< Previous | Contents | Next >

Putting our communities first: A Strategy for tackling Anti-social Behaviour

section two

Preventing Anti-social Behaviour - Children and Families:
Strong families create strong and healthy communities. They are the basic building block without which everything else suffers. Healthy communities are ones where everyone feels safe to walk the streets, where parents take an interest in and responsibility for their children's well-being and behaviour, where families are supported in a constructive manner. Healthy communities are also ones that deal with problems that arise in an appropriate and effective way.

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts

Tackling anti-social behaviour needs early intervention to make clear that certain behaviour is not acceptable. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) are one way of doing this. They are already proving to be a success in the local authority areas piloting their use in Scotland, such as Falkirk, North Lanarkshire and the City of Edinburgh, and we want to ensure they are used more widely.

ABCs are written agreements between an individual (child or adult) involved in anti-social behaviour and relevant agencies working to prevent anti-social behaviour, for example the police or local authority housing, education and social work services. They can be used with parents who do not take action to prevent their children acting anti-socially. ABCs might also be appropriate as a means to tackle truancy and behaviour problems in relation to schools.

The contract set outs the behaviour that the person has agreed to stop, for example intimidating residents, truanting, making graffiti or causing noise disturbance. It may also set out the support the individuals can expect to receive in order to change their behaviour. The contract should specify that legal action may follow as a consequence of a breach of its terms.

ABCs, although voluntary, can be a strong deterrent when the individual or family know that if they break the contract, legal action may follow. We are not planning to introduce ABCs on a statutory basis, but we recognise that, to be an effective deterrent, breach of an ABC or a refusal to enter a contract without reasonable excuse should considered relevant evidence for an application for an ASBO or a Parenting Order, depending on the circumstances. This does not, however, preclude an ASBO being applied for as a first step, based on an assessment of the circumstances of the case by local practitioners.

Your views:

• Do you support wider use of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts?
• What are your views on the range of situations where ABCs would be appropriate? For example, do you support use of ABCs in the hearings system? In schools?
• What are your views on the relationship between ABCs and legal options such as ASBOs and Parenting Orders? For example, should the court be required to consider the failure or refusal to participate in an ABC or a Parental Contract when considering an application for a Parenting Order?

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders for under-16s

The majority of young people are engaged in healthy, challenging, sociable lifestyles, showing respect for those living around them. They are children and young people making the most of the opportunities available to them in education, music, sport and a whole range of other interests. For some, though, aggressive and disorderly behaviour can become the norm.

There are various ways of deterring or preventing young people from becoming involved in anti-social behaviour. These include early intervention projects and providing diversionary activities. In more serious or habitual cases, the Children's Hearings have a role through ordering compulsory supervision. This may include a requirement by the hearing on the young person to be involved in restorative justice programmes, including reparation and mediation. However, there remains a small number of persistently anti-social young people for whom no existing measures provide sufficient deterrent and who should be dealt with by a court. For this reason, we intend to extend Anti-social Behaviour Orders to under-16s. We also propose to enhance the disposals available to Children's Hearings when they deal with these young people, proposals for which are covered in the next section.

ASBOs were introduced by Section 19 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in Scotland and have been available since April 1999. At present ASBOs, and interim ASBOs, are only available in Scotland against persons aged 16 or over. Young people behaving anti-socially have generally been dealt with through the Children's Hearings system and in many cases this will continue to be the most appropriate option. However, for some young people whose behaviour has escalated, a court-imposed order may be necessary to make clear that that persistent disorderly behaviour will not be tolerated.

Operation of ASBOs for under-16s

Broadly speaking, we expect ASBOs for under-16s to operate on the same basis as for adults. ASBOs are civil orders that exist to protect the public from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress. A local authority or RSL can apply to the Sheriff Court for an order if a person has acted or pursued a course of conduct that has caused or is likely to cause alarm or distress. The applicant should also be satisfied that an order is needed to protect persons in the area from further anti-social conduct. The applicant must consult the police before applying to the court. For cases involving under-16s, we are considering placing an additional duty on local authorities and RSLs to consult the Reporter before applying for an ASBO. In considering an application, the Sheriff would take account of the Reporter's views, what is happening to the child in the hearings system and the best interests of the child.

