This, the 9th Annual Report of the Children Order Advisory Committee (COAC) relates to the period from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008. Ten years have elapsed since the enactment of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 but the continued existence of COAC remains nonetheless invaluable, not perhaps so much for the purpose of advising Ministers on the progress of Children Order cases through the court system as for the other main purpose for which it was created, that of promoting a commonality of practice across the three tiers of family courts and also much else besides. Having come in January 2007 to the work of the High Court Family Division with no prior experience of the children’s aspect of its work either as Judge or before that as a Barrister, I can freely attest to the particular difficulties, the worries and indeed the loneliness of trying hard to get matters right for children and their families. The work is challenging and without any objectively ascertainable “right answers”, practical experience in the area inevitably counts for a great deal.
I have therefore been immensely grateful to be able to rely upon the willing support and guidance of my more experienced judicial colleagues in every tier and also upon the help provided by those from the many other disciplines and backgrounds (as may be seen from the list at Appendix 1 to this Report) represented on COAC whose breadth of knowledge and variety of experience have individually and collectively cast light for me in what were beforehand the darkest of corners.
Quite apart from those of the particular activities of COAC during the year under report that are described in the pages that follow, the opportunity for its members to exchange, whether within or outwith the framework of our formal meetings, varying views and experiences from their differing perspectives is an invaluable resource not only to me in particular but also to its wider membership and I am in no doubt that our respective practices benefit greatly from the opportunities for “cross-fertilisation” that COAC provides.
Equally importantly, the many strategic contacts made under the aegis of COAC are invaluable in smoothing out quickly and by informal means the practical problems that sometimes arise between our various areas of work as and when they arise. For my own part, the willingness of COAC members to readily share their knowledge has so far, prevented my falling into too many of the concealed traps that children’s law and practice conspire to lay for the unwary and for that too I am grateful.
I conclude by commending this Report to you and by warmly thanking our joint secretaries Austin Harper of NI Court Service and Audrey Quigley of DHSSPS, for continuing with quiet industry to employ their encyclopaedic knowledge and unfailing efficiency in the interests of COAC. Everyone associated with COAC will agree that it would be much the poorer without them.
The Honourable Mr Justice Weir
Chair of the Children Order Advisory Committee
The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (‘the Order’) came into operation on 4 November 1996. Widely recognised as the most comprehensive legislation relating to children ever introduced in Northern Ireland, it enshrines a number of key principles:
Court proceedings under the Order are known as ‘family proceedings’. The term also encompasses a range of proceedings under other legislation including:
The main court orders available under the Order are set out below under the broad headings of Private Law and Public Law. Orders concerning financial matters are not included:
In any family proceedings in which a question with respect to the welfare of a child arises, the court may make an Article 8 order. This can occur either where a person entitled to do so makes an application, or where the court gives that person leave, or if the court itself considers that such an order is necessary. There are four types of Article 8 orders. These may determine with whom a child is to reside or have contact, may prohibit particular steps being taken concerning the child without the consent of the court or any other directions regarding specific issues concerning the child.
A family assistance order is available in exceptional cases and is the only order where the consent of all parties is required. The order offers short-term support and advice to a family, perhaps following a divorce or separation and usually where one or more Article 8 orders have also been made.
The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court, county courts and magistrates’ courts. It provides for two specialist classes of courts to hear any proceedings under the Order. At the county court level, these are Family Care Centres and at the magistrates’ court level they are Family Proceedings Courts.
Family Care Centres – these courts are presided over by county court judges. Their function is to hear cases transferred to them and appeals from the family proceedings court. There are four family care centres, situated in Belfast, Craigavon, Dungannon and Londonderry.
Family Proceedings Courts – these courts are constituted as juvenile courts presided over by a resident magistrate (with effect from 01 June 2008 this title changed to District Judge (Magistrates Court)) who sits with two lay magistrates. There are seven family proceedings courts – one for each county court division and they exercise jurisdiction throughout the division in which they are situated.
The concurrent jurisdiction referred to above is regulated to ensure that children’s cases are heard at the appropriate level of court and that proceedings regarding the same child are heard in the same court. Subject to the overriding principle that delay is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child, Children Order cases may be transferred upwards to the higher courts when specific criteria have been established. These criteria can include where the matter is exceptionally grave, complex or important, or to consolidate with other family proceedings.
The general rule is that all Public Law proceedings under the Children Order are to be commenced in the family proceedings court. This is also the case with free standing Private Law applications i.e. those applications made when there are no other ongoing family proceedings. As regards connected Private Law applications e.g. where there are divorce proceedings pending in the county court or High Court, such applications are required to be made at that court.
In recognition of the importance of the Order to children and their families, COAC was established:
COAC is chaired by the Judge of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland and its membership reflects the broad spectrum of disciplines and professions engaged in working with children, both in the courts and in other spheres. The membership of the Committee during the currency of the report is set out at Appendix 1.
The aims and objectives of the COAC Best Practice Guidance (BPG) are:
It is essential to have the contents of the Guidance reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure it accurately includes legislative reform, relevant case law and changes in policy and procedure.
A number of sections of the BPG have been revised or created. The main alterations and insertions include:
These amendments or additions were highlighted to the professions by various means including five multidisciplinary workshops (organised by NIGALA), publication on NIGALA website and notification to The Law Society and The Family Bar.
