The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

A Report on the Consultation Responses to Putting Our Communities First: A Strategy for tackling Anti- Social Behaviour

8.6 Parenting Orders

The Scottish Executive proposes to introduce Parenting Orders (POs), targeted at 'the small minority of parents who do not fulfil their parental responsibilities…by deliberately or recklessly fail[ing] their children.' The consultation document proposes that local authorities or the Reporter would be able to apply for a Parenting Order, and suggests that a Children's Hearing may also be able to direct a Reporter to make an application. Grounds for a PO will include where the behaviour of the parent in relation to their child is seriously deficient and where voluntary measures have not been successful. Parents will have been offered relevant and targeted services first and must already have shown that they will not engage with those services in the interests of their child. The PO will require parents to undertake activities which should lead to improvements in reducing the offending or anti-social behaviour of their child or improve the child's welfare.

It is also proposed that a PO can be made on the grounds of the welfare of the child, without necessarily having involved offending or anti-social behaviour of the child. Such a PO would be made after a number of referrals to the Reporter, subsequent to the parent having been offered and not engaged with help and in the context of a Hearing considered that the next step may be to remove the child from their parents. The consultation document also suggests that POs may be sought in relation to a child's attendance or behaviour at school, although it highlights that there are existing powers in this regard, namely Attendance Orders under Section 38 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Consideration would need to be given to how any new powers would operate with these existing powers. The consultation document stresses the importance of applicants considering the full circumstances of the child and family before applying for a PO. It also suggests that courts should be able to make a PO in other proceedings where this is deemed to be in the best interests of the children concerned. A Parenting Order would be a civil order, made through application to the Sheriff Court. It is not proposed that POs should be available in cases involving foster parents. A Parenting Order would consist of one or both of two elements, firstly requirement for the parent to attend counselling or guidance and secondly setting out the required behaviour of the parent in relation to their child.

The consultation document asks for views on how long a period a Parenting Order should last for. It is proposed that an appeal against the granting or terms of a PO should be available to the Sheriff Principal or Court of Session. Breach of a PO will be a criminal offence. A fine would be the initial sanction, followed by a Supervised Attendance Order. If this was breached the court would have the normal sentencing options before it, including imprisonment, however the duty to take account of the best interests of the child would remain relevant at this stage of proceedings. The consultation document sought views on the following:

21. Do you agree that local authorities and the Reporter should be given the power to apply to the court for a Parenting Order? Should the Reporter be able to make an application at his own initiative or at the direction of a Hearing?

22. Should courts be able to impose a Parenting Order at their own initiative when dealing with other proceedings in relation to a child and their family?

23. Are the grounds we describe sound? Should the welfare of the child be grounds for a Parenting Order as well as behaviour?

24. Should the failure to ensure attendance at school be grounds for a Parenting Order? How should this work alongside existing powers to make attendance orders?

25. How long should a Parenting Order normally last for? Should it be capable of renewal?

26. How should applicants for a Parenting Order ensure that all relevant information about a parent is first taken into account?

8.6.1 General Comments

8.6.1.1 The issue of Parenting Orders divided the respondents. The largest proportion of responses supported their use in very specific circumstances. Many of those respondents who gave qualified support to POs did so based on an understanding that they would operate very much as measures of last resort, to be applied only after all other supportive measures had been offered and had been rejected. For this group of respondents POs offered a further step prior to the removal of a child form their parents, and it was in this regard that they should be utilised. Three responses indicated that they would regard POs as preferable to ASBOs for under-16s or electronic monitoring.

8.6.1.2 The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland believed that POs may, as short- term measures, provide an effective warning to certain parents and would usefully help to fill a void between police warnings and more formal child protection proceedings.

8.6.1.3 A second group of responses argued that sufficient legislation already exists, and that POs were in danger of duplicating existing procedures. In particular it was noted that the Children's Hearing System already has powers, including the ultimate sanction of removing parent's responsibility for their children. Responses offering this view argued that the adequate resourcing of existing provisions for holistic, preventative work with families was the key issue. This included a need to address the capacity of agencies to implement Children's Hearing disposals.