The application for the order should describe the nature of the anti-social behaviour. The content of the order is left to the discretion of the court but an order will typically prohibit an individual from certain specified behaviour. This may include harassment of neighbours or passers-by, verbal abuse, vandalism or throwing missiles, all of which can be interpreted as causing or likely to cause alarm or distress to members of the community. Breach of an order is a criminal offence. This sends a clear message to the young person that further anti-social conduct will not be tolerated.

A young person and their family will often have dealings with a number of local authority services and other agencies. It will be important, in reaching decisions about whether to apply for an ASBO, for applicants to draw this together and consider the circumstances of the young person as a whole. For example, the young person may have had contact with the local authority social services, education and housing services, as well as perhaps the police or Children's Hearings system.

In most cases, we would expect that a young person would have been dealt with by the Children's Hearing system before an ASBO was applied for. In some cases, the intervention of the hearings system will not have been successful, and it will be clear that a court order is necessary. However, there may be situations - where the behaviour of the child is so immediately difficult - in which an application for an ASBO would be appropriate where a young person had not been dealt with through the hearings system.

We propose to extend ASBOs to young people aged 12 to 15. In civil law, a child aged 12 or over is presumed to have legal capacity to instruct a solicitor or to defend in any civil proceedings.

Where an ASBO is made in relation to a person aged under-16, we think that the court should consider imposing a support order in conjunction with the ASBO. This would require the individual concerned to take positive steps to prevent any repetition of the kind of behaviour which led to the ASBO. While ASBOs set out prohibitions to prevent anti-social behaviour, the support order would require the individual to participate in activities, education or counselling. It would be tailored to meet their needs, focusing on the causes of the anti-social behaviour.

Breach

Breach of an ASBO or an interim ASBO by a young person will be a criminal offence and will be reported to the Procurator Fiscal. It will be a matter for the Procurator Fiscal, in consultation with the Reporter, to determine what action is most appropriate in each individual case. If the Procurator Fiscal refers the case to the Children's Hearings system, a hearing will take into account what more can be done, including the wider range of disposals we propose (see below). Ultimately, the hearing may consider secure accommodation as the most appropriate disposal if it believes that the young person is likely to injure or cause serious harm to themselves or others. However, unlike the sentences available for adults, it is not our intention that breach of an ASBO by a young person should lead to imprisonment where no other offences are involved.

Another option might be to refer the matter to a Youth Court. Youth Courts are currently being piloted in Hamilton. At present, the Youth Court model we are piloting targets all 16 and 17 year olds with a history of having offended three or more times within the previous six months, with flexibility to deal with 15-year-old offenders. In addition, it may also include those young offenders in this age group whose circumstances make them suitable for the Youth Court.

We committed ourselves in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland" to rolling out Youth Courts where they are needed, subject to any necessary evaluation. There is also a strong case for utilising the expertise which will develop within the Youth Courts to deal with those under 16 years of age who breach an ASBO.

Your views:

• How should ASBOs be extended to under-16s?
• Do you support the introduction of individual support orders linked to ASBOs for under-16s?
• Are there any implications of extending ASBOs to under-16s in relation to the power of RSLs to apply for ASBOs?
• Do you agree that the Youth Court model, where this operates, should be amended to include young people under-16 years of age who are referred to the criminal justice system by the Procurator Fiscal for breach of an ASBO?
• How should the applicant ensure that they take the full circumstances of the family into account?

Greater use of Reparation in the Children's Hearings System

The Children's Hearings system is unique to Scotland. We are committed to a review of the system: but that review, and the proposals outlined in this paper, will respect the fundamental ethos of the system, which is based on considering the circumstances of the child in the round. Panel members who sit on Children's Hearings are drawn from local communities. They know, sometimes at first hand, the impact offending and anti-social behaviour may have on individuals. In dealing with young people who come before them, panel members have to consider what the needs of the child are, and take steps to address those needs. Tackling offending and anti-social behaviour is such a need where the young person is committing crimes and affecting the lives of others.