In addition, an independent survey of the effectiveness of the current BPG was undertaken by the Institute of Child Care Research, Queen’s University, Belfast. The findings, set out in a report produced in July 2008 are very informative and shall be of enormous assistance to the BPG review committee in the exercise of all future amendments to the Guidance. The report’s recommendations also raise issues to be considered by all professions using the BPG, including awareness raising of the existence of the Guidance to enhance its effectiveness. The Institute of Child Care Research recommendations include:
Changes within the practice of family law and child protection are significant and continue to grow. There are many issues on the horizon to be considered by the Committee including the Public Law Outline in England & Wales, review of Child Protection Policies and Procedures, the role of child contact centres, mediation and court children’s officers within the family courts. It is important that the arrangements for carrying out the ongoing review are robust, multidisciplinary and effective. Such arrangements themselves are not above scrutiny and to that end, current arrangements for publication and training in respect of the Guidance are under review.
Much work has been done on the drafting of revisions to the BPG and consideration is now being given to whether the Guidance should continue to be provided in hard copy format or whether it might be more readily and regularly updated and also made more accessible to users by a change to an electronic format.
The sub-committee produced two editions of the Newsletter during the period covered by this report. It is gratifying that the publication continues to receive such a positive reception.
The membership encompasses all the disciplines involved in work under the Children Order and all are well known in their fields. Currently, members produce all the material for the Newsletter but we are anxious that others have the opportunity to inform and comment. However, we still see contributions by the sub-committee as being the core of the publication.
The sub-committee is content that a production rate of two or three editions a year is appropriate. Any more frequent and it may be difficult to produce enough sufficiently strong material for each edition; any less frequent and the material may be stale by the time it is published.
The question of distribution is always at the forefront of deliberations and the sub-committee would be receptive to notification of any perceived gaps in this area.
The Newsletter can be accessed via the Northern Ireland Court Service website www.courtsni.gov.uk. From the home page, select “Publications” and then from the list on the left side of the screen, select “Family Law and Childcare Literature”; the various editions of the Newsletter are displayed in date order.
As reported in the 8th Annual COAC Report, the sub-committee’s deliberations in relation to the use of TV live link in applications for secure accommodation under Article 44 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (‘the Order’) have all but been completed.
Whilst appreciating that such is the seriousness of the restriction of liberty on a child or young person imposed by a civil court, that an amendment to the primary legislation would be required to permit use of TV live link in secure accommodation applications under Article 44 of the Order, the committee nonetheless concluded that overall, the responses to its consultation were positive about the use of TV live link in cases where, after completion of a suitable assessment of risk it was deemed necessary to retain the young person in secure accommodation at that time.
It was recognised that the young person’s participation via TV live link rather than attending in person would only be permitted by the court in exceptional cases, where the risks necessitated and indeed justified such alternative arrangements having to be made. The committee’s recommendation proposes that ultimately the court must grant leave for the young person’s attendance in person to be substituted by participation via TV live link. All those consulted felt that TV live link was a better alternative in cases involving risk than family court sittings within secure accommodation premises.
Consequently, this may be a matter of interest to the Northern Ireland Law Commission for its First Programme of Law Reform and to DHSSPS, Child Care Policy Directorate.
This Committee met on five occasions during the year and continued to widen its membership to ensure that a broad range of interests are represented across the statutory and voluntary agencies. A number of issues were considered by the Committee during the year including:
The co-ordinators of various child contact centres had expressed concern that parents, both those with residence and the absent parent, were attending at contact centres without the centres having advance indication of their attendance. A referral form and Protocol were agreed with the Northern Ireland Network of Child Contact Centres and have been implemented throughout Northern Ireland. Contact details of all Northern Ireland centres were circulated by the Committee to interested parties.
The Committee discussed the issue of ensuring that cases were heard at the appropriate court level and that where the circumstances of a case necessitated transfer, such transfer should occur without delay.
The Committee oversaw the introduction of television live link technology to one courtroom in Belfast Family Care Centre. The technology enables experts outside Northern Ireland to give evidence from their own locations. This has increased the pool of available experts and hopefully will reduce costs.
This Northern Ireland Court Service business system was bedded down throughout the family courts during the year. The Committee were kept informed of developments in this area and any problems that arose were noted and dealt with as far as possible within the Committee’s remit.
There has been a continuing problem where cases have to be adjourned because reports are not filed on time. A log has now been established in both the family care centre and family proceedings court to identify failure to comply with time limits specified in court directions. It is hoped that this will reduce the need for further adjournments due to this particular reason.
Another area of concern that had been expressed by the solicitors on the Committee was that there was often considerable delay in the approval of expert witness fees by the Legal Services Commission. This in turn resulted in delay in the disposal of cases. Two meetings were held with the Commission and a streamlined process was agreed. It is hoped that this will address this issue and as such, the matter will be kept under review.
Two presentations were given to the Committee during the year. The first was by a representative of Family Mediation NI who spoke to ‘A Vision for Family Mediation in Northern Ireland’. Later in the year Master Wells gave an address on COAC Best Practice Guidance. Members found both presentations to be extremely informative and useful.
Craigavon Family Court Business Committee covers a wide geographical area, taking in the petty sessions districts of Craigavon, Lisburn, Armagh, Banbridge and Newry & Mourne which make up the County Court Divisions of Craigavon and Armagh & South Down.
