Capacity issues

The FDAC team

The team reported feeling under resourced and under pressure with the current

workload of 30 to 35 active cases. The average case load for a full-time worker is 8 to 10 cases. The need to attend court on Mondays and to devote a day to assessment and planning meetings leaves two or three days each week for direct work with parents, liaison with other services and report writing. The team feels that the pressure of work

and the lack of slippage time means they can devote less time than previously to building relationships with parents and with other services.

One of the FDAC team managers commented that the majority of cases held by an individual team member are unlikely to ‘succeed’, in the sense of parents retaining or being reunited with their children. This increases the risk of ‘burn out’ because there is no other work to dilute the burden of these cases. Despite these strains, the team has had excellent staff retention, with only one person leaving during the first two years of the pilot. The staff identify regular supervision and team meetings for reflective practice as key elements of staff support.

Respondents noted a lack of specialism in learning disability. The team, and others also, felt there was a skill gap in relation to responding to adult mental health problems, given the limited role of the adult psychiatrist and his focus on substance misuse. The mental health expertise of the clinical nurse specialist has helped address this gap and will continue with any new appointment. The team feel they would benefit from another full- time child and family social worker. Ideally, the manager would like the team to include a social work senior practitioner, three social workers with a children and family

background, and five substance misuse workers (with a clinical nurse seen as essential).

The court

The capacity of the court was also raised as an issue. The Inner London Family Proceedings Court is fortunate in being able to set aside for FDAC one court room for one day each week, and in having space to allocate two interview rooms and a room for the FDAC team on court days.

The judges and court staff felt that the current level of 30 to 35 active cases was about right for the court to deal with in one day a week. It was noted that the regular reviews that are a feature of FDAC cases had increased the administrative burden on the court.

The number of review hearings held in a day was raised by judges, the team and

guardians. Over time this has increased to up to 12 per day, heard alongside any first or second hearings also listed for the day. Guardians said that on very full days the judges were noticeably less good at engaging with parents as the day wore on. Some of the team questioned the appropriateness of dealing with so many cases in one day, and one judge thought that eight reviews was probably the optimum number.

Two other issues were raised about court capacity. The first was that contested hearings in FDAC cases often cannot be heard by the relevant FDAC judge. The second was that cases that exit FDAC are, more often than not, dealt with by other judges or magistrates. There was a strong preference for the relevant FDAC judge conducting contested FDAC hearings and continuing to deal with cases exiting FDAC. This had been the original intention when the pilot started.

I think it helps to have the same judge. [If the case exits] they know all the history, all the ups and downs. It helps to have the consistency. They‟ve had an overview from the beginning. [social work manager]

In one case of mine the same judge continued with the case and did the final hearing. He had more of an attachment to the client and in-depth knowledge of

the case and that led to a more balanced view. I think it makes the hearing more just. [social worker]

Lawyers in particular were alert to the possibility that parents could object to the FDAC judge continuing to hear the case once it had exited FDAC. But the majority of

respondents felt that the regular review of cases, with the transparent and open

discussion about the parents’ progress or lack of progress, would mitigate concern about bias. It was also noted that the FDAC judge would be aware of parents’ strengths as well as continuing problems and that the benefits of continuing with a judge who was so familiar with the case outweighed the dangers.

Judicial continuity in both these circumstances – contested matters within FDAC and hearings when cases exit FDAC – is not possible at present for two main reasons: the working arrangements for District Judges, and the high number of care cases currently before the courts in ordinary proceedings. Apart from the presiding judge at Wells Street, district judges are contracted to do only eight weeks of family work a year, if they have opted to do it all. The rest of the time they sit in the adult criminal court or the youth court. This severely limits the time available to provide consistency in FDAC cases. The high number of current care cases means there are long delays before time can be found for contested hearings, so they tend to be listed wherever an early date can be found. This might be in another court, let alone before a different judge or bench of magistrates at the Wells Street court.