The hearing may make a supervision requirement and may attach any suitable condition on the young person which must be observed. The powers of hearings are wide-ranging and may include programmes with elements of restorative justice, including reparation. This may involve making good damage done in the community or undertaking voluntary work to assist those in the community. In addition, as part of the review process, a hearing may consider a range of more intensive work or programmes or take a decision resulting in greater restriction of liberty up to, and including, secure accommodation.

Restorative justice and reparation are therefore already measures which may be taken by Children's Hearings as an appropriate response, short of depriving the young person of liberty. However, for a hearing to make such a condition, there must first be the service in place locally for the work to be undertaken.

In recent years, reparation programmes for under-16s have not been universally available. Recent investment by the Scottish Executive has expanded availability but more could be done to ensure that hearings have a greater range of disposals. Panel members also have a responsibility to consider the wide range of needs of young people, including the need to focus on the impact behaviour has on others.

We propose to:

• Encourage greater use of restorative justice measures, including reparation
• Develop specific information and training for panel members on reparation as a condition of a supervision requirement.

Your views:

• What are your views on our proposals to consider increasing the emphasis on reparation, both as action that may be taken by the Reporter and as a condition of a supervision requirement made by the Children's Hearing?

Electronic Monitoring of under-16s

In England and Wales electronic monitoring is available for 10 to 15 year olds, as well as those offenders 16 years and over. We believe that there is now potential to use electronic monitoring more in Scotland for those young people who are dealt with in both the Children's Hearings system and the criminal justice system.

Electronic Monitoring of Children in the Hearings System

Breach of an ASBO may also lead to a young person being placed in secure accommodation, especially where the breach follows a period of engagement with the young person which has failed to change behaviour. Where secure accommodation is an option, electronic monitoring may provide an alternative disposal for those under-16 either through the criminal justice system or in the Children's Hearings system.

There may also be occasions when electronic monitoring may be suitable as a disposal by a hearing in support of other measures being taken in relation to the young person.

We therefore propose to introduce electronic monitoring as an additional disposal for Children's Hearings in specific circumstances.

We think electronic monitoring may be most suitable and effective for a small number of young people in the following circumstances:

• As an alternative to placing some young people in secure accommodation, where a residential or community-based placement together with the control provided by monitoring may be more effective in tackling their behaviour
• Part of the process of re-integrating a young person back into the community following a period in secure or residential accommodation
• For breaching an ASBO, since persistent involvement in such activities is likely to damage the interests and long-term welfare of the young person and suggests that they are in danger of heading to secure accommodation.

The Executive aims to reduce persistent offending by 10% by 2006. We also aim to build confidence in Scotland's hearings system. In addition, we recognise that some young people require serious intervention for their own welfare, for example to prevent them engaging in prostitution or getting drawn into serious drug use and other self-harming activities. Electronic monitoring could help achieve these aims, assist in addressing the young person's behaviour in the community and preventing an escalation of their difficulties or offending.

We recognise that no-one wants to restrict a young person's liberty lightly. It is a serious matter to consider such an intervention and would only be used to tackle serious issues. This means that if a young person does not comply with a monitoring requirement, it would clearly be necessary to take quick and effective action to stabilise the situation. That is why we propose that breaching a monitoring requirement should be a new basis for entry to secure accommodation.

There are two options for the introduction of electronic monitoring within the hearings system. These are set out below. They reflect the range of different circumstances that may apply to individuals for whom electronic monitoring may be appropriate.

Option 1. To limit electronic monitoring to young people who would otherwise be in secure accommodation using existing secure authorisations.

Around 200-320 authorisations are made each year by a hearing for young people to be placed in secure accommodation. The grounds which must be met are set out in Section 70 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995:

"(a) having previously absconded, is likely to abscond unless kept in secure accommodation, and, if he absconds, it is likely that his physical, mental or moral welfare will be at risk; or

(b) is likely to injure himself or some other person unless he is kept in such accommodation."

Young people who go to secure accommodation might have an offending background or face welfare issues, such as a history of serious self-harm. For most young people there is likely to be a history of both offending behaviour and welfare need. For some young people, in addition to meeting the above criteria, their home environment is not sufficiently safe or secure for them to be tagged to remain there. Monitoring might therefore not be an option for all young people who meet the above requirement. Thorough professional assessment would be needed.