A major focus of the Committee has been on the need for more contact centres and it is therefore very pleasing to report that following the availability of funding in the spring of 2008, two contact centres have now been established. The Newry centre (run by Barnardo’s) is based in the Family Resource Centre at Lisdrum House; the Craigavon service (run by Zero-8-Teen) is situated in Moylinn House. Contact sessions are expected to commence in October when staff will be in post.
Other issues which have been discussed by the Committee include:
The use of mediation at an early stage following parental separation, to prevent the development (in the parent with whom a child resides) an attitude of implacable hostility to contact:
The need for the availability of supervision for contact visits in some Private Law cases:
The future of Cloona Contact Centre:
The Committee recorded its concern about the lack of appropriate provision for family cases being heard at Lisburn Family Proceedings Court. The absence of adequate accommodation at this very busy court venue to enable parents and their legal representatives to consult in private or to facilitate mediation by the court welfare officer was seen as a significant problem.
The Committee was delighted by the response from the Northern Ireland Court Service to this concern. All consultation rooms at Lisburn were sound-proofed and redecorated. Planning permission is also being sought for the erection of an additional temporary structure to house three further consultation rooms.
The Committee met on two occasions within this period. It reported that:
The family court system continues to function at an adequate level within the Division of Fermanagh & Tyrone with no substantial issues to highlight.
However, the lack of coterminosity between the jurisdiction of the Northern Health and Social Care Trust, Southern Health and Social Care Trust and the County Court Division is particularly acute in the east of the Division.
As court welfare officers are employed by individual Health and Social Care Trusts and are accountable to their employers, the issue will remain a problem until such times as the Trust agree to appoint, on a joint basis, one officer.
Unfortunately, this year the Family Court Business Committee continued to deal with familiar problems in relation to delay.
The general view of the Committee was that there were too few experts willing to undertake the work in the jurisdiction and those that did were overworked thus proving it difficult to meet court timetables.
Northern Ireland Guardian ad Litem Agency (NIGALA) provided the Committee with a list of experts in the following categories/fields: Child Psychologist, Senior Clinical Psychologist, Child/Adolescent Psychologist, Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Hearing Disability. The list included experts from England and Scotland and would be regularly updated by NIGALA.
Northern Ireland Court Service undertook to provide this list of experts to the Chair of the Solicitor’s Association within the Division for circulation to members.
The issue of ‘attachment’ experts was also discussed by the Committee. It was considered that Guardian ad Litems (GALs) or independent social workers should be able to carry out assessments in respect of the less complex cases. Indeed it was the experience of judicial members of the Committee that on occasions, reports that were obtained seemed to state the obvious.
NIGALA advised that attachment is a specialist area but that training for GALs is currently being planned.
Foyle Child Contact Centre has now become well established and efforts continue to ensure that it operates in conjunction with the court. The Committee agreed that the referral forms that had been previously introduced were working well. It was further agreed that if appropriate contact was not developing within the setting of the Contact Centre that the parties would be informed and the case referred back to court. If the Centre was unable to make progress with the parents in advancing contact for the child, alternative options could be identified and investigated at an early stage. Social Services agreed to consider what facilities they might be in a position to provide in order to progress such difficult contact cases. By adopting such an approach, the limited resource available within the Contact Centre should be utilised to best effect.
The Committee also warmly welcomed and supported reports that a Contact Centre was being planned for the Limavady area. Funding was also discussed and this year it was again decided to run an Autumn Ball. This year the proceeds were divided between Foyle Child Contact Centre and Foyle Search and Rescue Centre. Nevertheless over £4000 was raised for the Contact Centre.
Under Article 4(1) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995:
"A court considering any question with respect to a child under this Order may ask an authority to arrange for a suitably qualified person to report to the court on such matters relating to the welfare of that child as are required to be dealt with in the report."
In 2006, from discussions at the four Family Court Business Committees (FCBCs) it became apparent that in some areas it was taking an increasing amount of time to deliver such reports to the courts, particularly in Private Law cases. Therefore, at the behest of the Advisory Committee, each FCBC chair (through their local court administrator) has since provided regular updates to COAC on the issue.
The purpose of such updates is to provide detailed factual information over a specified period (presently 2 months) for each family court venue on the number of Article 4 reports:
FCBCs have been invited to include the issue as a regular agenda item at their meetings where specific questions on the information supplied could be addressed to the local court administrators, such as the average time taken to secure an Article 4 report in their business area. Also, the local court administrators would have the opportunity to highlight any case(s) where a report is taking an inordinate time to complete. The matter could then be referred to the director of the relevant Health and Social Care Trust in order that any perceived gaps in the service provided could be identified and addressed by them.
The updates are forwarded to the COAC Secretariat (Northern Ireland Court Service); the information supplied forms the basis of a composite report which is delivered at each meeting of the Advisory Committee as a standing item on the agenda. (See Appendix 3 for information collated for the period 01 April 2007 to 31 March 2008).
At the COAC meeting in September 2007, the existing service provided by Court Welfare Officers was discussed. Inconsistencies in delivery of the service were identified across Northern Ireland.
COAC was advised that £120K had been provided by the Children & Young People’s funding package to support the further development of the service.
The Committee agreed that a group should be convened through the Association of Directors of Social Services (comprising representatives of the five Health and Social Care Trusts) to consider how best to use the new monies to address the acknowledged short fall in the service. The group sought to utilise the new investment to remedy some of the acknowledged weaknesses within the operation of Private Law from both the Trusts and courts perspective.
