NI Guardian Ad Litem Agency Presentation to the 9th BASPCAN Congress University of Edinburgh 13-15th April 2015

1. An Evaluation of Practice within the
Northern Ireland Guardian ad Litem
Agency in working with Families
from Black Minority Ethnic
Communities
Presentation to the 9th BASPCAN Congress
University of Edinburgh
13-15 April 2015

2. Introduction
• Northern Ireland is changing and is having to meet
the needs of an increasingly diverse population
• The number of ethnic minorities in Northern
Ireland has more than doubled from 0.8% in 2001
to 1.8% in 2011 – approx 30,000 (NISRA, 2011)
• Figures for the BME population are notoriously
unreliable
• Estimated that the 2001 census underreported the
BME population in one area of NI by up to 50%
• Absence of reliable official statistics on the
population of BME communities creates the
potential for significant under-resourcing and
inequalities

3. Background
• Rising demand in Public Law proceedings
• Increasing cases from BME groups
• September 2013, 2,071 children and young people had
been continuously looked after for at least 12 months in
Northern Ireland (DHSSPS, 2014). Of this group, 4.5% of
children and young people were from an ethnic minority
group
• Growing interface between Family Law and
Immigration Law
• Increasing questions about jurisdiction
• Requirements for practitioner cultural competence

4. What we know
Research by Selwyn et al (2008)*
1. No evidence of systematic bias against or mishandling of cases
involving black and minority ethnic children.
2. But, it reported that Social Workers ‘were struggling with how to
think about ‘mixed ethnicity children’ and tended to view these
children as ‘black’ even when brought up within an entirely ‘white
culture’
3. Amongst cases referred to Adoption Panels, black and Asian
children spent longer being Looked After before a recommendation
for adoption
4. White and mixed ethnicity children were more likely to be adopted
and adopted at older ages up to 10 years old. Many children from
minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to have their care
plan changed from adoption if no adopters were found within six
months. Efforts to place white children continued for longer.
* Selwyn J., Harris P., Quinton, D., Nawaz S., Wijedasa, D. & Wood M. (2008) Pathways to Permanence for
Black, Asian and Mixed Ethnicity Children: Dilemmas, Decision Making and Outcomes. Nottingham: DCSF.

5. Objectives
• To review cases referred in 2013/14
• Evaluate the nature of Guardian practice in working
with these cases
• Generate knowledge from cases about cultural
competence in practice
• Review the findings against national and international
research evidence (ongoing)
• Disseminate the findings to the wider family justice
system

6. Methodology
• Participation in this study was via informed consent
• Assurances of data confidentiality and anonymity in
respect of both service users and Guardians
• A mixed methods approach – collection and analysis
of quantitative and qualitative
• Explore themes emerging from the quantitative
analysis
• Sample included all Public Law and Adoption cases
referred to NIGALA between 1 April 2013 and 31 March
2014, which involved BME children and families
• Sample includes Irish travellers

7. Methodology
• Review of the data generated using GCIS
• A file audit to review identified cases and collect
biographical and management data
• Audit involved 62 cases with 92 children and 34 staff
(Care Proceedings - 45 cases 73 children (73%)
Adoption Proceedings – 17 cases (27%)
• Questionnaire administered to all Guardians
• Semi-structured interviews conducted with 10
Guardians to supplement the questionnaire
• Semi structured interview schedule (30-50 minutes).

8. Key Findings - File Audit
• Largest ethnic origin - Polish (8%) Lithuanian,(6%)
Black Portuguese, (6%) & Latvian, (2%)
• Just over half (53% of children were born in Northern
Ireland
• 12% of children (11) had a disability (included learning
disability, speech/vision disability, foetal alcohol
syndrome
• More than half of children had English as a first
language
• In terms of duration, whether or not these cases are
taking longer than non BME cases is yet to be
determined – still analysing results

9. Findings - Survey Questionnaires (1)
• Good participation rate – 41 responded (73%)
• 29 (71%) of Guardian respondents had ‘a little experience’ of
working with BME groups
• 12 (29%) respondents felt quite confident in this area
• 5 of the 12 respondents who felt quite confident had a ‘fair
amount of experience’
• 23 (56%) reported being neither confident or not confident
• 37 respondents (90%) had experience of working with
interpreters
• 37 (90%) stated they faced challenges working with BME
families.
• 17 (42%) Guardians described their practice as culturally
competent, whilst half stated they were ‘not sure’ if their practice
was culturally competent

10. Findings - Survey Questionnaires (2)
• 33 (80%) respondents of sample agreed there were
differences working with BME cases
• Problems included language barrier, knowledge of
cultural factors
• 18 (44%) respondents found use of interpreters
challenging
• 25 (61%) of Guardians experienced delays -
immigration status /checks in home country
• Cases time consuming - background checks,
assessments
• Each case different, with complex emotional/legal
issues

11. Findings - Semi Structured
Interviews
• Challenges included gathering information from countries of
origin, difficulty of building rapport when interviewing via an
interpreter
• Problem of some interpreters elaborating on what is said by the
family
• All interviewees agreed on importance of developing specialist
knowledge of traditions and values of clients
• Difficulties of engaging children and adults where English is not
the first language
• Longest delays caused by complex law issues of immigration
• Suggestion High Court is better equipped to deal with complex
cases

12. Case Example
• Case involved appeal on issue of habitual residence
under Article 15 of Brussels Convention 2
• Child born in NI to BME mother
• Mother had mental health difficulties. Returned to
country of origin leaving child in foster care in NI
• With no family in jurisdiction, care plan of adoption
proposed
• Trust identified potential adoptive parents
• Prospective adopters had links with child’s country of
origin therefore meeting child’s identity links
• Mother originally approved of adoption of child

13. Case Example
• Case transferred to High Court
• Country of origin requested repatriation of child
• Basis for Article 15 Brussels 2 – welfare of child should be
determined by courts of his habitual residence
• Applicant has to demonstrate child has particular connection with
the member state
• View of the country of origin – requirements of Article 15 were met
• Judgement in NI court requested member state to accept
jurisdiction for proceedings
• Child repatriated to country of origin
• So what? Case has implications for future cases referred to
NIGALA
• Guardians need to be aware of protocols between UK courts and
European courts regarding foreign national children

14. Recommendations
• NIGALA to ensure clarity about what is cultural
competence and how it will be assessed in Guardian
practice
• Access to advice on various cultural and ethnic groups
• Repository of materials for Guardians to draw from re
different BME groups
• Intensive inputs re larger BME groups in NI and those
referred to the Agency
• Training and awareness raising on asylum and
immigration legislation and the EU treaties and local
protocols
• Consideration of best practice and standards in
regional interpreting services

15. Recommendations
• Training on determination of nationality for children
born in NI
• Training in working with regional interpreters
• Dissemination of findings and learning to NIGALA
Solicitors Panel
• Improve links with NI Council for Ethnic Minorities
• Continue to raise awareness regarding Child Sexual
Exploitation
• NIGALA to review the small numbers of cases in which
there was excessive delay
• Promotion of Guardians active consideration of
ethnicity issues in court reports

16. Discussion