The Public Law Working Group recently launched a consultation to improve supervision orders and the law, policy and practice relating to them when they are made at the conclusion of care proceedings.
A supervision order places a responsibility on the local authority to “advise, assist and befriend” the child and, by extension, the people with whom the child lives. Children who are the subject of such orders are allocated to social workers, and this will usually be managed under local authority arrangements for supporting children in need. Typically, these are granted for 12 months, but can be extended to last up to three years.
Different support options
Supervision orders made at the conclusion of proceedings can mean different things for those involved in the family courts. For some professionals, these time-limited orders can enable additional support to a family such as access to ongoing parenting support or therapeutic support for the child or children. For others, this can seem an overly cautious approach driven by anxiety about a child remaining at home or returning home. For parents, their experience of these orders can vary. Many parents want to know both what is available in principle through supervision orders, but also what would actually be delivered to them and whether the promises of support would materialise.
Research into supervision orders by Professor Judith Harwin, published earlier this year, found that all parents interviewed in her study who had experienced a supervision order felt the order could have worked better. The study found a key determinant of a parent’s experience of the supervision order was the relationship between parents and the social worker. Many parents also felt that the support for their family outlined in the care plan was not delivered.
This research is corroborated by the findings of various focus groups and surveys commissioned and run by the Public Law Working Group. A number of professionals felt that supervision orders helped provide support and services to children and families, were a proportionate order to make and supported children and parents where the situation had improved, but where ongoing help was necessary. However, professionals also had concerns that the support identified was not always provided; supervision orders were not properly enforceable and there was a lack of clarity about accountability. It was also noted by some that they added little to the support that could be provided under a child in need or child protection plan.
Following on from this research, the Public Law Working Group has recommended new draft best practice guidance that is published in the report as part of this consultation. The draft best practice guidance centres on six core principles (see box) and has sitting alongside it a set of self-audit questions for professionals to help them consider whether best practice core principles and guidance are being applied.
A “thinking tool” sets out a series of prompts to consider when practicing under the legal parameters of a supervision order. A draft template for a supervision order plan is also provided, as well as guidance about what can be done when no order is made to support a child or family.
In addition, the report makes a series of proposals for long-term change which include providing a statutory basis for supervision support plans and placing local authorities under a statutory duty to provide support and services under a supervision order; amending statutory guidance to reflect the recommendations in this interim report and the best practice guidance; and finally collecting data on supervision orders, including their implementation, and the numbers of placement changes and returns to court following them.
SIX KEY PRINCIPLES
-
Partnership and co-production with children and families
Plans to support children to remain at home or return home should be drawn up in partnership. Family group conferences (or similar) have a role to play in this. This should include active and careful thought about social, cultural and health inequalities or differences.
-
Multi-disciplinary and multi-agency working
A multi-agency plan linked to the family’s own insights and plans for meeting the child’s needs should be created.
-
Tailored plan
Clear plans that are tailored and not formulaic should keep the child in focus. The plan should be written in plain language and set out how outcomes and progress will be measured and monitored.
-
Resource clarity
It is vital that resources are in place to support the child and family under the plan drawn up. Arrangements for each element of the plan should be confirmed and recorded before care proceedings conclude.
-
Formal review
The framework to review progress should be detailed before proceedings are concluded. This includes processes and timescales for review, when the first review will take place and how parents will be involved and participate.
-
Accountability
The court and parties should have information about how the plan will be shared and explained to parents and significant adults and to the child. How concerns can be raised and progress, as well as what approach will be taken if children’s services have concerns about progress under the plan.