The group took an initial view that staff working in this service should be referred to as Court Children’s Officers (CCOs); this appeared to reflect the focus of their work.
The group agreed the following principles:
The group reviewed existing arrangements, response times, protracted cases, mediation and contact with children, reporting arrangements and the existing caseloads of CCOs.
A number of options were considered as to how best to invest the funding. As each Trust has a statutory duty to provide Article 4 welfare reports, it was felt the resources should be used to build upon existing teams.
The long term aim is to ensure that each Trust has an appropriately resourced team to better discharge statutory functions and more effectively meet the needs of the court.
However, as this current investment would not fully meet the long term aim, the modernising of the service must ensure it has the potential to facilitate staff working across Trust boundaries where the court’s boundary extends to more than one Trust area.
The group made the following recommendations:
The group’s report was received by the Committee in January 2008. The new CCO posts were to be in place by Autumn 2008. The Committee also suggested that as a next step, a protocol should be drawn up to include:
The group has reconvened to undertake this assignment.
Research undertaken by the Looked After Children in Education (LACE) Project in Northern Ireland (established in 2001) led to the conclusion that:
"professionals did not always have appropriate information to assist young people to access services and that education is not given a high enough priority for looked after children" and that there was a need for "a strategic and coherent regional framework supporting the education of looked after children and young people".
In England & Wales, evidence about the educational under-achievement of looked-after children was one of the factors which led to the amendment to section 22 of the Children Act 1989 effected by section 52 of the Children Act 2004. This provides that:
"The duty of a local authority under subsection (3)(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child looked after by them includes in particular a duty to promote the child's educational achievement."
In order to achieve a similar goal in respect of looked-after children in Northern Ireland, it has been agreed in principle that the “Education” section in the Care Plan for each looked-after child should be much more comprehensive than at present.
A proforma[1] for this “Education” section has been reviewed by COAC. Following discussions involving representatives of the judiciary, the Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety, the Department of Education, the Health & Social Care Trusts and the Education & Library Boards, a pilot scheme is to be carried out to gauge the effectiveness of the proforma. This pilot, scheduled to take place in October 2008 involves a number of Public Law cases from each of the Health & Social Care Trust areas.
Following any amendments in the light of the pilot scheme, it is hoped that the proforma would be finalised by the end of 2008 and integrated as part of the UNOCINI[2] initiative.
As highlighted by the HM Revenue and Customs benefit record loss and a number of similar incidents recently, there is an obligation on all involved in the family justice system to ensure that the correct procedures for information security are followed. Particular care needs to be taken when transferring or transporting data, whether electronically (including email) or by paper, internally or externally and having regard to the amount and type of data and the potential harm that could result from unauthorised disclosure.
Against this background, the Secretariat was tasked with seeking inter alia information/clarification on how case specific information[3] might be shared electronically between the Northern Ireland Court Service (‘the Court Service’) and the various participants engaged in that case.
A range of procedures and controls already exist within the Court Service to help to protect information and data. These cover physical countermeasures such as access controls but also include policies, procedures and guidance for staff.
The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and the Administration of Justice Act 1960 restrict disclosure of information in proceedings in which children are involved. The disclosure of information by the Court Service may also engage the rights of individuals as data subjects under the Data Protection Act 1998.
In relation to the sharing of information in specific cases, a pilot was conducted between Belfast Family Proceedings Office and Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency Headquarters. This entailed the court office notifying the Agency by email of the appointment of Guardian ad Litems (GALs) and the termination of such appointments in Public Law cases. The Agency reciprocated by advising as to the allocation of particular GALs and legal representatives to specific cases and those GALs filing their reports by email, subject to judicial direction. The pilot has subsequently been extended to all family court offices.
In England & Wales, similar problems have been experienced in relation to the electronic sharing of information particularly with organisations or bodies outside the Government Secure Internet (GSi). This has resulted in the creation of the Criminal Justice Secure eMail (CJSM) facility. This allows the exchange of email at a ‘RESTRICTED’ level between criminal justice organisations and partner organisations such as law firms. A request has been made by the Court Service to gain access to this packaged solution designed to deal with precisely the problems that have been encountered. It should result in a much more cost-effective solution delivering secure email functionality with those outside the GSi than would be the case if the Court Service was to implement a bespoke solution.
The Court Service IT network is accredited on an annual basis for the processing of ‘RESTRICTED’ information. ‘RESTRICTED’ is a protective marking which is determined by the sensitivity of the information and the potential consequences that might result from it falling into the wrong hands. This position facilitates access to secure intranet services such as GSi, Causeway and Public Services Network (Restricted). As a general rule all the Court Service information is treated as baseline ‘RESTRICTED’ and protected accordingly.
The Court Service is therefore governed in how it deals with ‘RESTRICTED’ information by the HM Government Protective Marking Scheme (GPMS) which forms part of the Cabinet Office Manual of Protective Security (MPS). This is a government-wide policy that ensures consistency of handling of sensitive public sector information. This establishes the operating parameters within which the Court Service must operate.
The MPS clearly states that ‘RESTRICTED’ information cannot be emailed across the internet without some form of approved encryption being applied. This is quite simply to stop people reading the information as it is passed from server to server, potentially across the world. The Court Service has an obligation to ensure that these standards are applied. Recent changes in telephone policy also rule out the use of fax as an option for transmitting ‘RESTRICTED’ information.