8.6.1.4 Another key issue, as identified by the Aberlour Trust and other agencies, was the lack of voluntary provision for parents who do seek help, particularly in relation to children of primary or secondary school age. Inlcudem argued that there was a need to extend intensive support services for parents, along the lines of Dundee Families project model, although it was recognised that such services involved substantial resources. A further recommendation was for a strategic service development and evaluation of statutory and voluntary support services provided to families in local areas. It was argued that parenting intervention strategies were effective where they were based on support and voluntary engagement rather than compulsion and, in the words of Scottish Women's Aid 'support and understanding, not undermining and recriminations.'

8.6.1.5 A large number of respondents raised concerns about the capacity of agencies to implement POs. Again, the lack of social workers and the resources to implement disposals from the Children's Hearing System were identified as barriers to the effectiveness of these orders. Similarly the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents sought clarification about the intended reporting route in relation to failure to comply with a PO and where responsibility for collation of evidence and the report to the Procurator Fiscal would lie. This would involve resource implications for the Police and other agencies. The capacity of the courts to deal with POs with present resources was also questioned.

8.6.1.6 In relation to existing provision, the capacity for Children's Hearings being able to consider conditions on parents as well as children in disposal was raised by a small number of responses, including Barnardos and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration; who suggested that this should be considered in the review of the Children's Hearing System.

8.6.1.7 A further group of responses opposed to Parenting Orders were concerned about the development of a 'blaming culture', in which full responsibility was placed on parents without due regard being given to poverty, family circumstances, alcohol and drug dependency, and physical and mental health. These responses argued that it was not helpful to classify parents as good or bad, and there were issues about who made these distinctions and how compliance was to be assessed.

8.6.1.8 Responses suggested a need for clear guidelines about what merits good parenting. Related to this point was one made by many responses, which argued that the behaviour of a child did not provide a reliable guide to parental effort. Respondents with experience of working with parents in voluntary support programmes felt that most parents welcomed such support. This raised the issue of whether POs would be ineffectual because they would apply to the very parents who would be least likely to co-operate with such orders.

8.6.1.9 Many responses addressed the likely consequences upon children and families of a Parenting Order being imposed. It was argued that the balance between child and parent responsibility in meeting the conditions of such orders may cause conflict within families. Also, it was suggested by the Scottish Parents Forum that POs could have a potentially negative impact upon families continuing relationship and engagement with support agencies working with them. Youthlink and Children in Scotland reported that the young people they had consulted wished responsibility for themselves, and not just their parents. Three responses also queried whether the orders would result in an increase in the number of parents declaring that their children were outwith their control.

8.6.1.10 Concerns were also raised about the consequences of breaches of Parenting Orders. The WS Society expressed reservations about criminal liability being triggered by a third party. In addition, many responses were concerned that fines arising from breaches of POs impact disproportionately on the most deprived sections of Scottish society, and that, as Stepping Stones put it 'all families must be treated fairly in regard to POs and disadvantaged families must not be discriminated against.' It was also argued strongly by many respondents that fines or imprisonment of parents were unlikely be in the best interests of the welfare of the child, and several responses were vehemently opposed to custodial sentences.

8.6.1.11 Stepfamilies Scotland were concerned that the consultation document made no mention of the implications of POs for step families, or lone parent families where there is shared care. They felt that the lack of clarity about where responsibilities lay and who POs would apply to created the potential for conflict within families, including disruptive legal action. The Fostering Network, whilst welcoming the exclusion of foster parents from the scope of POs, were concerned that these orders may impact upon wider family members or friends who care for children. This had the potential of POs acting as a disincentive for these groups to come forward to act as carers. The issue of POs applying to local authority case was raised, and one Council sought assurances POs would not apply to local authority accommodation.

8.6.1.12 Consultation responses further suggested that local authorities must guarantee parental support services are available and that the criteria for POs must be interpreted consistently across Scotland. The need to address literacy and language issues in understanding Parenting Order requirements, particularly for some sections of Scotland's ethnic minority population was raised. One response suggested that Parenting Orders should be piloted first before being available nationally.

8.6.2 Local Authorities and Reporters Applying for Parenting Orders

8.6.2.1 The majority of responses agreed that local authorities and reporters should be given the power to apply to the court for Parenting Orders (POs). However, a majority of responses also believed that this should only be done on the advice of the Children's Hearings Panels.

