Executive Summary
Debates about child maltreatment in culturally diverse populations in the UK are fuelled by three major issues: a possible over representation of Black children in care populations, misunderstandings by professionals of certain attitudes/practices in some minority ethnic households, and domestic and European legislation which makes it clear that removing children from their parents really must be the last resort, and that the aim of such action, where possible, should be their eventual return.
These factors make it imperative to explore the work of the family justice system and whether, for example, the legal criteria engaged to assess harm and risks to children are sufficiently receptive to different styles and cultural contexts to parenting.
To date we have lacked detailed research that brings a 'cultural lens' to work of family courts in this field. This study begins that exercise. It is based on an analysis of court records for 183 children from eight ethnic groups, observation of 36 hearings in family courts and in-depth interviews with 25 key court personnel (judges, magistrates and legal advisers).
Findings
Over-representation of Black children and statutory intervention
In order to address whether certain minority ethnic children are over represented in care proceedings, ethnic data collected by courts needs to be comparable with two data sets. The first is the 2001 Census data to allow for comparisons with national and local populations, the second is that collected by the Department of Health regarding children at varying stages of vulnerability in local populations.
The everyday operational needs of courts
There are a range of problems in the location, consistency and ease of availability of information on diversity in court files; this was especially so once files were transferred to a county court care centre. A lack of resources in the care centre resulted in a breakdown in the system for sequential logging of documents in court folders.
Child ill treatment in minority ethnic households: the grounds for care applications and the role of cultural conflicts
There were no 'single issue' cases where allegations of significant harm rested unequivocally on behaviours/attitudes viewed as culturally acceptable by a parent but which professionals argued were unacceptable within Western European assessments of ill treatment. All cases were complex, most contained more than one type of child ill treatment and several allegations and concerns resulting in failures of parenting; most contained expert evidence. These findings held across all groups.
Where cases did include conflicts grounded in diverse norms and values, these were more likely to occur in cases concerning parents of South Asian and African origin. However, such conflicts were seldom pivotal by the time cases reached a pre-trial review and a contested threshold hearing was a rare event.
Families subject to care proceedings shared certain socio-economic and psychosocial characteristics despite some diverse cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds. These characteristics may be as important as the differences within and between diverse ethnic groups.
Documented episodes of racism were largely limited to Black families, these experiences occurred in institutions, and social and neighbourhood settings outside family courts.
Expert assessments
Most cases contained expert evidence. However reports varied in the degree to which they addressed and analysed cultural/religious diversity. This variation applied with regard to the discipline of the expert (e.g. paediatric compared with child and family psychiatric), and in relation to the ethnic group of the family (e.g. South Asian compared with African Caribbean).
There was a relatively high use of adult psychiatric evidence on mothers in all groups although it was slightly higher in the overall South Asian sample. However, there was little evidence of substantive treatment of cultural diversity in adult psychiatric reports.
The role of the family court
Written information on diverse contexts remains the primary mechanism for conveying these issues to the court. If issues are not documented and analysed in reports/statements, it will generally be assumed by the court that they have no relevance. There was some reticence at all levels to judges, magistrates and legal advisers raising issues independently of the work of parties. Courts tended to assume that diverse cultural/religious contexts would be addressed if parties or experts thought they were relevant. Thus, onus is on the author of the report to include or exclude this type of information.
At almost all key stages of proceedings family courts had some descriptive information on diversity. However, substantive treatment of any of these issues was lower and remained so throughout proceedings.
Judges, magistrates and legal advisers considered information on diverse backgrounds provided the court with a context to allegations of child ill treatment. However, it was felt unlikely such information would be central to the issues on which the court would generally be asked to make a finding of significant harm under the threshold criteria. Most felt that the tests for judging a parent's capacity to change remained broadly the same regardless of cultural context.
Some key court personnel thought expert evidence could be quite variable in the degree to which it assisted the court in this field.
Ethnic minority parents' statements
Most minority ethnic parents participated in proceedings although overall more mothers than fathers filed statements.
Some minority ethnic parents saw state intervention in parenting practices as a complete anathema. This was especially so where parents originated from countries with no history of child welfare services. Distrust of all state apparatus could be intense, this distrust exacerbated by a lack of professional interpreters.
Some minority ethnic fathers saw state intervention as a challenge to their authority and as a threat to the honour and reputation of the family.
Appeals by some parents to acceptable practices in countries of origin could be problematic. Parents may not always be the best source of information about 'culturally acceptable' practices. Certain behaviours may be neither acceptable nor reflective of general practices in communities and these could vary according to age and socio-economic status. Other sources of information are likely to be necessary.
Policy issues and options
The policy implications are broadly two fold and interrelated. Some professionals in some disciplines do address differing cultural contexts during assessments but there is little room complacency; it is not routine in all reports.
This is unlikely to change if left to personal practice, thus some guidance and statutory change is likely to be necessary. The message from the family justice system needs to be clear: addressing diverse cultural contexts is not optional.
First, to address questions about the over representation of some Black children in proceedings and to improve the quality and accessibility of information on diversity available to family courts, two changes are likely to be necessary, a third might also assist courts:
Ethnic monitoring of care applications
A standardised format for family profiles could help courts gain a better and more immediate 'picture' of the family at any hearing.
A summary form bringing together categories of alleged ill treatment of a child and failures of parenting could assist the court to identify 'at a glance' those issues where diversity may be relevant.
Second, problems associated with cross-cultural assessments were twofold: a lack of documented analysis of the relevance of diverse cultural contexts, and a lack of transparency and consistency in the treatment of these issues. In short, the analysis has to be done, but it also has to 'be seen to be done'. Some improvements could be achieved by guidance but the most effective mechanism is likely an amendment to the welfare checklist (see below).
Guidance is necessary to reduce the length of statements and the degree of repetition (on family histories and events leading to proceedings), and with regard to the precise detail of services provided to minority ethnic families under Part III of the Children Act 1989.
It is unlikely that the current shortage of experienced social workers and clinicians undertaking this complex work will be alleviated. Some agreed uniformity in aspects of statements might therefore assist professionals in reducing the length of reports for courts, but increasing the analytical content.
The aim is to provide evidence of inter-agency 'joined-up thinking' in the attention given to cultural/religious diversity - in services for minority ethnic families under Part III of the Act, and during assessments following statutory intervention under Part IV.
Improving the focus and understanding of cultural diversity in family proceedings and achieving national consistency
A directive to address these issues would give national coherence to the development of family law policy in this field placing a clear obligation on all parties and courts. An amendment to the welfare checklist under section 1(3)(d) of the Children Act 1989 could achieve this; it could be amended slightly to read:
Future research and policy questions
This study has focused on the views and practices of professionals; the opinion of minority ethnic parents was limited to that provided in statements. Further research is required, not only with minority ethnic parents, but also with their advocates. These perspectives represent an important gap in current information and understandings about whether such parents consider they are understood and fairly treated by family courts.