Work on the service of documents by electronic means more generally is ongoing both for summonses and other court papers; this work would also apply to family courts subject to the constraints mentioned earlier.
In the 7th Annual Report attention was drawn to a judgment of the Omagh Family Proceedings Court, A Trust v M [2005] NIMag4. This had highlighted a number of issues in respect of applications for emergency protection orders (EPOs) under Articles 63 and 64 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, most especially in those cases where the application was made out of hours, at the home of a lay magistrate.
During the year now under review, a sub-committee was established comprising representatives of the judiciary, the Northern Ireland Court Service, the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency and Social Services. Its remit was to review the issues raised in the judgment and to consider what changes in practice were required in order to address these.
The following recommendations of the sub-committee have been adopted by COAC:
In response to concerns voiced by representatives of various bodies on the Committee in relation to delay in the payment of expert fees in Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 cases, a meeting was convened with senior representatives of the Legal Services Commission (LSC).
Essentially, this was to discuss the development of a proforma (which would accompany a C2 application) to be considered and if approved, by the judge determining the application, duly endorsed to that effect and returned to the applicant for onward transmission to the Commission.
Representatives of LSC were impressed by this initiative and any intervention which would expedite the production of all necessary information to enable them to make an early decision in respect of approval or otherwise of an expert’s fee.
In 2008, the LSC increased the limit of its delegated authority for Assessing Officers up to £100 per hour for any experts fee, up to a maximum of £20,000; requests for authority above this amount are referred to an Assessment Committee for consideration.
Rules to permit video conferencing in all family courts are now in operation and a Guidance Note was endorsed by the Family Judge on 19 November 2007.
Video conferencing is used extensively in the higher courts to assist witnesses from other jurisdictions to give their evidence. In particular expert witnesses find this means of tendering their evidence to be most helpful; it encourages experts from outside the jurisdiction to accept instructions; it saves the expert witness travel time and it reduces costs. Video link is also used by expert witnesses in this jurisdiction who practice outside the greater Belfast area.
Video conferencing is also used in family courts as a means of special measures for vulnerable witnesses, involved in domestic violence or alleged abuse cases.
It may be possible to make further use of video link facilities, such as non-molestation applications by minors.
A full copy of the Guidance Note is available at www.courtsni.gov.uk by following the links to ‘Publications’, ‘Judicial Decisions’ and then ‘Practice Directions’.
| The Honourable Mr Justice Weir | High Court Judge (Family Division) High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland |
| The Honourable Mr Justice Morgan (from 17/01/08) |
High Court Judge (Family Division) High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland |
| His Honour Judge Rodgers | County Court Judge and Family Judge of the Belfast Family Care Centre |
| Her Honour Judge Philpott QC (replaced by His Honour Judge Marrinan from 17/01/08) | Recorder of Londonderry and Family Judge of the Londonderry Family Care Centre |
| Her Honour Judge Loughran | County Court Judge and Family Judge of the Craigavon Family Care Centre |
| His Honour Judge McFarland | County Court Judge and Family Judge of the Dungannon Family Care Centre |
| Master Wells | Master of the Office of Care and Protection, High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland |
| District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Meehan | Council of District Judges (Magistrates’ Court) Northern Ireland |
| Mr Ronnie Williamson | Executive Director of the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency |
| Mrs Janet Leckey | Chair of the Northern Ireland Lay Magistrates Association |
| Mr Fergal Bradley | Head of Child Care Policy Directorate, DHSSPS |
| Mr Paul Martin | Chief Officer, Office of Social Services |
| Mrs Catherine Dixon | Solicitor |
| Mr Cecil Worthington (replaced by Mr Brian Dornan from 13/09/07) | Representative of the Association of Directors of Health & Social Services Board |
| Mr Hugh Connor | Director of Social Services, Eastern Health & Social Services Board |
| Mrs Gillian McGaughey | Barrister at Law |
| Mrs Wendy Beggs (replaced by Ms K Minnis from 17/01/08) | Directorate of Legal Services, Central Services Agency |
| Miss Brenda Donnelly | Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court |
| Mrs Laura McPolin | Civil Law Reform Division, DFP |
| Mr Eric Strain (replaced by Mr Chris Heatley from 13/09/07) | Northern Ireland Court Service |
| Ms Tara Caul (replaced by Ms K Stevenson from 17/01/08) | Children in Northern Ireland |
| Mrs Audrey Quigley (DHSSPS)} Mr Austin Harper (NI Court Service)} |
Secretariat |
The statistics which form the basis of the tables and figures in this appendix are collected from the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (‘the Order’) business in all the courts in Northern Ireland. Except where otherwise indicated, all figures and tables cover the financial year 2007/08[4].