8.6.2.2 Five responses, including COSLA believed that it would be beneficial for local authorities in some circumstances to be able to apply for POs on their own initiative, providing that POs were always viewed as a last resort. Similarly, Dumfries and Galloway Council recommended that guidance should be issued to local authorities to ensure that all other methods had been tried, and had failed, prior to an application for a PO. One response suggested that local authorities should apply to the Children's Hearing System. Another response believed that applications should be made by the Reporter after consultation with the local authority, whilst one local authority argued that it should only be the Reporter who made applications. If local authorities were to be given this power to apply for POs, it was noted by several responses that there would need to be consistency in the criteria and application processes between local authorities. It was also emphasised that adequate links between Reporters and local authorities would need to be established. Copperworks Housing Association believed that registered social landlords may also have a role to play in applications.

8.6.2.3 Five respondents suggested that in addition to Reporters being able to apply for a PO at the direction of a local authority, they could also apply at the direction of a Children's Hearing. However, the largest proportion of responses argued that applications for POs should only be undertaken on the advice of the Children's Hearing System, which was believed to be accountable and open to appeal. It was recognised that this would involve new training for panel members. It was also argued by several respondents that parents must not become detached from the Children's Hearing System through external court proceedings. It was suggested that a new ground for a referral to the Children's Hearing could be introduced: to consider the need for a PO in the best interest of the child. However, it was pointed out that a PO should emerge from the processes of the Children's Hearing System, and therefore that a new ground may not be necessary. It was also suggested by several responses that a breach of a PO should be referred directly to the Children's Hearing, and only if the breach was deemed by the hearing to be intentional or avoidable, should it be referred on to the sheriff court. South Lanarkshire Council suggested that these issues should be addressed as a supervision order from the Hearing System.

8.6.2.4 The majority of responses answering the question directly believed that the Reporter should be able to apply to the court on their own initiative. However, this needs to be considered in the light of the majority support above for Children's Hearings to always be involved in PO applications. Those in favour of the Reporter having this power argued that such applications would always have to be supported by adequate evidence. It was questioned on what grounds such a procedure would operate as the Reporter has powers to deal with these matters direct. It was also queried whether the Reporter would prepare evidence for a local authority to apply to the court. One response argued that since Reporters currently have no formal decision on compulsory orders, there was no precedent for this being the case with POs. In general, Reporters were regarded as key players in the PO process, but also that the locus of responsibility must remain with the Children's Hearing System.

8.6.3 Courts Imposing Parenting Orders on Their Own Initiative

8.6.3.1 Again, the largest proportion of responses to this question believed that the courts should be given this power. One group of responses qualified their support by indicating that such powers should only be used where the court could guarantee the highest standard of information in relation to the full circumstances of the case. A similar proportion of responses went further and argued that the court should not be able to directly impose a PO, but should first be compelled to seek advice from the Children's Hearing System. It was also argued that the imposition of a PO by the court should be a ground of referral back to a Children's Hearing. Clarification from the Scottish Executive was sought about what 'other proceedings' might be.

8.6.4 Grounds for a Parenting Order

8.6.4.1 The majority of responses felt that the grounds described in the consultation document for implementing a PO were sound and there was universal agreement that the welfare of the child was always paramount.

8.6.4.2 It was suggested that if an application for a PO was made solely on welfare grounds then it should be considered grounds for referral to a Children's Hearing. The Reporter should also be informed immediately if orders were made on welfare grounds. Respondents again emphasised that the reasons why parents could not meet the child's welfare needs were many and complex, and that these would not be simply addressed through an order. Rather it was important to recognise that health and safety as well as criminality would be factors in grounds for referral.

8.6.4.3 One response indicated that the main grounds for issuing a PO should be a lack of parental engagement and response to existing support resources. The Scottish Children's Reporters Administration suggested that the grounds for an order should be a) the parent to have consistently failed to co-operate in the interests of the child and b) the order is necessary in the interests of the child. Two responses sought clarification about the standards of evidence required in an application for a PO. It was also felt by two respondents that more use could be made of existing powers under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

8.6.4.4 It was pointed out in one response that where welfare as well as offending grounds were used in an application, consideration needed to be given to the help and support given as these two elements would require different forms of response. It was felt that referral on welfare grounds would be acceptable on the grounds of the need for early intervention. The point was also made that as more children are currently referred to Hearings on welfare than offending grounds, measures to address welfare concerns required additional powers and support.

