Delay and Anxiety in Care Proceedings: Grounds for Hope?

Abstract

This paper draws on an evaluation of a pilot project in three London boroughs (the ‘Tri-borough’ authorities) which had the aim of reducing the length of care proceedings to 26 weeks, in advance of nationwide moves in the same direction. Rather than looking at this as yet another battleground between professional autonomy and bureaucratic rigidity, the authors focus on the psychological aspects both of court delay itself and of setting time limits, considering the impact of each on the children, parents and professionals involved. The challenge is to balance the pressures of time and the need for thoroughness, being mindful of the uncertainty and anxiety that pervade care proceedings. The pilot succeeded in greatly reducing the average length of care proceedings. Professionals involved in the project, including those whose job was to represent the interests of parents and children, seemed satisfied that this had not been achieved at the expense of thoroughness, and indeed that shorter proceedings might help to reduce the overall level of distress and anxiety that children and parents endure. On the other hand, the new approach adds to the pressures on the professionals themselves. If the changes are to be sustained, the anxiety involved in making these life-changing decisions about children must be recognised, and adequate support offered to those who have to make them

Making a target work: Messages from a pilot of the 6‐month time limit on care proceedings in England

“…On the other hand, absolute certainty can never be obtained in a “Solomonic judgement” of this kind (Elster, ) and, as long as the adults involved continue to pursue certainty, the child necessarily remains in a state of uncertainty (Beckett & Dickens, ). In a study of a group of exceptionally long proceedings (Beckett & McKeigue, ), assessments continued well beyond a point where it seemed obvious to the researchers that further assessment was unlikely to add any substantive information to what was already known.…”

“…They do so, among other ways, by “checking and rechecking decisions for validity and postponing action as long as possible” (Menzies‐Lyth, : 104). This, as the authors have discussed elsewhere, can result in difficult decisions being deferred, even when delay may itself be harmful, and even when there is little reason to suppose that the decision will become easier in the future (Beckett & Dickens, ). The challenge is to achieve a decision‐making process which explores the issues with a thoroughness appropriate to the gravity of the decision, but also with a speed that acknowledges the need of children to have the matter resolved as quickly as possible.…”

“…The present article is the first to bring together findings from both the pilot and the follow‐up. Two previous articles (Beckett & Dickens, ; Dickens et al, ) reflected on the findings of the initial evaluation, the first from a psychological perspective, the second from an international and socio‐legal perspective.…”