Working On Another Canvas: The Future For Family Court Welfare Practice?
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059804500302 |
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Working On Another
Canvas: The Future
For Family Court
Welfare Practice?
The forthcoming Green Paper is likely to herald profound changes in
the organisation of the Family Court Welfare Service and in the
day-to-day practice of Court Welfare Officers. In this article, Brian
Cantwell takes an in-depth look at some of the best practice
possibilities from the inevitable changes, and finds grounds for a
degree of optimism about the future.
n
16th February 1998 the
government
on 21st February 1998, the Parliamentary
ordered an inter-
Secretary at the Lord Chancellor’s
departmental review of child welfare
Department, Geoff Hoon M.P., outlined
services to the family courts, with
some of the benefits seen to accrue from
particular reference to examining the
such a change, stating that it would:
proposition that the Family Court Welfare
(a) Provide a better service and support
Service, presently a specialist part of the
to families using the family court(s) by
Probation Service, should come together
&dquo;modernising&dquo; that system.
with the Official Solicitor’s Office, and the
(b) Construct a satisfactory UK response
Guardian ad Litem service, to form a new
to the United Nations’ Convention on the
agency. A Green Paper will be published
Rights of the Child.
during Summer 1998, followed by a three
month period of consultation. A final
(c) Resolve some of the anomahes that are
seen to arise from the
decision about the future shape of things
present distinction
between
is expected
public and
to be announced during late
private law, particularly
in
relation
to
the
1998
independent
or early next year.
One likely
representation of the child’s interests.
consequence of the
anticipated changes would be that oversight
(d) Reduce costs by avoiding overlap of
of family court welfare work will
service
move
delivery between the three agencies
from the Home Office to
concerned.
one of the other
two departments involved in the review,
(e) Develop an enhanced capacity for
namely the Department of Health or the
professional caseworkers, not only to be
Lord Chancellor’s Department.
more flexible in role terms, but also to take
In a speech to the Annual Conference
on a wider range of work than they do at
of the Solicitors Family Law Association
present.
131
This paper considers the issues from a
practitioner’s perspective, in
. !
terms of what
family court welfare officers might be
Office Management
doing differently, in their day-to-day
practice within a new agency, some 3-5
Probably, most longer serving court welfare
years hence.
officers would welcome this change. Such
It seems important also to take note of
a shift could be seen to deal with the
other significant developments of recent
functional tensions in an
months within such reflection. Last
agency that is
finding it increasingly difficult to embrace
November HM
Inspectorate (HMIP, 1997)
a family social work service within a
issued a second Thematic Report on Family
community corrections profile. This
Court Welfare Work, giving a number of
growing of distance within the agency has
pointers in the direction of desirable future
led to a number of complaints from
practice development. Internally, the
practitioners, mcludmg:
Probation Service continues to move
towards the establishment of ’What Works’
0
Disinterested management, who have
models of evidence-based practice. It has
other priorities;
been argued that family court welfare
i
Inadequate or inconsistent resource
practice could benefit from inclusion in this
allocation;
exercise, but presently faces major
0
Erratic development and provision of
problems in relation to the lack of a clear
in-service training;
behavioural change remit and the absence
0
National Standards language that still
of a relevant research baseline upon which
borrows too heavily from the mechanistic
to build evidence-based practice models
approach taken towards the supervision of
(Cantwell, 1997). Externally, the Service
offenders;
observes the government pressing forward
towards full implementation of the Family
.
Staff mobility policies that are seen as
Law Act, with the Legal Aid Board’s pilot
either irrelevant, or in a total mess (due to
scheme (LAB, 1997), in
inconsistent
support of family
implementation).
mediation, now in operation with selected
James Lawson (1998) recently struck
family law firms and not-for-profit
a cautionary note, in terms of practitioners
mediation services.
being over-optimistic about the
When asking what the future holds for
consequences of shifting to another
practitioners within such a climate of
government department’s
control,
change, the following questions would
suggesting that the Lord Chancellor’s
seem to demand attention:
Department may, in the event, be as
preoccupied as the Home Office with
(a) What are the implications of family
concerns and priorities other than those
court welfare work no longer being
relating to court welfare work. Whilst
managed by the Home Office?
ACOP admits to having been able to exert
(b) How would the two social work groups
little influence over the Home Office
-
court welfare officers and guardians -
(Hicks, 1998), there is no evidence, yet, that
work together (and how might the lawyers
in future court welfare interests will be
within the Official Solicitor’s Office fit in)?
more
effectively
repr...
To continue reading
Request your trial