An Evaluation of Practice within the Northern Ireland Guardian ad Litem

Agency in working with Families from Black Minority Ethnic Communities

Presentation to the 9th BASPCAN CongressUniversity of Edinburgh

13-15 April 2015

Introduction • Northern Ireland is changing and is having to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population• The number of ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland has more than doubled from 0.8% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2011 – approx 30,000 (NISRA, 2011)• Figures for the BME population are notoriously unreliable• Estimated that the 2001 census underreported the BME population in one area of NI by up to 50%• Absence of reliable official statistics on the population of BME communities creates the potential for significant under-resourcing and inequalities

Background

• Rising demand in Public Law proceedings• Increasing cases from BME groups• September 2013, 2,071 children and young people had been continuously looked after for at least 12 months in Northern Ireland (DHSSPS, 2014). Of this group, 4.5% of children and young people were from an ethnic minority group• Growing interface between Family Law and Immigration Law• Increasing questions about jurisdiction• Requirements for practitioner cultural competence

What we know Research by Selwyn et al (2008)*

1. No evidence of systematic bias against or mishandling of cases involving black and minority ethnic children.

2. But, it reported that Social Workers ‘were struggling with how to think about ‘mixed ethnicity children’ and tended to view these children as ‘black’ even when brought up within an entirely ‘white culture’

3. Amongst cases referred to Adoption Panels, black and Asian children spent longer being Looked After before a recommendation for adoption

4. White and mixed ethnicity children were more likely to be adopted and adopted at older ages up to 10 years old. Many children from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to have their care plan changed from adoption if no adopters were found within six months. Efforts to place white children continued for longer.

* Selwyn J., Harris P., Quinton, D., Nawaz S., Wijedasa, D. & Wood M. (2008) Pathways to Permanence for Black, Asian and Mixed Ethnicity Children: Dilemmas, Decision Making and Outcomes. Nottingham: DCSF.

Objectives

• To review cases referred in 2013/14• Evaluate the nature of Guardian practice in working with these cases• Generate knowledge from cases about cultural competence in practice• Review the findings against national and international research evidence (ongoing)• Disseminate the findings to the wider family justice system

Methodology• Participation in this study was via informed consent • Assurances of data confidentiality and anonymity in respect of both service users and Guardians• A mixed methods approach – collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative• Explore themes emerging from the quantitative analysis • Sample included all Public Law and Adoption cases referred to NIGALA between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014, which involved BME children and families • Sample includes Irish travellers

Methodology

• Review of the data generated using GCIS• A file audit to review identified cases and collect biographical and management data• Audit involved 62 cases with 92 children and 34 staff (Care Proceedings - 45 cases 73 children (73%) Adoption Proceedings – 17 cases (27%)• Questionnaire administered to all Guardians• Semi-structured interviews conducted with 10 Guardians to supplement the questionnaire• Semi structured interview schedule (30-50 minutes).

Key Findings - File Audit

• Largest ethnic origin - Polish (8%) Lithuanian,(6%) Black Portuguese, (6%) & Latvian, (2%)• Just over half (53% of children were born in Northern Ireland• 12% of children (11) had a disability (included learning disability, speech/vision disability, foetal alcohol syndrome• More than half of children had English as a first language• In terms of duration, whether or not these cases are taking longer than non BME cases is yet to be determined – still analysing results

Findings - Survey Questionnaires (1)• Good participation rate – 41 responded (73%)• 29 (71%) of Guardian respondents had ‘a little experience’ of working with BME groups• 12 (29%) respondents felt quite confident in this area• 5 of the 12 respondents who felt quite confident had a ‘fair amount of experience’• 23 (56%) reported being neither confident or not confident• 37 respondents (90%) had experience of working with interpreters• 37 (90%) stated they faced challenges working with BME families.• 17 (42%) Guardians described their practice as culturally competent, whilst half stated they were ‘not sure’ if their practice was culturally competent

Findings - Survey Questionnaires (2)• 33 (80%) respondents of sample agreed there were differences working with BME cases • Problems included language barrier, knowledge of cultural factors• 18 (44%) respondents found use of interpreters challenging• 25 (61%) of Guardians experienced delays - immigration status /checks in home country• Cases time consuming - background checks, assessments• Each case different, with complex emotional/legal issues

Findings - Semi Structured Interviews

• Challenges included gathering information from countries of origin, difficulty of building rapport when interviewing via an interpreter• Problem of some interpreters elaborating on what is said by the family• All interviewees agreed on importance of developing specialist knowledge of traditions and values of clients • Difficulties of engaging children and adults where English is not the first language• Longest delays caused by complex law issues of immigration • Suggestion High Court is better equipped to deal with complex cases

Case Example

• Case involved appeal on issue of habitual residence under Article 15 of Brussels Convention 2• Child born in NI to BME mother • Mother had mental health difficulties. Returned to country of origin leaving child in foster care in NI• With no family in jurisdiction, care plan of adoption proposed• Trust identified potential adoptive parents• Prospective adopters had links with child’s country of origin therefore meeting child’s identity links• Mother originally approved of adoption of child

Case Example

• Case transferred to High Court• Country of origin requested repatriation of child• Basis for Article 15 Brussels 2 – welfare of child should be determined by courts of his habitual residence• Applicant has to demonstrate child has particular connection with the member state• View of the country of origin – requirements of Article 15 were met• Judgement in NI court requested member state to accept jurisdiction for proceedings• Child repatriated to country of origin• So what? Case has implications for future cases referred to NIGALA• Guardians need to be aware of protocols between UK courts and European courts regarding foreign national children

Recommendations• NIGALA to ensure clarity about what is cultural competence and how it will be assessed in Guardian practice• Access to advice on various cultural and ethnic groups • Repository of materials for Guardians to draw from re different BME groups• Intensive inputs re larger BME groups in NI and those referred to the Agency• Training and awareness raising on asylum and immigration legislation and the EU treaties and local protocols • Consideration of best practice and standards in regional interpreting services

Recommendations• Training on determination of nationality for children born in NI • Training in working with regional interpreters• Dissemination of findings and learning to NIGALA Solicitors Panel• Improve links with NI Council for Ethnic Minorities• Continue to raise awareness regarding Child Sexual Exploitation • NIGALA to review the small numbers of cases in which there was excessive delay • Promotion of Guardians active consideration of ethnicity issues in court reports

Discussion