference in their role, guardians ad litem in some cases may only have had the opportunity to meet the child on a limited basis and only when proceedings are in being. Guardians ad litem might have a trusting relationship with the child in some instances, but not in all cases. This is especially significant for children in care, which is why we are drawing the committee's attention to the importance of having an advocate who will have the opportunity to engage with the child before, during and after the court proceedings.

Children in care are a particularly vulnerable cohort. They often struggle to build relationships and trust with adults. Advocates will always have the opportunity to build a relationship with the child over an extended period of time and position themselves as a medium to long-term support on whom the child can count. An advocate will encourage the child to speak where possible or will accurately represent their views in care proceedings. The relationship between the child and the advocate is further strengthened by its voluntary nature. The child chooses to work with the advocate, whereas in many cases the guardian ad litem is court appointed. We have successfully supported children and young people with care experience in large part because of the time, effort and expertise that advocates devote to developing this trusting relationship. In EPIC’s opinion, guardians ad litem and the guardian ad litemsystem would benefit significantly from working in collaboration with advocates, where possible, when representing a child in care proceedings. Furthermore, it is the child at the centre of these proceedings who will ultimately benefit from a closer collaboration between an advocate and a guardian ad litem.

We welcome that the best interests of the child is highlighted as paramount in child care proceedings. EPIC’s opinion of the proposed legislation is twofold. First, we welcome the regulation of the GAL service to ensure consistency in practice, adequate oversight and structured complaint procedures. This is especially welcome given that there are currently significant geographical inconsistencies in a child’s access to a court appointed guardians ad litemand such a lottery is unacceptable. Further, it is our duty to promote the right of the child to have their voice heard in matters that affect them.The proposed regulation of the GAL in head 5, subhead (1), insists that “while the Guardian ad litem will hear the child’s views, and have regard to them, in formulating his-her report for the court, the GAL will advise the court ... on what is in the best interest of the child. S/he is not constrained by the views of the child ...". While we understand that this is consistent with the guardian ad litem’s mandate, children, and especially children in care, would benefit in some cases from having access to both a guardian ad litem and an advocate in court proceedings. Our opinion is that it would be beneficial to both the child and the court if a formal structure was put in place to enable better collaboration between the child and the court through having a relationship between the guardian ad litemand advocates, where possible. This collaboration would be facilitated by the establishment of a single guardian ad litem service that would be open to the possibility of advocates being appointed alongside guardians ad litem for children in care.

To conclude, EPIC believes that the legislation is a positive development. However, the current proposal is in danger of diluting the voice of the child by limiting the child to a witness status. This does not, in our opinion, give appropriate or adequate weight to the voice of the child in respect to court proceedings in a manner that is consistent with Article 42A of the Constitution, which states, “in all proceedings ... in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.” It is our contention that the key to ensuring the child’s voice is heard is through structured collaboration between guardians ad litemand advocates. The voice of the child must be central to that process and must inform court decisions during child care proceedings. If the voice of the child is absent, the court will not be in a position to make a fully informed decision. We feel this is critical to the vulnerable cohort of children in care.