At the time of introduction of the Order in November 1996, a marked decline in the number of wardship actions made in the High Court was observed reflecting the restrictions placed on such applications by the Order. Since its introduction, wardship actions have remained at a consistently low level with no significant change observed in recent years (Table 1) since the sharp decrease following the introduction of the Order (Figure 1).
| Wardship Actions | 03/04 | 04/05 | 05/06 | 06/07 | 07/08 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non- Emergency | 2 | 2 | 1 | 16 | 2 |
| Immediate Provision | 15 | 15 | 17 | 1 | 11 |
| Jurisdiction | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 00/01 | 01/02 | 01/02 | 02/03 | 03/04 | 04/05 | 05/06 | 06/07 | 07/08 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non emergency | 140 | 135 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 16 | 2 |
| Immediate provision | 182 | 126 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 13 | 15 | 15 | 17 | 1 | 11 |
| Jurisdiction | 85 | 51 | 0 | 6 | 14 | 0 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Tables 2a and 2b show the number of applications lodged and disposed of in all court tiers for 2007/08. Applications lodged out-numbered disposals causing an increasing number of outstanding applications. For a breakdown of applications received and dealt with by the Family Care Centres and their related courts, please see Tables 8 and 9.
| Applications | High Court | County Court | Magistrates' Court | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Court | Care Centre | Other | FPC | Other | ||
| Public Law | 25 | 28 | 0 | 431 | 0 | 484 |
| Private Law | 158 | 146 | 0 | 3242 | 0 | 3546 |
| Total | 183 | 174 | 0 | 3673 | 0 | 4030 |
| Disposals | High Court | County Court | Magistrates' Court | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Court | Care Centre | Other | FPC | Other | ||
| Public Law | 42 | 86 | 0 | 426 | 0 | 554 |
| Private Law | 120 | 227 | 0 | 2635 | 0 | 2982 |
| Total | 162 | 313 | 0 | 3061 | 0 | 3536 |
Figure 2 shows the number of applications lodged and disposed of each year since 2003.
| Year | Lodged | Disposed of |
|---|---|---|
| 2003/04 | 6534 | 6154 |
| 2004/05 | 5897 | 5624 |
| 2005/06 | 5939 | 5683 |
| 2006/07 | 5211 | 4875 |
| 2007/08 | 4030 | 3536 |
During 2007/08, 12% of applications lodged concerned Public Law and 88% concerned Private Law. In terms of disposals, 16% of applications disposed of concerned Public Law and 84% concerned Private Law (See Figures 3a & 3b).
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Public Law | 12% |
| Private Law | 88% |
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Public Law | 16% |
| Private Law | 84% |
The following graphs depict applications lodged and disposed of in each year from 2003/04 to 2007/08 by the type of orders made.
Figure 4a depicts the number of applications for supervision orders lodged and disposed of. Figures show that these orders have remained relatively steady over the past five years.
Children Order Public Law Applications Lodged and Disposed of
(April 2003 - March 2008)
| Year | Lodged | Disposed of |
|---|---|---|
| 2003/04 | 21 | 31 |
| 2004/05 | 29 | 30 |
| 2005/06 | 12 | 12 |
| 2006/07 | 31 | 18 |
| 2007/08 | 12 | 29 |
Figure 4b depicts the number of applications for care orders lodged and disposed of. Figures show that these orders have shown a downward trend over the past five years. Figures overall have decreased by 45% for care applications lodged and 37% for such applications disposed of.
| Year | Lodged | Disposed of |
|---|---|---|
| 2003/04 | 526 | 409 |
| 2004/05 | 415 | 365 |
| 2005/06 | 357 | 306 |
| 2006/07 | 336 | 240 |
| 2007/08 | 287 | 259 |
Figure 4c depicts the number of applications for emergency protection orders (EPOs) lodged and disposed of. Figures show that these orders have shown a downward trend between 2003 and 2006 and then an upward motion in 2007. Overall, the numbers of applications for EPOs lodged and disposed of are relatively small and any trend should therefore be treated with caution.
| Year | Lodged | Disposed of |
| 2003/04 | 94 | 94 |
| 2004/05 | 80 | 81 |
| 2005/06 | 52 | 57 |
| 2006/07 | 32 | 28 |
| 2007/08 | 55 | 80 |
In terms of the court tier for lodgments and disposals, figures are depicted below. Figure 4d shows applications lodged and disposed of in the Family Proceedings Court; these have shown a decrease over the past 5 years. 2007/08 figures show a decrease in lodgments (24%) and a decrease in disposals (32%) since 2006/07 in these courts.
| Year | Lodged | Disposed of |
|---|---|---|
| 2003/04 | 5987 | 5480 |
| 2004/05 | 5442 | 5007 |
| 2005/06 | 5451 | 5200 |
| 2006/07 | 4802 | 4484 |
| 2007/08 | 3673 | 3061 |
Figure 4e shows applications lodged and disposed of in the Family Care Centre; these have remained relatively steady over the past 5 years. 2007/08 figures show a decrease in lodgments (31%) with an increase in disposals (26%) since 2006/07 in these courts.
| Year | Lodged | Disposed of |
|---|---|---|
| 2003/04 | 270 | 256 |
| 2004/05 | 251 | 328 |
| 2005/06 | 308 | 317 |
| 2006/07 | 252 | 249 |
| 2007/08 | 174 | 313 |
Figure 4f shows applications lodged and disposed of in the High Court; these have remained relatively steady over the past 4 years. 2007/08 figures show an increase in both lodgments (17%) and disposals (14%) since 2006/07 at this court tier.
| Year | Lodged | Disposed of |
|---|---|---|
| 2003/04 | 274 | 411 |
| 2004/05 | 186 | 274 |
| 2005/06 | 180 | 166 |
| 2006/07 | 157 | 142 |
| 2007/08 | 183 | 162 |
Care applications & secure accommodation applications accounted for the majority of Public Law orders (60%) in 2007/08 (Figure 5a). Secure accommodation orders in 2006/07 were 8% of all Public Law orders and make up 30% in 2007/08; emergency protection orders in 2006/07 were 3% of all Public Law orders and make up 13% in 2007/08. The percentage of orders classed as ‘other’ has decreased from 50% in 2006/07 to 11% in 2007/08.