This option would also enable monitoring for those who have been in secure accommodation but are preparing to leave to return to the community. It may restrict the young person's liberty at certain "danger" times, such as parts of evenings or weekends, as they re-integrate into their communities.

Option 2. To introduce electronic monitoring in support of serious intervention for welfare or offending reasons within the hearings system with breach a new ground for secure accommodation.

In 2001/2 nearly 800 young people committed more than 10 offences each. A large number of persistent young offenders will have engaged constructively with the hearings system in addressing their behaviour and its causes. A small number, however, do not. They continue to flout measures designed to help them address what is happening in their lives and why they are causing trouble. Some continue to cause misery in their communities or go on to escalate their behaviour. They do not appear to grasp the consequences of a pattern of offending behaviour. It is not in the interests of any young person, or the communities in which they live, to continue on a destructive path which will prevent them realising their own potential and developing a constructive future.

We think the introduction of ASBOs and electronic monitoring for breach of an ASBO will help these young people. Without effective intervention, they are likely to be heading for a future in secure accommodation. Such young people need to understand that this is not an option we want for them, but that they must stop causing severe harm and persistent damage to those around them. If they persistently fail to control their own behaviour, we propose helping them by removing from them the immediate opportunity to continue such activity. Another young person who might need further help is one who continually absconds from a residential unit or school and encourages others to join him or her in joy-riding. Such young people can seriously hurt themselves and others.

There are also other young people who have been so damaged that their welfare can be at serious risk. Monitoring may assist a supervision requirement in the case of persistent run-aways, especially if they have a history of prostitution or behaviour that puts them at risk. Young people who have been placed in secure accommodation in the past for welfare reasons may benefit more from the option of an intensive community or residential placement together with this control on their liberty. We recognise that everyone needs to be sure that the place within which the young person is asked to remain is safe and secure.

This option would enhance the range of disposals available to the hearing. It is still for the panel to assess the best interests of the child and to decide the most appropriate course of action to suit the needs and behaviour of the young person.

A renewed emphasis on the quality and timeliness of assessment by all the relevant agencies, especially the Children's Reporter, the youth justice team and secure or residential school would need to be made.

Within the hearings system, hearings can review a supervision requirement at any stage. Secure authorisations must be reviewed after three months. Supervision requirements must be reviewed within a maximum of 12 months. We propose to allow hearings to continue to agree the review period on a case-by-case basis. Guidance could suggest that the electronic monitoring disposal should normally be reviewed after three months.

Your views:

• What are your views on making electronic monitoring a disposal for the Children's Hearings system?
• Do you think that the option of electronic monitoring should be available alongside disposals other than secure accommodation?

Electronic Monitoring in the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system also deals with some young offenders who are under-16 years of age and it is important that the courts have at their disposal a range of robust measures for this small group. Presently, the courts, like the Children's Hearings, have the power to detain children under-16 years of age in secure accommodation.

As well as extending the provision of electronic monitoring to Children's Hearings, we also propose to extend the options available to the courts by providing electronic monitoring as an alternative to detention in appropriate cases.

Section 245A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 as inserted by Section 5 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 provides the courts with the power to impose a Restriction of Liberty Order on offenders aged 16 years or over. A Restriction of Liberty Order can restrict a person to a place for up to 12 hours per day and/or from a place for up to 24 hours per day for up to 12 months.

Their purpose is to:

• Reduce the offender's liberty
• Protect the public by reducing the opportunity to offend
• Impose a punishment on offenders by restricting their movements.

Whilst electronic monitoring does not physically prevent an offender leaving the area to which he/she is restricted, any failure to comply with the conditions of the order or tampering with the equipment is quickly detected. This is then reported to the court by the company contracted to provide the service.

RLOs were piloted in three courts from 1998. In May 2002, they were made available across Scotland for offenders aged 16 and over who are convicted in the courts. As a result, we are now at a stage where the effectiveness of the technology has been proved and where there is an infrastructure in place. In addition, the confidence of the courts has grown in the use of RLOs as a community disposal where they are being targeted as a high tariff disposal because of their invasiveness and their cost. With these foundations in place, it is possible to consider further uses of electronic monitoring.

Extending RLOs to under-16s

Secure accommodation provides the court with the power to remove dangerous or persistent serious offenders from the community. There will, however, be instances where the circumstances of the offender or the nature of the offending behaviour can be addressed just as effectively in the community.

