Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the scrutiny committee, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and I commend its report. However, the Bill is bigger and more complex in its implications than its size might suggest. We should view it much as we did the previous Children Act 2004, which was small, and which I described as having a big heart—this one has a big spirit. It must be viewed in the matrix of Every Child Matters, not in isolation from all the other things going on, because that gives a better view of where we were are taking the services and what we hope to achieve. Whatever the outcome of family disputes and however well adjusted the children become, the events around the breakdown of their parents’ relationship will have a profound effect on their lives—for many, one from which they will not easily recover. I have listened to the distress of many children during my years as a social worker and on the telephones of Childline—the one place where children will tell of   their pain and experiences just as it is. Those experiences have served to increase my resolve that it is not only the resilience of children that will see them   through that anguish—as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, it is real pain—but the framework in which we deal with their families and the support that they receive in the outside world. I underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that, throughout all of this, the children’s voice must be heard. We in the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service have undertaken to consult children throughout the process: we may not be there yet, but we will get there. The Bill also deals with many aspects of international adoption, to prevent the trafficking of children. Because of my interest in public law as deputy chair of CAFCASS, I intend to concentrate on those aspects of the Bill. However, I hope that other noble Lords will use their time to talk about the vital issue of protecting family life in countries where it is even more fragile than in this one. I am not against international adoption, but I work in an international organisation where it was recently said to me, ““We are not producing babies for the barren countries of western Europe””. Real issues need to be considered there. I will not repeat the statistics, except to say that in 2003–04, of the 40,000 applicants to court concerned with contact, 7,000 were the result of alleged breaches of contact orders. It is worth reminding ourselves that less than 1 per cent of applications for contact are rejected. If you read the newspapers, you would believe that it was continually rejected. That is not so. That small number, together with cases in which contact is frustrated by the resident partner, are contentious. In the past, the only recourse that judges had to ensure access for children to the non-resident parent—usually the father—in the face of resistance by the resident parent—most often the mother—has been the threat of imprisonment or fine. Recently, there have been cases in which the judge has ordered a change of residence in favour of the other parent, but that is not always practical or appropriate. So, as I said, I welcome this small but important Bill, based, as it is, on the belief that children have a right to contact with both parents unless that contact is dangerous or detrimental to their development—the safeguarding principle, to which I will return. Research demonstrates that, unless there are dangers, children benefit from contact with both parents. They have more emotional stability; do better educationally; and so have a better start in life. So I congratulate the Government on finding their way through some difficult issues but, most of all, for   resisting the idea of 50:50 shared time. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will tell me whether ““reasonable contact”” is a more polite way of talking about 50:50 shared time. All plans for such children should be based on a professional assessment of their needs, not the demands and wishes of adults. Children are not possessions to be shared out with the chattels on the breakdown of a relationship; they have a right to a view. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that remains the Government’s position. Research also shows that the emotional and behavioural problems of children exposed to domestic violence can have life-damaging repercussions. Some children need to be rescued from violent fathers who, as a result of their behaviour, have forfeited the right to   contact with their family. The Joint Committee recommended that the Bill should require the court to consider the safety implications of contact decisions and not require activity unless it was safe to do so. It is a pity that we do not have the outcome of the report of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, being conducted in CAFCASS, on domestic violence. It might do something to fill the gap identified in research by Women’s Aid and Barnardo’s. The new family court application forms, gateway forms, are having some impact and show that early intervention is helpful, but they increase the workload of CAFCASS and it may not be sustainable. We must ensure that, from the outset, courts address safety issues. Recent damaging case law illustrates that the welfare checklist is not enough. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that it is essential that we do all in our power to ensure that courts do not place children in danger. Balancing those situations takes the utmost skill and care. We remember the story of Solomon, faced with two women claiming the same child. He held the child up, took his sword and offered the women half each. The true mother, by begging him to spare the child even if it meant giving him up, identified herself, and the child was returned to her. Workers in CAFCASS will recount family dynamics that have surely tested the organisation, where warring parents are not prepared to give an inch of ground. As the right reverend Prelate said, most are not terribly interested in the child; they are interested in the war. They are decent people, but they have had extraordinary, damaging experiences; they are not straightforward individuals who will be able to find their way through. Some parents locked in dispute will do all that they can to frustrate contact, even when it is in the child’s best interests. I do not think that the search for remedies has proved easy. I am delighted that the Government have set aside curfews and tagging, measures that would have been guaranteed further to enflame family contact. You can imagine comments such as, ““Look what your dad has done to me””. However, there still might be merit in a time and place order, which might be explored further through the process of the Bill. You would expect me to be convinced that programmes, classes, counselling and sessions of information and advice were more likely to have an impact on changing behaviour, but, as many noble Lords have said, there is a shortage of those services. They need to be long enough to be effective, and they are costly. Will the Government look again at reviewing those services throughout England and Wales and ensuring that enough are available? The real saving in the lives of children and healing of families would be huge. The development of enforcement orders remains a challenge to the imagination. It will be difficult to find something more meaningful than cleaning graffiti—although that might be one answer—that does not involve the parent in too much disruption and that meets cultural and religious criteria. We all know that involvement with other people’s children, however attractive the idea, is not an option. Financial compensation orders for failed holidays and outings will be welcome and useful in certain circumstances, but many defaulting parents will be unable to pay. As has been said several times, it is worth reminding ourselves of the characteristics of the families in question. Disproportionately, compared with others, they are young, on a low income and have very young children. The parents’ communication is limited; they lack trust, empathy or flexibility. The longer section of the East Anglia report tells you of very disrupted families. Many have already been brought to the attention of social services, and many of the characteristics of the individuals we see in private law are not so different from those whom we see in public law, before the courts, because they are being removed from their children and there is that kind of dispute. So although I welcome all the measures giving more flexibility to the court in resolving such complex problems, I consider that more will be achieved by   direct intervention in families, as envisaged in Clause   6, through family assistance orders. Ongoing advice and assistance—family casework—by a local authority or CAFCASS social worker for a reasonable length of time will have a greater impact not only on the contact situation but on family life. Interesting research carried out by, I think, the National Association of Probation Officers shows that, where there was intervention, contact with fathers increased during work with those families. To undertake such work, we require social workers with high levels of skill and competency. They need wisdom and judgment, as well as an organisation and government department that supports them in their difficult task. They must understand the law, child development, mental health, family dynamics, partnerships, budgeting and more. Yet, CAFCASS, the largest individual employer of social workers, does not feature in the Children’s Workforce Strategy report.   Are the Government taking seriously the training requirements, recruitment issues and ongoing development costs of that group of staff? Although the workforce strategy tells us that £250 million has been invested to support the social care workforce as a whole, CAFCASS has barely enough resources to meet service demand, so there is little left over for training days. Would that be tolerated by teachers? I was going to touch briefly on the scrutiny committee’s point about removing the section of the Bill that provides that a court must take into account the welfare of the child, but the noble Baroness, Lady   Gould, has covered that. I simply say that I hope that even in situations of contempt our great institutions would not see themselves as greater than the sad child at the centre of the conflict. The recommendation of the committee remains valid. The Bill will help to make services for children and their families caught up in private law proceedings more responsive and flexible. It would be even better if families could be helped to resolve their differences out of court. If resources are available and will stretch, CAFCASS will try to achieve that. If parents engage in the process, it will work only if we assume the highest standards of assessment, are rigorous about safety and have a system capable of sustained care and support of families by well resourced and trained workers. We are still some way from that aim. Under the determined and remarkable leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and with other members of the CAFCASS board and the CAFCASS team, we are committed to making this work in the interests of children. It is a huge task. We can achieve it only by working in partnership. In a society where, sadly, more rather than fewer children seem likely to need the help of court family social workers, we simply cannot contemplate anything but success. As the Bill takes us forward into a new phase of work, we need the Minister’s assurance that the Government comprehend the size and complexity of the challenge. I doubt whether I would have taken the job if I had understood the size and complexity of it when I was asked. My long experience as a social worker tells me that if we can get this right it will have a profound effect on the individual lives of thousands of our children.