The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Seven: Issues and Future Developments

Introduction

2.7.1 Towards the end of the interviews, respondents were asked to comment on a number of criticisms of FGC which have been made in the literature. They were then asked how they would like to see FGC being developed, with Scottish participants specifically asked about hoped for developments within Scotland. This chapter summarises responses to these concluding questions.

Views on Issues

Children's Representation

2.7.2 FGC has been criticised on the grounds that, by involving adult family members in decisions affecting children, it is possible to overlook the views and wishes of the children themselves. Most respondents recognised the potential for this, but service providers argued that practice in their own agency made strenuous efforts to ensure that children's voices were heard.

2.7.3 Many agencies would offer children and young people the support of an advocate to help them prepare for the meeting, support them to say what they wanted at the meeting or, if the young person preferred, speak on their behalf. Where possible, an advocate was recruited from among the young person's family or friends or was a professional whom s/he already knew and trusted. If no advocate could be identified from these sources, the FGC agency would provide one. Within Children 1 ^st, this might be a suitably trained volunteer or a co-ordinator from another area.

2.7.4 In addition to the support of an advocate, co-ordinators were said to devote considerable time and imagination to finding ways of helping young people say what they wanted and feel that the FGC was 'their' meeting. Drawing, games and various methods had been used to engage with children, for example helping write and send out invitations.

2.7.5 Inevitably conference decisions were not always in accordance with young people's wishes. This could lead to disappointment, but several of those interviewed referred to feedback from young people which indicated that they felt they had had more of an opportunity to put their point of view in the FGC meeting, than in other reviews and planning meetings which they had attended.

2.7.6 Views about young people attending FGC meetings varied, with some people advocating that this should be encouraged, even if it would be a difficult experience, and others believing that it could be almost abusive to ask young people to listen to some contributions in that setting, for example that their mothers mental health difficulties would eventually make it impossible for her to care for her children.

Vulnerability of weaker family members

2.7.7 Concerns have been raised about whether dysfunctional family dynamics could make family group meetings, especially private family time, difficult for weaker family members. All of the professionals interviewed acknowledged that sometimes a particular individual would be excluded from a meeting because of their potential for aggression or dominance. Situations involving domestic violence or sexual abuse needed particularly careful monitoring, but respondents said the well-being of all family members was kept in mind in all situations.

2.7.8 Some schemes were able to offer an advocate to vulnerable adults as well as children. One example where this might be considered was when a drug dependent mother might be at risk of being blamed and bullied by the rest of the family.

Suitability of FGC in cases involving sexual abuse or domestic violence

2.7.9 Specific concerns have been raised about cases involving sexual abuse or domestic violence, because, in such situations, there may be powerful scripts or alliances which sustain the abusive behaviour across generations. Most respondents said that these risks were assessed by those referring and/or during the preparation phase, so that social workers and co-ordinators would decide whether FGC was suitable at all and whether certain family members should be excluded from the family meeting. However several also pointed out that families affected by these difficulties might include reliable, supportive individuals.

In order to make savings, local authorities can use FGC to pressurise families into taking on more responsibility for problems than they wish to

2.7.10 Of all the concerns put to respondents, this was the one they thought most justified. It was suggested that there was fine line between supporting families to provide what support they felt able to offer and making them feel personally responsible, for example, for preventing a child being accommodated. Examples were given of an aunt being pressured into giving up her job to become a carer and an extended family being strongly encouraged to increase the high level of respite they already provided for a child with learning disabilities.

2.7.11 Respondents saw this kind of practice as an abuse of FGC and said that they would not enter into the process if the local authority admitted to having prior expectations of family members. However it was recognised that pressure could be brought to bear in more subtle ways and that co-ordinators should resist this.

Professionals can dilute the 'empowering' of families by influencing such matters as the conference agenda, who is invited and what information is given at the information session

2.7.12 There was a general view that professionals had a responsibility to guide the FGC process and try to ensure it achieved its aims. This might involve being quite directive, for example excluding people expected to be destructive or violent or, correspondingly, advocating that certain family members should be included, against the initial preferences of others. It was also said to be helpful if co-ordinators went over plans with families to ensure that they were realistic.

2.7.13 These actions may be viewed as appropriate if the FGC process is viewed as part of a partnership with professionals, with families having control over some aspects of the process, but professionals remaining ultimately in charge. Some respondents would have been comfortable with this balance of power, but others were hoping for something which empowered families in a more radical way.

Future Developments

2.7.14 The vast majority of people interviewed were committed to the development of FGC. Typically people said it was a means of working in partnership with parents, ensuring children's right to family life was respected and developing practical family based solutions which were in the best interests of children.

2.7.15 Hoped for developments included the expansion of the service into new areas such as mediation in schools, residential homes and community groups. However the priority for most people was to ensure that FGC was available to any child and family at a point when a major decision was being made about their future.

2.7.16 Two key elements were viewed as crucial to achieving this:

• guidance from central government that FGC should be considered when key decisions are being made;
• funding to ensure that FGC services are available to cope with demand.

2.7.17 There was also a widespread view that FGC should be, as far as possible, incorporated into mainstream services, so that its use is indicative of a new approach to supporting family care, rather than an 'add-on' to existing services.

2.7.18 These views are advocated strongly by Children 1 ^st staff. The organisation's position is that they would like to see FGC being mainstreamed as a key decision making and care planning method for children about whom life changing decisions are being made. Relevant situations would include children coming into the care system or being considered for adoption, but would also encompass any situation where a decision needs to be made about a vulnerable child or child in adversity (e.g. orphaned, rejected, children liable to early entry into the adult criminal justice system, or exclusion from school) .

2.7.19 Children 1 ^st see it as a child's right that his/her wider kinship group should be given the opportunity to plan for their future care and protection. They believe that implementing and resourcing family plans would entail building a new and relevant range of services, moving from crisis and 'high-end' solutions to much more home based and local services.

2.7.20 Among local authority respondents there was a corresponding wish for FGC to be offered as part of mainstream service provision. Experience in other countries, notably New Zealand, indicates that there is a need to guard against corners being cut and the service diluted as FGC becomes 'routine'. Recognising this, Children 1 ^st recommend that FGC services should be governed by national standards.

Summary Points

2.7.21

Respondents were asked to comment on a number of criticisms of FGC made in the literature. These were that:

Each of these issues was considered to be potentially problematic, but able to be managed through proactive and thoughtful practice.

Virtually all respondents were keen to see FGC developed in Scotland, though some included a caveat that this should not be a the expense of core social work services. Two key elements were viewed as important to develop FGC:

There was also a widespread view that FGC should be, as far as possible, incorporated into mainstream services, rather than a specialist project.

« Previous | Contents | Next »