Problem solving within the court

Identifying, and helping to overcome, barriers to accessing or engaging with services is another important feature of the problem-solving court approach.

Problem solving – views from the judges

All of the judges felt the court could and should have a role in assisting in resolving issues impacting on the parents or the progress of the case.

They all referred to housing having been a problem issue in a number of cases. Their responses included: making it clear to the local authority that they

expected the problem to be sorted by the time of the next review hearing; requiring senior officers from the housing department to come to court; writing letters on behalf of parents; getting either social workers or the members of the FDAC team to agree to accompany people to meetings with housing officials. One judge noted that one of the FTDCs in the USA had developed links with local housing associations and said that the FDAC would be interested in doing that here.

FDAC Interim Report – August 2009 64

Other examples of problem solving included asking local authorities to reconsider arrangements for contact; requesting, successfully, that a kinship assessment should be carried out quickly, to enable a child to move to live with relatives, making applications to a charitable fund available for judges to help parents returning to new housing in the community from residential placements with fittings and furniture; and helping parents clear debts incurred through unpaid court fines.

They also commented favourably on the FDAC team’s efforts to sort out problems whether this was with the social services, housing, benefits or the court. They commented on how a member of the FDAC team would accompany parents to a service, help negotiate the complexities of housing and benefit entitlement and liaise with children’s services.

Problem solving – views from others

The FDAC team also identified housing as a particular problem area. Although the housing link workers in the three boroughs were helpful and there was good communication with them, they did not have the power, for example, to ensure a transfer away from drug using neighbours.

Sometimes the broker/advocate role of FDAC helped parents move out of hostile relationships with the local authority:

Being involved with FDAC has made me see social services in a positive light. I see now that they are not just there to pick on me. They are there for the safety of the children. They have social workers in FDAC and I have been able to speak to them a lot and see what their perspective is.

Problem solving – findings from observations

The court observations in the seven early cases confirmed that all but one of the seven cases involved some degree of problem solving by the judge:

Who has the key to solving this problem?

Why not invite someone from housing next time? I need them to think outside their box. They are part of something exciting here and we need them to be part of its success, not slowing us down.

The attempts produced mixed results. Some problems over contact by fathers were resolved, and judges’ encouragement to mothers to stick with placements worked in the sense that the mothers did stay put. In one of these cases the judge persuaded a mother to agree to a care worker being invited to a hearing, to discuss the mother’s unhappiness with her placement. In another there was no easing of the personality clash between the mother and the foster carer, despite discussion about how to resolve this issue. When the actions of a housing

FDAC Interim Report – August 2009 65

authority led to the collapse of a re-housing plan there were continued efforts to resolve the situation, but in other cases housing difficulties remained unresolved. Problems caused by lack of money for travel and child care costs also continued unabated.

The efforts made by the judges to actively problem solve are another indication of the non-traditional role that the judges were assuming in these cases. In line with the FDAC objectives, they were adopting a pro-active approach to problem solving in an effort to speed up service delivery and support parents’ efforts to change. But the information also suggests that some problems are not within the power of the judiciary to solve. We return to this theme in the final part of the report.

Observations also recorded the FDAC team taking a problem-solving approach, making practical suggestions for how difficulties might be addressed, in relation to ensuring parents had more time to attend all the various appointments they had to keep each week, in relation to transport difficulties, contact or housing. In one case they succeeded in persuading the community mental health team to keep in contact with a parent, when they were about to close the case. They were resolute, too, in challenging professionals. They explained the adverse impact on a parent of a residential centre’s failure to be explicit enough in describing their rules to her. They urged a local authority to be more creative in trying to help a parent sort out her debts. They advised a social worker that she needed more support in pressing the housing department to act quickly. They pressed another to be pro-active in paying childcare fees.

The staff need to be more upfront with mother about what is expected of her. We need decisions today from the local authority about all these points.