Hearings for Children: Redesign Recommendations

There must be serious, sustained attention on maintaining and sustaining the children and families’ workforce— including the third sector workforce.

There must be consistent, high-quality provision of Family Group Decision Making and Restorative Justice services across Scotland.

All children and families must be able to access the help and support they need, in the way that they need it.

Early help and support for children and families must be provided.

Work should be done to review the impact and effectiveness of help and support for families who work voluntarily alongside local authorities.

Multi-agency partnerships must be supported to develop whole family support.

For child and family social work teams, challenges around recruitment, retention and resourcing must be urgently resolved.

The Children’s Hearings System should be explicitly described as inquisitorial.

There must be a coordinated approach to establishing a new language of care in Scotland.

Sheriffs must have a clear understanding in specific areas, and the creation of specialised Sheriffs must be considered.

There must be national oversight by the Scottish Government of resourcing and provision of training of everyone involved in the Children’s Hearings System.

There must be a clear understanding of rights at all levels of a redesigned Children's Hearings System.

There must be changes to the way a Child’s Plan is put in place.

The current functions of CHS and SCRA must be reviewed for a redesigned Children's Hearings System to operate effectively.

Several changes must be made around referrals to the Reporter.

The Reporter must have more of a role before a referral is made to the Children’s Hearings System.

Specialist training must be provided to those in particular roles within the Children's Hearings System.

The Reporter should have regards to certain issues when making decisions around the grounds through which to refer a child

The Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill must expand routes to the Reporter for children and young people who are convicted at Court.

There must be specific changes to how advocacy is offered.

Once a referral has been received, the Reporter must work more closely alongside children and families, if they can.

Certain measures must be considered to reduce "repeat referrals" and increase co-ordination between the Children's Hearing System and the wider "care system."

Specific changes must take place to the process of establishing grounds.

In certain ways, a child and family’s experience at Court should align as much as possible with the experience at a Hearing.

The appointment of a Safeguarder must be routinely considered during the process to establish grounds.

The reasons for structural and systemic delays in establishing grounds must be identified— then eliminated.

Interim orders must be in place for a length of time that is in the best interests of the child.

Specific recommendations around the agreement of grounds.

For a Children's Hearing to operate as an inquisitorial, non-adversarial tribunal, necessary changes must take place.

Recommendations around changes to the Panel's decision-making model.

The way in which a consistent Chair engages with children and families must change in specific ways.

Specific changes must be made to the recruitment and training of Panel Members.

CHS and SCRA must be resourced to adapt to this redesign

There must be a national review of several ongoing processes and meetings so that the Children's Hearing is clearly seen as the principal legal decision-making forum.

Reporters must only attend a Hearing in specific circumstances.

Clear measures should be in place to explain the role of the Reporter in a Hearing.

There must be a more robust preparation phase before a Children’s Hearing, which must involve children and their families.

The first information children get about their Hearing must change.

Ahead of a Hearing taking place, the child and their family should be offered an opportunity to meet their Chair.

CHS and SCRA must work together before a Hearing takes place.

Children’s Hearings must be planned for each child and family's individual needs.

Specific new responsibilities must be explored for Children's Hearings Scotland.

Scotland must explore whether pre-Hearing planning meetings are workable.

A Chair could take some procedural decisions without needing to convene a full Panel in advance of a Hearing.

The preparation phase must give particular consideration to information to people working closely alongside the child, and to foster, kinship or adoptive parents.

The rights of brothers and sisters to participate in – and be part of – a sibling’s Hearing must be upheld.

When people might find it difficult to physically attend a Hearing, there must be ways for information and views to be shared in advance.

Currently, children have an obligation to attend their Hearing. This must be removed., and replaced with a presumption.

All existing options available to help children attend their Hearings should remain in place, and new options should be made available.

There should be national standards for providing reports to Children's Hearings. This must be a priority.

The Child's Plan should form the basis of information and decisions a Panel makes.

All reports must be shared in plenty of time for Panel Members to review them.

Children and families must be fully supported when their papers arrive from the Hearing.

A child and ‘relevant person’ must be given appropriate time to both read and understand the information that they receive.

Children and families should be recognised as experts in their own lives. As such, they must feel included in the decision-making process.

Children and their families must be helped to understand their choices and rights around participation in a Hearing.

