Children ‘drifting’ in care longer than needed

Looked-after children are languishing in care or being discharged in unsafe ways due to flaws in the system, a study has found.

Researchers from Bristol University examined how care orders are discharged in England and Wales to better understand the experiences of children at the end of their time in care.

They found parents frequently reported delays in local authorities making discharge applications and further delays in the process itself, which can be "lengthy and traumatic.”

Children were found to “drift in care”, particularly in cases where a care order was deemed “ineffective” because a placement, or successive placements, were proving to be detrimental to a child’s wellbeing.

There were also cases where the ending of a care order was unwanted by families "due to the security and financial support care orders can offer” and many cases where parents had not received sufficient legal advice, and applied to end a care order when there was no chance of success.

The case files of 323 children were analysed by researchers, covering discharge applications and outcomes between 2017 and 2019, alongside interviews and focus groups with social workers and legal professionals. 

An application to end a care order can be made by a local authority, a parent or a child. Social workers are involved in instigating the process to discharge a care order and assess the issues around discharge in meetings with Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs), who can advise children about their rights.

Once an application is made a Cafcass guardian is appointed, who has a duty to ensure arrangements made in court are in the best interests of the child.

Guardians reflected on how applications with no chance of success caused disruption and trauma for children who had already experienced abuse, with one saying: “It does mean, for the children, having the court involved, having a Guardian again, having a solicitor again, which might be destabilizing… It’s not my job to go in and make the situation worse.”

Six types of care order endings were identified: a stable placement coming to an end; a child reunified with a birth parent; a stable placement found after a care order was made; a child was on an 'ineffective' care order, where a placement was failing to work in their best interests; a parental application not being supported by the local authority; discharge being used to force a re-examination of issues, or appeal decisions.

For those children under an “ineffective” care order (4.6 per cent of the sample) significant suffering was uncovered.

These children were typically older than those in other categories, with a mean age of 13 at discharge. They had a complex care history and had experienced on average five placements. 

In one case, two children aged 14 and 16 had been subject to care orders for a decade, due to domestic violence, physical and emotional abuse.

Placements broke down repeatedly. The children were repeatedly running away from foster care and were at risk of exploitation.

The mother applied for discharge because of her concerns, but "the social worker and guardian had concerns about the children experiencing ongoing physical and emotional harm if they returned to their mother's care".

Discharge was agreed because it was felt the children would "continue to 'vote with their feet'".

The majority (13 out of 15) of 'ineffective' care orders were discharged, with the researchers adding: "Notably, professionals often had ongoing concerns about the child’s safety or wellbeing, particularly if they returned to live with their parent(s). 

“However, these were balanced against the risks of retaining the care order—and the child running away or being at risk of harm within placements—and the child’s own view about what they wanted to happen."

In a quarter of cases (23 per cent) parental applications for discharge were not supported by the local authority. In most of these cases children were placed with foster carers. Applications were unsuccessful in 90 per cent of cases because there were ongoing concerns about parenting capacity, or improvements had not been demonstrated by parents, or children were deemed to still be at risk.

In ten per cent of cases, applications for discharge were used to force a re-examination of issues or appeal decisions. These applications were mainly made by parents, and in one case a child.

Children in this category had experienced longer under a care order, leading to "increasing frustration for children and families."

Nearly three-quarters (70 per cent) of these applications were refused but researchers commented: "They could be considered successful in other ways because many led to changes in the child’s placement or contact arrangements, which the parents or child had sought.”

The researchers, who published their study in the British Journal of Social Work, conclude: “Children… may drift in care and potentially were the subject of care orders much longer than they needed to be. 

“This drift means the child and family are subject to unnecessary state intervention, such as lack of choice and control over decision-making, the potential stress of having a social worker, and perceived stigma and shame.”

There is also an impact on local authority budgets in terms of unnecessary expense and wasted resources, the study found.