Settlement conferences and public law children cases

Ann Chavasse comments on the findings of research by the Association of Lawyers for Children into the fairness and efficacy of settlement conferences in public law cases.

The ALC's research was a limited study involving interviews with 19 advocates involved in 61 settlement conferences (SCs) in the initial five pilot areas.

This study runs to 145 pages. This is a very brief synopsis:

1. There was no consistency in case selection by the Court.
2. There was some evidence of the procedure being “imposed” on parties, including vulnerable parents, parents with limited capacity, some who didn’t understand the procedure and some reported as bewildered.
3. Most judges were found to adopt a calm, patient, facilitating manner towards parents. Informality, when overly friendly, risks subtle disarming and manipulation of parents; some approaches could be patronising; but a small number of judges were described as brutal, harsh, blunt and insensitive with parents.
4. Advocates felt that there was pressure on parents to consent to an order, both direct and forceful or subtle and disarming, so that refusal to agree was difficult. Evidence of pressure on LAs to change position was rare.
5. Where the issue was adoption advocates were “very uncomfortable” with the approaches of some judges and most felt these cases were unsuitable for SCs.
6. There were concerns over Art 6 and Art 8 rights.
7. In some courts the role of the advocates was marginalised, potentially leaving the parents exposed.
8. The role of young people and competent young adults has not been sufficiently thought through. There were concerns that the views and voice of the child were not being truly heard or relayed.

Was the procedure fair?

A mixed picture:

• 2/19 said unreservedly fair.
• 5/19 said NOT.
• 8/19 = mixed experience – some SCs were fair, some not.
• 3/19 fair in the main but pockets of concern.

Key concerns

These were:

1. Timing – SCs being rushed and chaotic.
2. Variations of judicial approach.
3. Lack of criteria for case selection.
4. Most advocates thought that a properly conducted IRH, with sufficient time allocated, could have reached the  same result.

Conclusion

Most advocates thought that the procedure was appropriate for few public law cases but with amendments might be appropriate for private law cases, placement disputes between family members and contact issues.

Accordingly:

• Findings to date do not support a roll out of SCs in their current form.
• Further evidence/research is required.

Comment

Many of us had grave reservations about this initiative, feeling that the imbalance between the position of the  parents and the judge would inbuild pressure and a disregard for Art 6 and 8 rights.

The upshot of this survey appears to be that the advocates involved viewed SCs as inappropriate for cases where:

There is a dispute about threshold or fact finding.

• Adoption is the issue.
• Parents have: (i) mental health difficulties, (ii) learning difficulties, (iii) communication, language or comprehension limitations.
• To which I would also add vulnerable parents.
• These categories cover most care cases. So it seems to me that SCs, as currently formulated, are likely to be appropriate for a very small number of care cases.

Ann Chavasse is a barrister at St Ives Chambers. She can be contacted on 0121 236 0863 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..