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Care | 30% |
| Supervision | 4% |
| Education Supervision | 4% |
| Emergency Protection | 13% |
| Secure Accommodation | 30% |
| Article 53 Contact | 4% |
| Recovery | 4% |
| Other Orders / Applications | 11% |
The most common types of order made in Private Law were ‘other orders/applications' (49%) and contact (permission) (28%) (Figure 5b). In 2006/07, contact orders were 54% of all Private Law orders and make up 28% in 2007/08; residence orders in 2006/07 were 31% of all Private Law orders and make up 17% in 2007/08. The percentage of orders classed as ‘other’ has increased from 1% in 2006/07 to 49% in 2007/08.
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Contact Permission | 28% |
| Contact Refusal | 0% |
| Parental Responsibility | 2% |
| Residence | 17% |
| Prohibitive Steps | 2% |
| Specific Issues | 2% |
| Other Orders / Applications | 49% |
Table 3 shows the number of cases transferred and the reasons for transfer quoted. The most numerous reason given for transfer from the Family Proceedings Court was ‘other’ (45%) while for transfers from the Family Care Centre, the main reasons were complexity and ‘other’ (33% and 56% respectively in 2007/08). During 2007/08 transfers from the Family Proceeding Court to the Family Care Centre made up 81% of all applications transferred.
| From | Convenience | Urgency | Gravity | Importance | Complexity | Consolid-ation | Other | Total reasons[5] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High Court | ||||||||
| Chancery | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Wardship & Adoption | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Sub-Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| Care Centre | ||||||||
| Belfast | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 2 | 20 | 34 |
| Dungannon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Londonderry | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| Craigavon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Sub-Total | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 5 | 29 | 52 |
| Family ProceedingsCourt | ||||||||
| Ballymena | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 4 | 15 | 37 |
| Belfast | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 3 | 23 | 56 |
| Dungannon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 12 |
| Omagh | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Londonderry | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 3 | 24 | 46 |
| Newry | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 3 | 17 | 28 |
| Ards | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 23 |
| Craigavon | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 21 |
| Lisburn | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 12 | 22 |
| Strabane | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Coleraine | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Enniskillen | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Antrim | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Sub-Total | 9 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 92 | 31 | 114 | 251 |
| NI - Total | 9 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 109 | 36 | 150 | 310 |
Table 4 and Figure 6 show the relative disposal times for both Public Law and Private Law cases in each court tier for 2007/08. In the Family Proceedings Court, average disposal times were 23 weeks for Public Law and 22 weeks for Private Law cases. In the Family Care Centre, it was 44 weeks for Public Law cases and 32 weeks for Private Law cases. Public Law cases in the High Court took 46 weeks and Private Law cases took 41 weeks. Lodgment to disposal times for Public Law and Private Law cases have decreased by 4 and 2 weeks respectively between 2006/07 and 2007/08 overall. It should be noted that due to relatively small numbers at the High Court and the Care Centre, it takes very few long cases to substantially affect the average time taken to dispose of cases.
| Lodged to final hearing times (in weeks) for cases entered in the designated courts | ||||
| High Court | Care Centre | Family Proceedings Court | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Law | 46.4 | 44.3 | 23.0 | 28.1 |
| Private Law | 41.0 | 32.4 | 21.9 | 23.4 |
| Court Type | Private | Public |
|---|---|---|
| All Court Types | 23 | 28 |
| FPC | 22 | 23 |
| Care Centre | 32 | 44 |
| High Court | 41 | 46 |
Table 5 shows the distribution of the different types of disposal made for 2007/08. Consent orders accounted for 42% of orders made.
| Order Made by Consent | Other Order | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to Keep child in Secure Accommodation | 117 | 95 | 212 |
| C2 Leave Granted to Commence-Final Order | 0 | 13 | 13 |
| Care Order | 77 | 130 | 207 |
| Child Assessment Order | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Contact Order | 1581 | 586 | 2167 |
| Contact with a child in Care | 0 | 28 | 28 |
| Declaration of Parentage | 22 | 15 | 37 |
| Discharge Care Order | 37 | 15 | 52 |
| Discharge Emergency Protection Order | 3 | 7 | 10 |
| Discharge Prohibited Steps Order | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Education Supervision Order | 0 | 27 | 27 |
| Emergency Protection Order (EPO) | 15 | 65 | 80 |
| Extension of an EPO | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| Family - Adjourn Generally | 0 | 33 | 33 |
| Family Assistance Order | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Financial Provision | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Leave to change surname by which child is known | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Leave to remove child from the UK | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Leave to Withdraw | 0 | 66 | 66 |
| Free Text Formal Order | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Non-Molestation Order | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| Order or Directions Final | 299 | 2408 | 2707 |
| Order Terminating Appointment of GAL | 279 | 141 | 420 |
| Parental Responsibility Order | 129 | 39 | 168 |
| Prohibition on Further Proceedings (Art 179(14)) | 0 | 53 | 53 |
| Prohibited Steps Order | 27 | 97 | 124 |
| Recovery of a child | 4 | 22 | 26 |
| Residence Order | 936 | 427 | 1363 |
| Schedule 1 Financial Provision Direct Payment | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Specific Issues Order | 76 | 64 | 140 |
| Strike Out | 0 | 105 | 105 |
| Supervision Order | 18 | 11 | 29 |
| Vary Contact Order | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Warrant to Assist Person Authorised by an EPO | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Other | 0 | 447 | 447 |
| Total | 3635 | 4930 | 8565 |
In 2006/07, 7899 interim orders were made; the number of interim orders increased by 11% to 8776 in 2007/08. These were made up primarily of contact, residence and care orders (Table 6).