The voices and experiences of babies and infants must be captured and shared with the Panel. 

All children and families must be able to access the help and support they need, in line with the conclusions of the Independent Care Review.

There should be a full examination of the potential benefits and consequences that would come with recording Hearings.

The Children’s Hearings System should be inquisitorial, not adversarial. The conduct of lawyers must reflect this when they represent children and relevant persons .

As changes around the Children’s Hearings System are put in place, the role of Safeguarders must be actively managed.

Social workers’ training must cover the Children’s Hearings System's purpose, processes and structure in adequate detail.

When social workers attend a Hearing, they must have an in-depth understanding of the lives of the children and families involved.

There must be a closer relationship between: what is in an order, and the help and support a family needs to address the challenges in their lives.

The Hearing should engage in robust scrutiny of a Child’s Plan.

There must be a closer relationship between: what is in an order, and the help and support a family needs to address the challenges in their lives.

Home supervision orders must have the same degree of specificity and urgency as orders that require a child to be looked after away from home.

Panels must be empowered to make sure there’s time for Restorative Justice processes to take place and Family Group Decision Making processes to take place.

Where alternative options to Secure Care are not available in local areas, this data should be collected and shared with the National Convener.

When families have more than one child engaged with child protection, care and support systems must be connected and streamlined.

Sometimes, it isn’t possible for children to remain safely at home. When this happens, Hearings must sure they remain with a consistent caregiver, whenever this is possible.

When there are clear indications circumstances will be too challenging for a child to remail at home, there should be earlier review of what a long-term plan of care might look like.

There should be consideration of a set timetable for placements which are intended to be long-term.

When local authorities make decisions, there must be closer links between certain areas.

National best practice guidance must be developed around both the issue of ‘contact,’ and maintenance, repair and development of safe relationships.

Orders must have a high degree of specificity to ensure relationships are upheld and protected where they are: safe, loving, and mutually supportive.

There needs to be consistency of approach for siblings who each have individual Child’s Plans and orders through the Children’s Hearings System .

There must be clear processes for a Hearing to inquire about what is and isn’t working with respect to contact arrangements. This should take place as part of regular review processes.

The Hearing must make sure it’s clear what help and support is set out for a child’s family within the Child’s Plan.

If families are not engaging with the support they have available, the tribunal must inquire about the circumstances surrounding this.

If families are not engaging with the support they have available, the tribunal must inquire about the circumstances surrounding this.

Appropriate evidence-based help and support must be available for families after a child has been removed from their care.

Resources and planning are needed to make sure the additional, specific needs of all 16 and 17-year-olds are met.

When a child has been subject to compulsory measures of supervision for more than two years, there must be a mechanism for the Children’s Hearing to identify this.

Children, families and implementation authorities should all understand what needs to happen to ‘exit’ the Children’s Hearings System.

Wherever possible, there must be a consistent Sheriff in the grounds and appeal processes.

The right to appeal must be accessible and understandable to children and families.

The application of compulsion should remain with a child, but there must be a strengthened understanding of a family's importance.

The Hearing must be empowered to maintain oversight of orders made by Hearings, and exit plans made by Hearings.

There must be ways for certain people to keep in touch with the Hearing about how things are going.

There must be a provision that allows the Hearing to make a requirement for the implementing authority to regularly report back around its progress.

It must be clear that the implementation authority extends beyond social work. There is a duty to collaborate across many parts of the workforce.

When the Hearing is made aware of certain information, the Chair must review the information that has been shared.

A Review Hearing should be seen as an opportunity for a full and frank discussion— alongside the child and family, and with the benefit of an independent Chair.

Where appropriate, the Reporter should be given the discretion to call for a Review Hearing.

When new information is thought to be relevant to the decision-making of the Hearing, mechanisms should be created so that the Reporter can draw attention of this to the Chair.

A programme for delivery and implementation should be in place to oversee the implementation of these recommendations. This should consider whether there is a role for a new accountability body.

The Care Inspectorate should consider how compulsory supervision orders are supported and prioritised with implementing authority planning processes.

An improved way to effectively – and more consistently – collect, share and learn from data across the Children’s Hearings System must be developed.

There must be a single point of access for children, families and others who wish to make a complaint about an aspect of the Children’s Hearings System.

A high-level, collaborative programme for delivery and implementation must be put in place.