Electronic monitoring provides the court with a number of options. The intention is to restrict the liberty of some young offenders and so reduce their opportunities to commit crime. The restrictive element of the order can be used to keep the young person off the streets at specific times and isolate them from their peer group and the inherent pressures. An RLO imposed by a court, whilst primarily punitive in nature and not directly addressing offending behaviour, can also offer a framework to support steps to address problems and difficulties which may be related to offending. It can provide a breathing space to allow intensive supervision and programmed work to be done with the young person. As a condition of a probation order, it offers a flexible means of addressing offending behaviour with the added reassurance of electronic monitoring.

There are some additional factors to consider when developing a scheme of RLOs for children. The younger the offender, the more relevant these are likely to be. The first is how to address the offending behaviour within the parameters of what is essentially the punitive nature of RLOs. The second is how to ensure that family relationships and household circumstances will be able to support the RLO arrangements. For these reasons, and to ensure that there will be parental supervision during the period of the restriction, effective assessment procedures will be needed.

At present, before imposing an RLO or a condition of electronic monitoring, it is a requirement that the court must obtain a report on the place(s) of restriction and the attitudes of those who will be affected by the enforced presence of the offender. This requirement will apply to children under-16 years old.

The Executive plans to extend the arrangements in place for the adult scheme to cover those young people under-16 in the courts. We are interested in views on the length and timing of the period of restriction that would be appropriate for this age group.

Your views:

• Do RLOs for the under-16s in court require any additional support arrangements?
• The period of restriction for an adult to a place is 12 hours per day and/or from a place for 24 hours a day for a period up to 12 months. What should be the period of restriction for an RLO for those under-16?

Parenting Orders - Putting Children First

The vast majority of Scotland's parents are good parents. They provide the security, love, attachment and direction that every child needs to grow and to prosper. Many of them share the responsibility of parenting with a spouse or partner. Many take sole responsibility for their children. Almost without exception, they have the best interests of their child or children consistently at heart.

Many parents have to support and nurture their families in difficult situations. They may be on low incomes or have children with special needs. That does not stop them putting the interests of their children first. Other parents have their own difficulties that might make the job of bringing up children more challenging. Again, that does not prevent them putting their children first. We respect these parents - the vast majority - who do their best to give their children the best possible start in life.

We also support them. Universal support for parents is provided through midwives and health visitors. More targeted support is also provided through a range of interventions such as Sure Start Scotland, which targets support at families with very young children (0-3 years), particularly vulnerable and deprived families. The first stage evaluation of Sure Start confirmed that parenting support was a major part of Sure Start Scotland provision across the country, and could take many forms, such as parenting education courses, peer support groups or parent and toddler groups. Another example is the Child Health Demonstration Project, Starting Well, based in Glasgow, where the Scottish Executive is seeking to learn the lessons of what works well and roll these out where feasible. The project combines intensive home-based support (provided by health visitors/lay health support workers to all families with new babies in the target areas) and access to enhanced community-based resources for parents and children.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a small minority of parents who do not fulfil their parental responsibilities. Such parents put their children at risk. They put our communities at risk too, because without effective parenting the chance of a child growing up to meet his or her full potential is inevitably diminished. We know that poor parenting is a high-risk factor in relation to youth offending. In one study, 42% of children who had low or medium levels of parental supervision had offended, compared to 20% of those who had experienced high levels of parenting. The same study also demonstrated that the children of parents whose behaviour towards their children is harsh or erratic are twice as likely to offend.

So good parenting is crucial. Bad parenting can have devastating effects. It is these parents - those who deliberately or recklessly fail their children - at whom Parenting Orders are aimed.

Existing experience

Parenting Orders were introduced in England and Wales by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, after a pilot phase, were implemented in June 2000. They are available to any court dealing with a child in specified circumstances. These are that the child has committed an offence, a child safety order has been made in relation to the child, an ASBO has been made in respect of the child or a parent has been convicted of an offence relating to their child's truancy from school. In these circumstances a court may grant a Parenting Order where it would be in the interests of preventing further offending or other damaging behaviour by the child or securing their attendance at school.

