Presentation to the Support Care Conference Date : 21 st June 2010 Carlos Williams, FGC Deputy Manager/Co-ordinator

Working to promote & safeguard the welfare of children via the Family Group Conference process

FGC Manager Anne Barlow 3 Senior Co-ordinators Carlos Williams Hilary Cannon Surjit Bains Business Support Sam Parrott 5 Sessional Co-ordinators : Julie Clement Roger Davis Jo Masterton Jo Sanctuary Peter Thompson

A decision making process – where the wider family group makes decisions and plans. Based on belief that given POWER, INFORMATION & RESOURCES families can make safe, effective, realistic and lasting plans for their children.

The fundamental hypothesis of family group conferencing is disarmingly simple: Humans beings are happier, more co-operative and more likely to make positive changes in their behaviour when those in positions of authority do things with them rather than to them or for them Ted Wachtel

 Disproportionately high numbers of Maori children in the care of the State.  Culturally inappropriate placements  Institutional racism in child welfare system  Children, Young People and their Families Act New Zealand

 Introduced to UK in 1992 –Family Rights Group.  Now widely used across UK and internationally. Fits well with;  Children Act 1989  Children Act 2004 – agencies working together & involving families in partnership.  Every Child Matters- national agenda  Care Matters  Public Law Outline 2008

Any local authority looking after a child shall make arrangements to enable that child to live with a member of his family, relative, friend or other person connected with him, unless to do so would be impractical or inconsistent with the child’s welfare Children Act 1989 (section 23 (6))

A process – not just a meeting

Referral Preparation The Conference  Information Giving  Private Family Time  Clarifying the plan with family  Presenting & agreeing plan with agencies Implementation of the plan Review of the plan

 The meeting belongs to the family  Family as the primary planning group  Wide interpretation of “family”  Role of agencies to share information, knowledge & resources  Independent Co-ordinator facilitates the meeting

 Co-ordinator manages diversity  Co-ordinator identifies advocacy needs  Private Planning Time  Family Plans accepted & supported by the agencies – criteria?  Plans to be monitored & reviewed by family

 Every family is unique.  Use of family expertise.  Culturally sensitive.  Involving wider family & friends can make planning for children more effective.  Redresses power imbalance between family & agencies.  Children’s right to family life & involvement of family in planning for their future

 Core Assessments & clear information to families about what needs to change.  Reduce Court Time Scales – Prior to proceedings  Conflict resolution to prevent or narrow down the issues in proceedings.  Family & Friends as Carers (FFACs) considered & assessed.  PLO requires a ‘ Family Meeting' - early FGC preferable

19 families involving 47 children  9 children placed with wider family  4 remain with parents  13 children – family members being assessed  21 no viable family carers

Avoided Care Proceedings: 7 families involving 11 children These children remain with parents no longer subject to Child Protection plans Other Family Court resolutions 3 children from 3 families -S.G.O’s to Grandparents 1 child residence order - Aunt 5 children from 2 families Parent Residence orders & contact

 Any Questions?