Out of Court
| Date | 01 June 1996 |
| Author | Chris White |
| Published date | 01 June 1996 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059604300222 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
116
comment
that
the
’all
part
of
the
day’s
work’
complaints
present
no
problem;
that
staff
can
cope.
Family
court
staff
especially
are
vulnerable
to
such
complaints
and
it
is
not
enough
for
us
to
sit
back
and
leave
them
to
cope.
A
parent
or
grandparent
with
a
huge
emotional
investment
in
maintaining
a
relationship
with
a
child
all
too
often
perceives
court
proceedings
as
an
adversarial
situation. If
they
lose
the
battle,
they
may
continue
to
fight
the
war
by
seeking
out
someone
to
blame
for
their
loss -
and
if
the
court
welfare
officer
has
not
supported
their
cause
then
the
court
welfare
officer
has
not
done
a
good
enough
job
and
a
complaint
is
made.
This
is
human
nature;
it
is
completely
understandable
and
it
is
essential
that
people
have
access
to
a
clear
complaints
procedure.
The
court
welfare
officer
is
therefore
faced
with
suggestions
of
inadequacy
ranging
from
omission
through
bias
to
downright
incompetence,
and
all
of
these
must
be
thoroughly
investigated.
In
my
experience,
complaints
made
in
this
kind
of
scenario
rarely
have
any
substance
whatsoever,
and
intellectually
the
court
welfare
officer
knows
this,
while
understanding
the
need
of
the
individual
to
pursue
a
cause.
Emotionally,
however,
the
officer
is
highly
vulnerable
to
these
kinds
of
allegations
which
can
sap
confidence
and
raise
doubts
about
personal
ability.
Like
Alec
Samuels,
I
accept
the
need
for
complaints
procedures
and
I
fully
acknowledge
that
not
all
complaints
will
be
unjustified.
What
I
would
suggest
is
that
it
is
wrong
to
assume
officers
can
cope
as
a
matter
of
course
with
unjustified
complaints
because
they
are
somehow
run
of
the
mill
happenings.
If
we
have
an
effective
complaints
procedure,
then
we
must
have
an
effective
support
system
to
protect
staff
who
become
victims
of
its
misuse.
Anne
Cowper
Senior
Family
Court
Welfare
Manager,
West
Glamorgan
Out
of
Court
Is
there
a
case
for
a
radical
alternative
to
magistrates’
court
duties?
We
don’t,
after
all,
get
any
of
the
increasingly
limited
spondulies
from
the
Home
Office
for
doing
them
and,
despite
my
conscientious
appraisal
of
each
case
before
the
Bench,
it
is
still
only
one
case
in
maybe
seven
that
requires
a
probation
interjection
(no
matter
how
creative!).
How
about
the
following
abolitionist
task
list
for
court
duty?
1.
Duty
officer
sifts
court
papers
and
delivers
the
latter
to
court
and
discusses
with
clerk
the
day’s
cases;
returns
to
office.
2.
Officer
deals
with
any
calls
from
court;
instant
enquiries
can
be
dealt
with
by
phone
or
the
officer
may
need
to
attend.
3.
Officer
attends
court
by
agreement
with
the
clerk,
perhaps
once
in
the
morning
and
once
in
the
afternoon,
to
interview
committals,
the
imprisoned
and
those
who
get
community
sentences,
or
when PSRs
are
requested.
This
way
round
we
are
turning
the
tables
so
that
in
these
very very
rare
courts
where
probation
has
a
low
status,
we
become
a
rare
and
therefore
more
valued
resource.
Indeed,
our
usefulness
might
be
seen
more
clearly
in
all
courts.
What
about
a
proactive
stance,
do
I
hear
you
say?
I
haven’t
made
a
detailed
study,
but
I
suspect
that
if
we
are
aware
of
a
need
before
a case
comes
up,
we
are
also
aware
of
this
at
10
am
(or
whatever
court
start
time
is)
and
can
act
accordingly,
informing
clerk
or
solicitor
or
arranging
to
be
there.
Although
this
note
is
written
in
light-
hearted
vein,
I
feel
it’s
an
idea
whose
time
has
come
and
which
merits
some
consideration.
How
about
it?
Chris
White
Probation
Officer,
Exmouth
To continue reading
Request your trial