Cafcass and ADCS issue practice guidance on care proceedings where advice of guardian and assessment by local authority are fundamentally different

The guidance, published last month (23 July), sets out the process that should be followed at any stage and before making final recommendations to court, when the views of the children’s guardian and local authority differ on the final care plan or interim arrangements for a child.

It clarifies that it is “not intended to be used to agree a joint position”, rather to make sure that recommendations to court include a “clear explanation” about why the children’s guardian, the LA social worker, and/or the independent reviewing officer (IRO) have reached different positions.

It notes that the explanation must set out what the points of difference are so that the judge in the case can better understand these, adding: “it remains for the court to decide what is safe and in the best interests of the child.”

Although parents are not involved in the discussions between the children’s guardian and the local authority social worker, the guidance states that families should be made aware of any meetings and the minutes be made available to them.

It adds: “Working in an open and transparent way with families is fundamental to social work practice in both LAs and Cafcass.”

Other key points in the guidance include:

Related Articles

Councils should respond to all recommendations made during independent complaints investigations, says Ombudsman

Judge criticises police force over “unjustifiable” redactions in child proceedings case

Judge orders interim relief amid dispute over age assessment

Supreme Court refuses Guardian permission to appeal setting aside of direction by judge to investigate circumstances of children not subject to proceedings

Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal over power of court to revoke adoption orders

When a children’s guardian or local authority social worker becomes aware that there is likely to be significant disagreement about the child’s care plan, each practitioner should first seek supervision in accordance with their own organisation’s policies to reflect on their respective rationales.
A meeting should then be convened. It is important that this meeting agenda is set up to exchange information, to establish the points of difference and the reasons for the points of difference between the children’s guardian, the LA social worker and/or the IRO (if appointed) regarding future arrangements for the child.
The chairing of the meeting needs to be facilitative so that no party feels criticised, and so that it can help inform the court hearing.
The meeting should be attended by the children’s guardian, the local authority social worker and their team manager plus the IRO (if appointed). Minutes of the meeting should be taken, and these should be shared and agreed with all present. The LA social worker and children’s guardian will include, in their final reports to the court, an agreed note clearly setting out the differing views.

ADCS and Cafcass finally provide guidance for structuring the pre-final hearing meeting, a suggested draft template agenda for the meeting and a suggested template for sharing the agreed rationale with the court.

The guidance can be read in full here.

Lottie Winson