The document discusses the role of pre-proceedings research in care proceedings under the Public Law Outline and highlights key findings from a study conducted by experts from Bristol University and the University of East Anglia. It emphasizes the importance of pre-proceedings work to divert cases from court and improve family engagement, as well as the impact of legal reforms on the timelines and expectations placed on social workers and the courts regarding evidence and care plans. The study's findings indicate that effective pre-proceedings processes can lead to better outcomes for families and children, while also navigating the challenges of legal and social service systems.

1. Care proceedings under the Public Law Outline:
The role for pre-proceedings
Research Team:
Professor JUDITH MASSON, School of Law, Bristol University
Dr JONATHAN DICKENS, Centre for Research on the Child and Family, UEA
Ms KAY BADER, School of Law, Bristol University
Ms JULIE YOUNG, Centre for Research on the Child and Family, UEA
1BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens

2. Pre-proceedings research:
Families on the Edge of Care Proceedings Study
₋ Mixed methods:
– quantitative (case files) and qualitative (interviews etc)
– retrospective (file study) and prospective (observations)
– 6 LAs: 2 shire counties; 2 London Boroughs; 2 unitaries
• Data sources:
– 207 LA solicitor’s files; court case papers/ bundles
– 69 in-depth interviews with professionals
– 36 observations of pre-proceedings meetings (+ follow up)
– 25 in-depth interviews with parents
• ESRC Funded; 27 months April 2009- June 2012
• Peer reviewed
2BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens

3. Changes to care proceedings under PLO 2014
Children and Families Act 2014
• Care proceedings are time limited – 26 weeks, CFA 2014, s.14
• Almost 60% cases now completed in 26 weeks (11% in 2012)
• Greater reliance on social work evidence
– Expert assessments only ‘if necessary to resolve case justly’ CFA 2014, s.13
• LA lawyers welcomed change
– BUT concerned that proceedings did not allow time for parents to change
Developing case law
• Greater demands on social workers for evidence of risk/ harm + reasons for plans
• Greater demands on judges to explain reasons for orders; proportionality
BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens 3

4. Changes to length of proceedings + to orders
• Orders were not expected (or intended?) to change
BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens 4

5. Pre-proceedings process given new impetus
‘Work done by the local authority in the period pre-proceedings – front
loading – is vital for two quite different reasons. Often it can divert a case
along a route which avoids the need for proceedings. When that is not
possible…work done before hand will pay rich dividends later on. A case
presented in proper shape on Day 1 will proceed much more quickly and
smoothly….A week, two weeks, four weeks spent productively before
proceedings are commenced will usually produce greater savings of time
later on… ‘
Munby P View 2, May 2013
BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens 5

6. The Pre-proceedings process
• Originally introduced in statutory Guidance: Children Act Guidance, Vol 1 (2008)
• Revised Guidance: DfE, Pre-proceedings and Court Orders (2014)
Start = LPM LA decision that there is case for court proceedings
1. Letter before proceedings sent to parents
• Identifies concerns
• Advises contacting a lawyers (free)
• Invites to a meeting
2. Pre-proceedings meeting - Parents and lawyer attend
3. Written agreement made
4. Review of parents’ progress/ co-operation with agreement
BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens 6

7. Aims of the process
Engaging parents so as to:
• Divert cases from proceedings
oImprove care at home
oAgree alternative care – s.20/ kin care
• Plan intervention
oAgree services/ service use (to improve care protect children)
• Plan proceedings
oComplete assessments + evidence concerns + prepare papers
oIdentify and assess potential kin carers
These aims are necessarily pursued concurrently
7BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens

8. Diversion: PROCESS DOES WORK TO AVOID CARE PROCEEDINGS
24% 28/117 cases in file study remained out of proceedings for a year
Rate for observed cases higher (some shorter follow up)
• Through improvement in care: 16/ 28 cases; 6/16 substantial improvement
– But many remained open and on child protection plans
– Generally improved engagement
• Alternative care arrangements: 9/ 28
– S.20
– Private law proceedings with local authority support or legal aid
• Case closure 3/28 – little information on file
8BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens

9. Diversion: how the PPP works
CLEAR COMMUNICATION of CONCERNS
A step up from CP Plan another step towards court
LAWYER provides ADVICE, EXPLANATIONS, PARTISAN SUPPORT
A ‘wake up’ call lawyer advises co-op with SW
EMPOWERS PARENT, ENCOURAGES ENGAGEMENT
LA plan may be tweaked parent may feel listened to
LEADS TO AGREEMENT
On
services, behaviour, substitute care, assessment
Parent complies and risk reduces OR parents does not - adding evidence
9BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens

10. Use and Importance of the PPP
• Pre-birth planning
– PPP more commonly used in pre-birth cases than other cp cases
– 39/52 75% of pre birth cases considered at a LPM referred to PPP
– Important that parents have legal advice -Potential for Human Rights breaches by separation:
• Re CA (a child) [2012] EWHC 2190 (Fam); Northampton CC v K [2015] EWHC 199
• Re H [2014] EWFC 38
• All other cases
– Only urgency of application distinguished other cases where PPP used
– Used in 47% (range 41%-66%) of cases referred to LPM (+ letter of intent cases)
• Where parents are being asked to agree a protective separation
– 1/3 diversion cases were through long term placement out of the home
• Re P (use of s.20) [2014] EWFC 775; Re H [2014] EWFC 38
BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens 10

11. Risks in the PPP process
Too little or too much focus on the court
• What will breach of agreement / non cooperation mean for child’s protection? Re A [2015] EWFC 11
• Consideration of ‘all realistic plans’ Re B-S [2013] EWCA 1146
• Real opportunity for diversion?
Pressure to agree to s.20
• Pressure may come from parent’s lawyer
Drift and delay
• Some LAs allowed PPP to go on to long with little progress
• LPM to court application 60 days in non PPP cases; 180 days in PPP cases
• Impact of wish to avoid court and/ or prepare application, particularly if case not been handled well
• Re P (A Child: Use of s.20 CA 1989) [2014] EWFC 775
BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens 11

12. Conclusion
• Care proceedings reforms make pre-proceedings MORE important
– 26 week proceedings give no time for parents to demonstrate change
– Court expects assessments to be completed before application
• Legal advice can protect parents’ human rights
– If long-term separation is the plan
– May help avoid drift
• Courts are MORE demanding in terms of evidence and care plans
– may deflect hard pressed workers from social work with families
• IMPORTANT to avoid rush to judgment AND delay
BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens 12

13. References
BASPCAN 2015 Edinburgh Masson and Dickens 13
Pre-proceedings study: Masson et al (2013)Partnership by law?
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/law/migrated/documents/partnershipbylaw.pdf
Dickens, J. and Masson, J. (2014). ‘The Courts and Child Protection Social Work in England: Tail Wags
Dog?’ British Journal of Social Work advanced access doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu144
Dickens, J., Masson, J., Bader, K. and Young, J. (2013). ‘The paradox of parental participation and legal
representation in “edge of care” meetings’, Child and Family Social Work DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12075.
Masson, J. and Dickens, J. (2014). ‘Protecting unborn and new babies’, Child Abuse Review Advance Access
published, 13 September 2014, DOI: 10.1002/car.2344.
Masson, J. (2015) ‘Third (or fourth) time lucky for care proceedings reform?’ Child and Family Law
Quarterly (forthcoming)
HMCTS, Court statistics Quarterly