Where a Parenting Order has been granted it may require the parent to attend counselling or guidance sessions where they will receive help and support in dealing with their child. It would also require them to exercise control over their child's behaviour. This could include ensuring that their child:

• Attends school or other relevant educational activities, such as mentoring
• Is in a literacy and numeracy or a homework club
• Avoids contact with disruptive and possibly older children
• Avoids visiting certain areas, such as shopping centres, unsupervised
• Is home during certain hours at night and is effectively supervised
• Requires the parent to attend or ensure that their child attends a programme or course to address relevant problems, such as anger management or drug or alcohol misuse.

Breach of a Parenting Order is a criminal offence. The penalty is a fine not exceeding £1,000.

An evaluation of the pilot showed that Parenting Orders worked. Breach proceedings were only instituted in respect of 10% of the parents made subject to an order. Moreover, the young people involved, the parents themselves and the agencies who delivered the orders were all of the view that the orders, and the support that came with them, had a positive effect.

We intend to introduce Parenting Orders in Scotland. This paper sets out our proposals and seeks views on some key questions.

Who might apply?

We believe that only those who have the best information and understanding of the circumstances of the affected child, the family and of the parents themselves should be given the power to apply for a Parenting Order. A number of agencies might have information about a child and their family. However, we believe that the two agencies that would be best placed to make the judgement about whether a Parenting Order might be appropriate or not would be the Reporter or the local authority. Where a child has been referred to the Reporter, he will be supplied with a wide range of information about the child and their family circumstances. A hearing may also discuss these issues with the child and the parents and could decide an application for a Parenting Order would be appropriate. If that was the case they could direct the Reporter to make the application.

Of course, there may be circumstances in which a child who is not being dealt with in the Children's Hearings system would benefit from a Parenting Order. The local authority would appear to best placed to make that decision. Local authorities have a general duty under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to promote the interests of children in their area, particularly children in need. They also educate most of Scotland's children and have the responsibility for children and family social work. They are also responsible for looked-after children. For these reasons, we believe it would also be appropriate for local authorities to have the power to apply for a Parenting Order.

On what grounds?

A Parenting Order will be concerned with the behaviour of the parent. It will be appropriate where the behaviour of the parent in relation to their child is seriously deficient and where voluntary measures to improve that behaviour 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 purpose of the Parenting Order will be to require parents to undertake certain actions which should lead to improvements in reducing the offending or anti-social behaviour of their child or improve the welfare of the child. This is consistent with the approach of the Children's Hearings system which recognises that the welfare of the child and anti-social or offending behaviour are often linked.

If a Parenting Order can be made in cases where the welfare of the child is suffering because of poor parenting, then future offending or anti-social behaviour by the child may be avoided. It should not be necessary for the child to have to offend before the failures of parents can be addressed in this way. For example, some parents have a very chaotic lifestyle and do not regularly ensure appropriate food, clothing and other basic necessities are in place. Those failings lead to disruption and trauma for the young people and may contribute in some cases to their disruptive behaviour. We would only expect a Parenting Order to be made on welfare grounds where there had been a number of referrals to the Reporter, the parent had been offered and not engaged with help and the hearing considered the next step might be to remove the child from the parents. Parenting Orders might be sought in relation to a child's attendance or behaviour at school: but there are existing powers to make Attendance Orders under Section 38 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 where a parent does not ensure that their child attends school. Consideration needs to be given to how any new powers would work alongside existing powers.

Families sometimes have dealings with a number of local authority services and other agencies. It will be important, in reaching decisions about whether to apply for a Parenting Order, for applicants to draw this together and consider the family circumstances as a whole. For example, a family may have had contact with the local authority social services, education and housing services, as well as perhaps the police or Children's Hearings system.

We believe that we should allow direct applications for a Parenting Order by the Reporter or local authority (see above). However, we also think that the courts should be able to make a Parenting Order in other proceedings where that is in the best interests of children who may be involved or are the subject of those proceedings.

Where would the application be made?

A Parenting Order will be a civil order. It is an order that is intended to regulate the parent's behaviour in relation to their child. For that reason, we propose that an application for a Parenting Order should be made to the Sheriff Court. Sheriff Courts already deal with a wide variety of children's issues - adoption, proof of grounds in relation to Children's Hearings proceedings, divorce - and therefore have the experience and expertise to deal with applications for Parenting Orders. Any decision on whether to grant a Parenting Order should always be in the best interests of the child.

