Constructing children's welfare: a comparative study of professional practice

By Adrian James

The creation of a new unified family court service has raised questions as to whether the two different types of child welfare professionals who used to work for the family courts would be bringing different sets of assumptions, practices and recommendations to the way they worked. Researchers at Bradford University, led by Professor Adrian James, investigated whether the two groups' different backgrounds and professional duties would affect the nature of the recommendations they made to the courts. They concluded that, despite there being some differences, the two groups had more in common in their approach than was previously believed.

Introduction
Family courts, when dealing with public law issues (such as child neglect, adoption and fostering), used to be serviced by guardians ad litem (now known as Children's Guardians). When dealing with private law (on issues such as child contact and residence) the courts were advised by Family Court Welfare Officers (now known as Child and Family Reporters). These two groups now work together as a unified family and child welfare service known as CAFCASS - the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.

In the past the two groups had different roles and responsibilities. Child and Family Reporters focused on the welfare of the whole family and, as the name suggests, 'reported' back to the courts their recommendations. Children's Guardians were charged with concentrating on the welfare of a particular child and acted as their advocates, or representatives, to the courts.

Key findings
Based on a series of three in-depth interviews with 38 Reporters and Guardians the research revealed that the two groups shared more in common than had previously been thought. Both groups:

• shared a common model of how a child developed
• stressed the importance of stability in family life
• saw meeting children's developmental needs as a priority
• had a similar understanding of the child’s best interests
• shared a common commitment to improving the lives of the children they worked with
• shared a common conception of what a positive childhood experience should mean

The key difference, and this very much reflected their previous professional roles, was that the Child and Family Reporters put much greater emphasis on seeking to sustain family ties post-divorce whilst the Children's Guardians were much more focused on making recommendations that were, as they saw it, in the best interests of the individual child, irrespective of how it impacted on their wider families.

Professional Filters
However, the researchers did find that the broadly shared model of childhood and professional practice was mediated by three important filters, namely:

• the practitioners' personal experiences of childhood
• the context and realities of their everyday practice and
• the legal and other constraints that shape professional welfare practice in family court proceedings

Conclusions
Thus, the extent to which a child's wishes and feelings were ascertained by the welfare professionals (which, contrary to previous research findings, appeared to be no more extensive in the work of the Guardians than the Reporters) was not an accurate indication of the extent to which these wishes and feelings were presented to the court in the final written reports. Nor was it indicative of the extent to which the child's voices were being heard by the court. Rather, each practitioner (irrespective of whether they were Guardians or Reporters) engaged in a complex process of enquiry and judgment, based on their personal experiences, the realities of the resources available to them and the context of their role (i.e. whether it was in public or private law proceedings). Thus, based on their shared understanding of what constituted a good childhood experience, the needs of the individual child tended to become translated into what was, generally, in the best interests of every child, rather than reflecting each individual child's wishes and feelings.

About the study
The research project was undertaken by Professor Adrian James (then at the University of Bradford and now at the University of Sheffield) Professor Allison James (then at the University of Hull now at the University of Sheffield), and Dr Sally McNamee, who was the Research Fellow on the project and was based at Bradford.

Key words
Children, families, courts, welfare, CAFCASS professional practice

View all other award details