8.6.5 School Attendance as Grounds for a Parenting Order

8.6.5.1 Responses were divided on this issue, but the majority view was that failure to ensure school attendance should be grounds for a Parenting Order. Those responses supporting this ground believed that it would work in some cases involving parents who did not actively encourage, but condoned their child's absence from school. It was also suggested that POs could be more workable than existing attendance orders as they would be accompanied by guidance and counselling support. These responses did not believe it would be problematic for POs to be adapted to work alongside attendance orders. One local authority believed that there may be grounds for extending the power of local authorities to apply for POs on school attendance grounds, but that this should only be done in conjunction with information about the full circumstances involving the child and family. However, the responses in favour of this measure also believed that POs should not be used 'automatically' and should only be applied for after all other measures with parents had been tried and had failed to resolve the problem of poor attendance. POs would be acceptable after attendance orders had failed. It was also recognised that there were reasons for a poor school attendance, such as bullying, that would need to be addressed before a PO should be issued. One local authority reported that currently in cases of breaches of an attendance order the parent was referred to the Procurator Fiscal and the child was referred to the Children's Hearing System, and that there would be merit in bringing these measures closer together.

8.6.5.2 The majority of respondents opposed to the new ground felt that existing education legislation and measures, including attendance orders, were sufficient. Other respondents opposed to this measure argued that it must be recognised that in some cases children are simply outwith their parents' control. A few responses also suggested that existing research indicated that prosecuting parents had little impact on levels of truancy, although another respondent disputed this interpretation. Three responses argued that school attendance should not be used as sole grounds for applying for a PO. Several responses re-emphasised their view that the Children's Hearing System should be involved in any application for a Parenting Order. Save the Children argued that school attendance should be an education, rather than anti-social behaviour, matter.

8.6.5.3 Responses suggested that any new system should ensure that no duplication emerged between existing measures and new powers and that they shared the same purposes. The need to consider the procedural relationships between POs, education and Children's Hearing Systems was also highlighted.

8.6.6 The Length and Renewal of Parenting Orders

8.6.6.1 The majority of responses believed that Parenting Orders should last for up to 12 months. It was suggested that POs should be reviewed using the same procedures as for supervision orders, with 3 monthly reviews. One response suggested they should last for 6 months. Another response suggested that POs should last long enough for parents to demonstrate that lasting progress had been made, while a third response suggested that POs should be lifted as soon as progress was made. Four other responses suggested that POs should be capable of being terminated within the 12 months if required. One response suggested that POs be subject to review after 21 days and then at 3 monthly intervals. Several responses also argued that POs should be flexible, depending on the particular circumstances of the child and family.

8.6.6.2 The majority of responses also believed that POs should be renewable. Two responses suggested that renewal should be for a maximum of 6 months. It was argued that decisions to renew a PO should be subject to the same evidence requirements as the original application, that parents should have the right to appeal against a renewal as with supervision requirements, and that the power to renew POs should be balanced by parents having the right to apply to have a PO lifted. Midlothian Children's Panel Advisory Committee also believed that a full assessment should be made of the capacity of a family to comply with a PO, rather than a PO being consistently renewed.

8.6.7 Ensuring All the Relevant Information is Taken Into Account

8.6.7.1 It was widely accepted that POs would require full inter-agency assessments from those involved with the family, including contributions from the police, the court, Children's Hearings, Reporters, social work, education and housing, in addition to voluntary agency and money advice organisations etc. It was generally indicated that case conferences or social work reports would be the vehicle for this information to be collated, and that this information would be available to the sheriff or children's hearing. It was further suggested that joint protocols would be the most effective mechanism of ensuring that this information was shared. Several responses pointed to the resource implications of bringing this information together.

8.6.7.2 Several responses suggested that multi-agency assessments should include a full evaluation of the capacity of parents to change their behaviour. Grantown Community Safety Group also believed that applications for POs should include clear guidelines about what education, counselling and other support would be provided. It was further suggested that clear guidance should be developed at the outset of an application about what changes in behaviour were required and how these would be assessed. One response argued for the legislation to insist that full information is obtained prior to any application for a Parenting Order.

