Presentation to the Joint Committee on Health and Children
by
Ms. Ceili O’Callaghan,
Update on Child Protection Services
Tuesday 4th of November 2014
1.0 My name is Ceili O’Callaghan. I am currently self-employed as a guardian ad litem (court appointed representative of the wishes and feelings of the child) and independent child protection consultant. My career, prior to self employment, was as a social worker and social work manager within statutory child protection systems both in Ireland and England. I have 16 years experience in the field of child protection.
1.2 My submission focuses on the current court system and how child protection services (Tusla/Child and Family Agency CFA) assess their concerns and assess the circumstances of families in respect of whom an application has been made. I wish to highlight three primary issues:
· The adversarial nature of court proceedings and the impact of this on children and their families
· The lack of evidence based assessments put forward by social workers (Tusla)
· The out-sourcing of assessments to private providers
1.3 Currently the law allows Tusla (The Child and Family Agency CFA) to make the following applications:
· Emergency Care Orders a period of 8 days
· Interim Care Orders for a period of 29 days
· Full Care Orders, which place children in the care of the State on a long-term basis, usually until the age of majority
1.4 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 to his/her family. During this time, the child is placed in the care of alternative carers.
1.5 In general terms, it is accepted that the required assessments can take a period of 12 – 16 weeks, from commencement to the completion of the report. The assessments include, at a minimum, a social work assessment of parental capacity and more often than not, psychological assessments of parental capacity and risk. In addtion, psychological assessments of the children in question and attachment assessments are often carried out.
1.6 While assessments are on-going, the Court can grant an Interim Care Order, for a maximum of twenty-nine days, unless parental consent is forthcoming for a longer order. 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.
1.7 Children learn from their parents or social worker that the matter is re-entered on a monthly basis. This causes uncertainty and a lack of security for children who need time to settle with their new carers. Likewise, for children who wish to return to the care of their parents, each month may present a new hope and also increased levels of anxiety.
1.8 Many parents are vulnerable adults in their own right. The adversarial nature of proceedings can be compounded for a parent with a learning difficulty who requires the support of an advocate to participate. For both parents and child the hope and/or stress referred to is unnecessary when assessments are outstanding and it is unlikely that reunification will occur until assessments are completed.
1.9 Currently delays occur in the assessment process due to Tusla’s inability to identify the professional required (psychologist and/or other). In many cases parties put forward their proposed independent professional which Tusla then funds. This process can often delay proceedings by a number of months.
2.0 Possible Solutions to the Current Difficulties:
2.1 A possible solution can be reached through consensus. I suggest once the Child and Family Agency have met the grounds for an interim care order that a mediated meeting between parties is scheduled, in order to reach agreement on the following:
· Assessments required
· Timeframes for same
· Once the above have been agreed then consent to an extended order returnable to court when all assessments have been completed within the agreed timeframes.
2.2 This would provide clarity for families in terms of where they stand, what specifically they are being asked to do and what the timeframes will be. Such a process is likely to facilitate less adversarial interactions and allow for building of relationships between families and those involved in their circumstances.
3.0 What is needed to ensure that this system works?
3.1 The extended timeframe would allow time for professionals to engage in multi-disciplinary assessments. Currently the Child and Family Agency, more often than not, out-sources assessments to private providers. In my opinion, this is not solely based on lack of resources (a false economy given the need to fund private assessments), but primarily based on the lack of multi-disciplinary teams within or accessible to child protection.
3.2 A multi-disciplinary evidence-based assessment conducted by a social worker ideally should involve 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 of a child is a concern, a speech and language therapist, a psychiatrist to assess mental health and so on. Other professions, whose input may be necessary, are occupational therapists, play therapists and/or child care workers. All of these professionals are employed within State services.
3.3 Currently, it is my observation that the Child & Family Agency, Tusla, is insufficiently prepared for the key task of carrying out comprehensive evidence- based assessments.
3.4 Social workers who are expected to take the lead role in assessment and gathering/analysing the information need:
· Specialist training in evidence-based assessment of at risk families, including training in child development. Social workers are not proficient in carrying out evidence-based assessments, their training lends to a more lateral approach.
· Specialist legal training, in order to ensure that they fully understand the legal framework within which they work and the thresholds which must be met within the Court arena. There is no doubt that court work is a specialist area and should be manned by experienced and trained social workers who have a sound working knowledge of a wide variety of assessment framework
· Access to all professionals as required.
3.5 Currently in the majority of Social Work Departments court-related work forms a significant part of most social worker’s caseload. This applies to those who are newly qualified as well as experienced social workers. In reality this means that in any given week most social workers will have one, if not, two days in court along with their team leaders. This is a large and unnecessary drain on resources. If teams of specialist social workers were developed, this could be avoided.
3.6 With the extended timeframe suggested above progress could be monitored through monthly review meetings attended by parents. A court agreed chair could be nominated at the mediated meeting and all parties also have the right to re-enter matters should arise.
3.7 The primary advantages of this proposal are: a decrease in stress levels for children and their families, a decrease in unmet expectations, a removal of adversarial proceedings for many families and an overall reduction in costs.
3.8 By way of explanation one case before the Court, where there are two parents, who are separately represented and a guardian ad litem appointed could have four separate legal teams. At times, this would include the use of counsel. As matters progress (returnable every month) quite often, independent assessments are commissioned and in many cases second opinions sought.
I propose that this is unnecessarily complicated and indeed bureaucratic for the families involved. Also, an extremely costly process for the State.
3.9 I would argue that mediated agreements with longer timeframes offer a more family/child friendly system hopefully with improved outcomes although this needs to be tested over time.
4.0 Recommendation:
4.1 It is recommended that the current system and child care legislation is reviewed to consider the advantages of longer orders and mediated agreements by consensus.
4.2 It is also recommended that the Child and Family Agency provide the essential training which is needed to carry out comprehensive, evidence-based assessments, in liaison with a full multi-disciplinary team.
4.3 It is recommended that social workers are provided with adequate legal training, in order to ensure that they are equipped with a full understanding of the legal thresholds which are relevant to their work with children and their families.
Ceili O’Callaghan
1