Social work chief calls for review of child hearings
SCOTLAND’S system of volunteer panels that make major decisions about the lives of children should be reviewed, according to one of the country’s leading social work chiefs.
Alistair Gaw, the president of Social Work Scotland (SWS) and head of children’s services at Edinburgh City Council, said the Children’s Hearings system should be revisited with a view to professionalising the quasi-judicial panels.
Children’s hearings consist of three trained volunteer members who can make decisions about the lives of troubled or vulnerable children including issues such as where they live, whether they remain in mainstream school and what contact they have with family members. Such decisions are normally taken in discussion with parents, health and social work professionals and others involved including the children themselves.
However Mr Gaw, incoming president of SWS which represents social work leaders, said the increasing legalisation of panels was making it difficult for volunteers to make the best decisions in a child’s best interest.
Speaking ahead of the SWS annual conference in Crieff this week, he said: “I have huge respect for panel members and the hearing system itself, but we have so much adversarial argument now that there is a question about whether the interests of the child are getting lost.”
He compared the children’s hearings system with other tribunals operating in Scotland which have as a minimum a trained, paid chair. Mr Gaw said. “We have professional tribunals about issues such as employment, mental health and land and property, but when it comes to the most fundamental questions about the long-term life chances of vulnerable children we are not affording them the same level of expertise.
“Successive governments have stuck with the panel of three lay members, while other tribunals in Scotland have a paid professional chair supported by others which leaves them qualified and equipped to deal with the issues that arise.”
Mr Gaw was involved in the recent court case which saw two of his social work staff convicted for contempt of court, after disregarding a court order
relating to contact. The verdict was ultimately overturned at appeal, but the increasing presence of legal representatives is changing the nature of children’s panels, he says, making it harder for panel members to receive the information they need and ensure the interests of the child are paramount in the face of strong claims relating to the rights of parents. In some cases this is a challenge for those in his own profession to marshall their own arguments better, he said.
But social workers are also concerned at some of the decisions that are being taken by children’s panels and courts.
“In some cases, children who have settled and moved on with foster carers having been away from their family for years are having contact with parents imposed on the grounds of their right to a family life, disrupting placements and causing huge damage,” Mr Gaw said.
“In others decisions on adoption or permanence are delayed by legal disputes, leaving children in a damaging state of limbo. I hear a lot of concern coming back from people that increasingly, as more and more lawyers have been getting involved in this process and taking quite adversarial lines, the needs of children are sometimes lost.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “This is an interesting suggestion, but we have no plans to professionalise the hearings system.”
THE Children’s Hearing system in Scotland has just been through a major reorganisation but Alistair Gaw, president of Social Work Scotland (SWS) and head of Children’s Services at Edinburgh City Council, believes another big change is needed. According to Mr Gaw, the legalisation of panels is making it difficult for lay volunteers to make the best decisions and the system should be staffed by professionals instead.
It is a radical suggestion but it is also a response to a genuine problem: lawyers have become increasingly involved and in some cases this has made it increasingly challenging for panel members. However, the change Mr Gaw is suggesting would effectively mean abandoning the founding principle of the system which is that decisions about the lives of children and young people should be taken by members of the local community.
That principle remains sound and partly explains why children’s panels have been seen as an example of the best of Scotland’s welfare system. It is not perfect of course and the recent reform to introduce nationwide guiding principles was needed but to go further and professionalise children’s panels would risk losing the element of citizen involvement that has contributed to the excellence of the panel system.
It is also useful to remember panel members are not lay people suddenly called on to make complex decisions in the way that jury members are. Children’s panels face complicated problems including criminality, truancy and abuse but before they make decisions, panel members receive detailed training, which is then regularly renewed and refreshed.
That is not to say the system could not do with some refining and Mr Gaw is right to point out there has been increasing legalisation. However, the response is not to professionalise the panels but to ensure that legal advice is more readily available to them.
There are some other improvements that could be made – most importantly giving panel members more feedback about their decisions and appeals – but the basic structure is sound and has the consent and support of the public.
Children’s panels are a cherished part of the welfare system which has just been through major reform – the last thing it needs is another major shake-up.