8.7 Local Authority Accountability

The consultation document notes that 11,000 vulnerable young people in Scotland at any one time are looked-after children, with local authorities having a corporate parenting responsibility for them. A Hearing can make a supervision requirement in respect of a child that appears before it, and Section 71 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 compels local authorities to give effect to the supervision requirement. However, Audit Scotland found that found that one fifth of the cases it studied had no allocated social worker and estimated that 400 young people nationally were not receiving a service in support of a disposal by a Hearing. The Scottish Executive proposes that, where a supervision order has not been implemented, a Hearing direct the Reporter to make an application to the Sheriff for an order requiring compliance. The local authority would be entitled to attend and make representations before the Sheriff. Failure to comply with any such order would then be contempt of court. Secondly, education authorities have a duty under Section 14 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to provide education without undue delay for pupils excluded from school. The consultation document proposes that where a Hearing finds an excluded pupil is not receiving any educational provision, it should direct the Reporter to raise the issues with the relevant authorities. The document sought views on the following questions:

27. Do you agree it would be desirable to require local authorities to comply with supervision requirements?

28. Do you agree that at the hearing's direction a Reporter request a Sheriff to make an order to enforce implementation of the supervision requirement?

29. Should the hearings and Reporter have a role in alerting Scottish Ministers to failure by a council to ensure a child before them receives appropriate education?

8.7.1 Requiring Local Authorities to Comply With Supervision Requirements

8.7.1.1 The majority of responses to this question supported the desirability of requiring local authorities to comply with supervision requirements. It was widely acknowledged that there were an increasing number of supervision requirements, which were not being supervised by an allocated social worker. It was further recognised that in some cases this may be due to weaknesses within local authorities. Many Children's Hearings organisations felt that this requirement to comply was overdue, as many of their disposals were not being fully implemented, which in addition to being detrimental to the welfare of individual children, was also leading to a panel member retention problem due to the frustration of actions not being carried out.

8.7.1.2 However, it was strongly argued by COSLA, individual local authorities and many other respondents, including most Children's Hearing organisations, that the situation was primarily caused by a lack of resources rather than a wilful refusal to comply with supervision requirements on the part of local authorities. In particular, the lack of available social workers, due to the current recruitment crisis within this profession, was viewed as the most serious issue impacting upon the compliance of supervision requirements. It was recognised that this issue needed to be, and was being, addressed at a national level, and if this was successful, the need for such powers would diminish. It was argued by local authorities and others that until this national issue was addressed, there should be no coercive measures imposed on local authorities and that in essence, local authorities' accountability had to be linked to adequate resources. Once this prerequisite was addressed, the proposal would be useful.

8.7.1.3 South Ayrshire and Renfrewshire Councils sought further clarification about what sanctions would be enforced on local authorities that failed to comply with supervision requirements.

8.7.2 Reporters Requesting a Sheriff's Order Enforcing Supervision Requirements

8.7.2.1 There was support amongst the majority of respondents for a Reporter, at a Hearing's direction, to request a Sheriff to make an order to enforce implementation of a supervision requirement.

8.7.2.2 Again, a large number of responses were concerned that a Sheriff's Order would not address the underlying cause of shortages of required resources, and that the Scottish Executive needed to tackle this issue.

8.7.2.3 Several respondents, including Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Stirling Councils and the Aberlour Trust, expressed concern that requiring implementation of particular supervision requirements would mean that the ability of local authorities to prioritise cases, particularly related to child protection and looked after children, would be compromised, and that other cases would necessarily lose resources.

8.7.2.4 Several Councils stated that it should only be in exceptional circumstance that Children's Hearings should seek to override the local authority in prioritising cases. It was recommended that panel members be issued with guidance about when such cases may arise, and also that guidance was important so that constructive working relationships between local authorities and Children's Hearings were maintained.

8.7.2.5 Concerns were raised by amongst others, NCH Scotland and Children 1 ^st that there was a danger that an unnecessary number of cases may become subject to supervision requirements in order to ensure their implementation, and that if such an approach became routine, it would result in expensive and delayed referrals to court.

8.7.2.6 Several responses from Children's Hearing groups were also concerned that recourse to the Sheriff undermined the primacy of the original disposal made by the Hearing.

8.7.2.7 In relation to this, there were concerns expressed by a local Children's Hearing organisation that allowing local authorities to make representations to court implied that the Sheriff could override the original disposal requirement, and sought clarification on this issue. Conversely three local authorities argued that they should have the right to appeal against a disposal from a Children's Hearing if they felt it to be unreasonable, in the same way that parents have.