| Business | Interim Order |
|---|---|
| Parental Responsibility | 10 |
| Contact: Permission | 4186 |
| Residence | 1024 |
| Prohibited Steps | 244 |
| Specific Issues | 25 |
| Care | 3186 |
| Supervision | 75 |
| Secure Accommodation | 15 |
| Non-molestation | 11 |
| Total | 8776 |
Table 7 shows the distribution of children's ages. Just over one third (34%) of children involved in cases were within the 0-4 years old category (Figure 7).
| Age and Gender of children involved7: 01/04/07 – 31/03/08 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age Range | Number of children in respect of whom orders have been made | ||||
| 0-4 | 5-8 | 9-12 | 13-16 | ||
| Male | 808 | 679 | 533 | 267 | 2287 |
| Female | 774 | 690 | 568 | 335 | 2367 |
| Unspecified | 4 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 20 |
| Total | 1586 | 1375 | 1109 | 604 | 4674 |
| Age (Years) | Male | Female |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 4 | 808 | 774 |
| 5 to 8 | 679 | 690 |
| 9 to 12 | 533 | 568 |
| 13 to 16 | 267 | 335 |
Figure 8 presents the number of orders and disposals for 2003/04 to 2007/08. Parental responsibility disposals decreased by 47% between 2006/07 and 2007/08. Contact (permission) disposals decreased by 12% between 2006/07 and 2007/08. The number of applications for residence orders disposed of also decreased by 6% between 2006/07 and 2007/08 and care applications disposed of decreased by 8% between 2006/07 and 2007/08.
| Year | Parental Responsibility | Contact Permission | Residence | Care |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003/04 | 377 | 2282 | 1427 | 447 |
| 2004/05 | 438 | 2537 | 1519 | 343 |
| 2005/06 | 384 | 2595 | 1520 | 292 |
| 2006/07 | 315 | 2471 | 1449 | 280 |
| 2007/08 | 168 | 2167 | 1363 | 259 |
| Public | Private | Total | |
| Belfast | |||
| Care Centre | 18 | 42 | 60 |
| County Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Family Proceedings Court | 210 | 1732 | 1942 |
| Magistrates' Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 228 | 1774 | 2002 |
| Dungannon | |||
| Care Centre | 3 | 11 | 14 |
| County Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Family Proceedings Court | 58 | 248 | 306 |
| Magistrates’ Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 61 | 259 | 320 |
| Londonderry | |||
| Care Centre | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| County Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Family Proceedings Court | 26 | 438 | 464 |
| Magistrates' Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 27 | 441 | 468 |
| Craigavon | |||
| Care Centre | 6 | 90 | 96 |
| County Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Family Proceedings Court | 137 | 824 | 961 |
| Magistrates' Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 143 | 914 | 1057 |
| Public | Private | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Belfast | |||
| Care Centre | 53 | 88 | 141 |
| County Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Family Proceedings Court | 246 | 1431 | 1677 |
| Magistrates' Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 299 | 1519 | 1818 |
| Dungannon | |||
| Care Centre | 5 | 18 | 23 |
| County Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Family Proceedings Court | 46 | 196 | 242 |
| Magistrates' Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 51 | 214 | 265 |
| Londonderry | |||
| Care Centre | 5 | 15 | 20 |
| County Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Family Proceedings Court | 26 | 320 | 346 |
| Magistrates' Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 31 | 335 | 366 |
| Craigavon | |||
| Care Centre | 23 | 106 | 129 |
| County Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Family Proceedings Court | 108 | 688 | 796 |
| Magistrates' Court | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 131 | 794 | 925 |
| Court Location | New Reports requested in period | Outstanding Reports to be filed in period | New Reports to be filed in period | Reports Actually Filed | Extensions sought in period | Otherwise Accounted For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belfast FPC & FCC |
192 | 153 | 49 | 163 | 46 | 22 |
| Ballymena FPC |
83 | 77 | 10 | 74 | 14 | 9 |
| Londonderry FPC & FCC |
33 | 40 | 13 | 33 | 16 | 10 |
| Dungannon FPC & FCC |
37 | 58 | 6 | 39 | 26 | 8 |
| Newry FPC |
59 | 59 | 11 | 49 | 29 | 11 |
| Newtownards FPC |
125 | 194 | 35 | 115 | 123 | 43 |
| Craigavon FPC & FCC |
36 | 54 | 3 | 29 | 23 | 14 |
| Lisburn FPC |
11 | 16 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 1 |
| High Court | 27 | 24 | 7 | 20 | 13 | 2 |
| TOTAL | 603 | 675 | 136 | 530 | 299 | 120 |
NB: More than one extension of time for the presentation of the Report to the court can be applied for