Parent?

We propose that a Parenting Order should be available in relation to a parent or guardian of a child. We do not propose that Parenting Orders should be available in other cases such as foster carers, since others such as the local authority have responsibility to ensure the foster placement proceeds smoothly, and can make other arrangements if serious problems occur.

Effect of a Parenting Order?

We propose that Parenting Orders in Scotland should be composed of one or both of the following two elements.

• Requirement to attend counselling or guidance so that the parent is given help and support in dealing with their child. Counselling or guidance would be tailored to address the problems that lay behind the granting of the Parenting Order
• Setting out required behaviour of the parent in relation to their child. This might focus on what the parent should do - such as ensure the child gets up in the morning and is adequately cared for - and/or what the parent should not do - such as involve their child in their own offending or anti-social behaviour.

In England and Wales a Parenting Order lasts for a maximum of 12 months. We would welcome views about whether to follow that model or allow Parenting Orders to be renewed for longer periods.

Appeal against a Parenting Order?

We propose that an appeal against the granting or terms of a Parenting Order should be available to the Sheriff Principal or Court of Session.

Breach of a Parenting Order?

Breach of a Parenting Order will be a criminal offence. We propose to provide that when sentencing a parent for breach of a Parenting Order the court will be required to take into account the best interests of all the children of the family concerned. Imprisonment would not initially be an option available to the court for breach of a Parenting Order. A fine would be the initial sanction. Where a fine is imposed for breach of the Parenting Order and the parent fails to pay the fine the court would then deal with the parent by means of a Supervised Attendance Order. If a Supervised Attendance Order or other community disposal was breached, the court would have the normal sentencing options before it. This would include imprisonment. However, the duty to take account of the best interests of the children of the family would still be relevant in making the decision about disposal at this stage.

Relationship with Part I of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995?

We would welcome views about the inter-relationship with Parenting Orders as we have described them above and the existing law about parental responsibilities and court orders relating to such responsibilities in Part I of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Under Section 11 of that Act a court may grant an order that, among other things, deprives someone of parental responsibilities or rights or regulates any specific question about the parenting of the child.

Your views:

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

• 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?
• How long should a Parenting Order normally last for? Should it be capable of renewal?
• How should applicants for Parenting Orders ensure that all relevant information about a parent is first taken into account?

Local authority accountability

We recognise that 11,000 vulnerable young people at any one time are looked-after children. This means that in practical terms the local authority has a corporate parenting responsibility for them. It may be that action or inaction by the council meets a common understanding of poor parenting. Whilst we aim to ensure that all existing mechanisms operate as effectively as possible to ensure that young people get the right services of the right quality at the right time, we propose to look at two areas where a failure by a local authority can have a particularly critical effect.

A hearing can make a supervision requirement in respect of a child that appears before it. Good practice suggests that requirement should specify what intervention is to be provided at what frequency; what is expected of the child or other agency; and when the hearing wants to review progress. Section 71 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 compels authorities to give effect to the supervision requirement. However, Audit Scotland found, during its study on youth offending, that one-fifth of cases it looked at had no allocated social worker and estimated that 400 young people nationally at any one time were not receiving a service in support of a disposal by a hearing.

We propose that where a review hearing finds that the supervision requirement has not been implemented, it should 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. Scottish Ministers think that it is vital that public bodies should take very seriously the implementation of their statutory duties, and should be held accountable for delivering on them.

A second area of concern relates to young people attending a hearing where it becomes apparent that no appropriate educational provision is being made. In particular, it may be that a young person with a history of offending and anti-social behaviour has also been excluded from school. 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. Where alternative education provision is not made, a young person's educational progress, and possibly his or her longer-term development, is likely to be adversely affected. The "invisibility" of young people who may have been excluded from many systems means that it is not always easy to track those who are receiving no service. Ministers propose that where a hearing finds an excluded pupil is not receiving any educational provision, it should direct the Reporter to raise the issue with the relevant authorities.

Your views:

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

< Previous | Contents | Next >