8.7.2.8 East Lothian Children's Panel suggested that one mechanism would be for Reporters to schedule a business meeting to discuss an appeal to a Sheriff regarding failure to comply with supervision requirements. There would be a recommended three-month period between a disposal and evidence of non-compliance before such a meeting.

8.7.2.9 The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration recommended that the meaning of 'supervision' and of the duty to give effect to both compulsory supervision requirements and voluntary arrangements instituted by the Reporter should be spelt out in law and guidance. Further, that legislation should set out a process by which local authorities account directly to the Hearings for lack of compliance with supervision requirements, that local authorities implementing supervision requirements become a key performance indicator and that authorities should receive demand-led funding for these services.

8.7.2.10 Further recommendations from responses included:

• Reporters should be informed immediately about non-compliance, whatever the circumstances
• Requirements and conditions should be explicitly set out, with children and parents guaranteed standards of service and informed of the expected outcomes of supervision requirements (NCH Scotland)
• Children's Hearings should have the right to appeal directly to the Sheriff
• Children or young people should be able to apply directly themselves to the Sheriff, and that they should be entitled for compensation in cases where duties had not been met (Scottish Child Law Centre)
• Local authorities should continue to develop increasing flexibility in case management
• National Standards currently applying to the criminal justice system should be applied to childcare.

8.7.3 Education Provision

8.7.3.1 A majority of responses supported a role for Hearings and Reporters in alerting Ministers to failure by a Council to ensure a child before them receives appropriate education.

8.7.3.2 However, there were concerns that such an approach could lead to local authorities being found in contempt of court for what were described by Strathclyde Police Boards as 'a mix of scare resources and complex social circumstances surrounding the child concerned.' East Ayrshire and East Renfrewshire Councils also highlighted the fact that local education authorities faced a difficult task in balancing, within resources, the needs of the individual child the Hearing were concerned with and the needs of other children in their education systems. There was general agreement that such an action should only occur if all other options, including local authorities' appeal procedures for parents, had been exhausted.

8.7.3.3 Aberdeen City Council pointed out that, whilst educational provision was essential, it may not always be the most urgent priority with a particular child at a certain time, and that it should not therefore be given emphasis in resources over other matters. It was suggested that further guidance would help in this area.

8.7.3.4 There were concerns that such a procedure may disrupt co-operative inter agency working, and create more litigation and an adversarial approach which may not be in the interests of the child involved.

8.7.3.5 COSLA and two other responses suggested that as a prerequisite, Hearings should take up the matter in the first instance with the local education authority. However, Includem argued that the Hearing or Reporter should have the right to go directly to Ministers. One response argued that it should be Hearings, rather than the Reporter on their own initiative, who alerted Ministers. Edinburgh City Council argued that a stage of reporting to Ministers on circumstances would be appropriate in which resources and other matters could be clarified.

8.7.3.6 Three responses argued that it was more appropriate for these issues to be raised through HMI Scotland or Audit Scotland. It was also suggested that measures put in place in 'Learning With Care' should already be sufficient to ensure that Ministers were alerted to shortcomings in educational provision.

8.7.3.8 Two responses sought clarification of what was meant by 'appropriate education', given that there was no legal definition.

8.7.3.9 North Lanarkshire Council suggested that enforced education may lead to further disengagement by the child concerned, but that specialist educational provisions should be better resourced, and British Social Workers also welcomed the potential for increased resources for children with special educational needs.

8.7.3.10 East Lothian Children's Panel suggested that Hearings be provided with detailed education plans, similar to action plans in fast-track Hearings.

8.7.3.11 One response highlighted the need to focus on the transitional period from school to work or other activities for vulnerable young people as they were more likely to 'slip through the net' because it was less clear who was responsible for their welfare at this stage.

8.8 SUMMARY

• General concerns raised about all of the proposed measures included building the evidence base for their effectiveness, ensuring that they were compatible with existing provisions, providing sufficient resources for their implementation and clarifying the process and impacts of sanctions in the event that these measures were breached.
• Extending anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and electronic monitoring to under-16s were particularly contentious, with responses divided about the desirability of these measures.
• There was general support for maintaining the primacy of the Children's Hearing System in regard to these proposals.

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts

• There was majority support for extending the use of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs), particularly where these were used at an early stage of intervention, were voluntary, were complimented by appropriate support mechanisms and emphasised constructive, rather than merely punitive, activities.
• There was majority support for ABCS to be used within the Children's Hearing System and schools, where similar measures are already widely used, and indeed in other circumstances relating to anti-social behaviour in local communities.
• The extent to which ABCs should be linked into other measures such as ASBOs was disputed. Some responses argued that without such linkages ABCs would prove ineffective, but there were equal concerns about how any sanctions for breaching ABCs may lead to disproportionate punitive measures against the individuals involved.

Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) for Under-16s

• There was widespread recognition of the serious implications of this proposal. Although many responses were opposed to this measure, there was a small majority in favour of extending ASBOs to under-16s, but this support was based on ASBOs being used as a last resort after all other measures had failed, adequate support packages being implemented, and careful consideration given to the processes and implications of any breaches. Clarification was sought about how this measure related to existing national and international legislation.
• There was widespread concern about the capacity of registered social landlords to access sufficient information about the full circumstances surrounding an individual before applying for an ASBO, and there was support for the Children's Hearing System being the central mechanism in any applications.
• The majority of responses believed that a full evaluation of the Youth Court pilot in Hamilton should be conducted before considering whether this could be utilised in relation to breaches of ASBOs for under-16s. Responses were divided about whether in principle the Youth Court model was appropriate in these circumstances.
• There was unanimous agreement about the importance of ensuring that full information about the circumstances of each young person and family being available in regard to ASBO applications. The involvement of the Children's Hearing System, social work departments, multi-agency working and wider use of protocols were identified as the key factors in ensuring this information was made available.

Greater Use of Reparation in the Children's Hearing System

• There was widespread support for the greater use of reparation, and that such reparation should take into account the wishes and circumstances of both victims and offenders.

Electronic Monitoring of Under-16s

• This was a very contentious proposal. Many responses were opposed to such a measure, and the small majority of responses in favour of the measure believed that it should only be used as a last resort in extreme cases and should be subject to substantial support and review systems.
• There was particular division about the suggestion of electronic monitoring as an alternative to secure accommodation. For some responses, this was the sole basis for their support of electronic monitoring as a final alternative, but other responses argued that the welfare grounds on which secure accommodation order were made, and concerns about the home environment of the young people involved, meant that electronic monitoring was not a viable alternative to secure accommodation.

Extending Restricted Liberty Orders to Under-16s

• This measure was also contentious. The majority support for these measures were again based on emphasising the constructive, rather than merely punitive, elements of thee orders and the provision of adequate support structures.

Parenting Orders

• Responses were divided about the introduction of Parenting Orders. Those in favour saw them as a useful mechanism of last resort where the required levels of parental responsibility had not been achieved through other mechanisms, to the detriment of a child's welfare. Other responses believed that such measures reduced the responsibility of both the child and wider society, encouraged a blaming culture that did not take account of the full circumstances, and would lead to ineffective punitive sanctions rather than holistic support-based interventions which were required.
• There was widespread support for the Children's Hearing System having a central role in the provision of Parenting Orders, and that the importance of the Children's Hearing System should be retained in relation to any powers given to local authorities, courts and Reporters.
• There was support for the grounds for Parenting Orders set out in the consultation documents, and a widespread belief that the welfare of the child should always be the paramount consideration in any application for a Parenting Order.
• The majority of responses supported failure to ensure attendance at school being grounds for a Parenting Order, although it was equally strongly argued that account should be taken of existing measures and also the various factors, other than parental failure, which may account for non-attendance at school.
• The Children's Hearing System and local authority social work departments were seen as the most important mechanisms for ensuring that all the relevant information about parents were taken into account in the application for a Parenting Order.

Local Authority Accountability

• There was universal support fro the desirability for local authorities ensuring that supervision order were carried out and that adequate education provision was offered to all children. Although the measures proposed to ensure the identification any failures in this regard were supported, it was argued by a large majority of responses that such failures arose primarily from a lack of resources, in particular the current shortage of social workers, and that this issue needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency. There were also concerns that these new measures should not lead to deterioration in the working relationship between agencies.

« Previous | Contents | Next »