---

The Children 
Order Advisory 
Committee
Eighth Report
April 2008

---

CONTENTS
Foreword
Chapter 1
The Children Order, The Courts and The Committee.................1
Chapter 2
Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07 ..................................5
Best Practice Standing Committee ...............................................................5
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) ...........................5
Child Contact Centres...................................................................................7
Children’s Services .......................................................................................8
Domestic Violence ........................................................................................9
Early Intervention .......................................................................................10
Future of the Children Order Advisory Committee (COAC) .....................12
Integrated Family Justice Courts ................................................................13
Multi-disciplinary Literature ......................................................................14
Secure Accommodation ..............................................................................15
Chapter 3
Work of Family Court Business Committees during 2006/07 ..17
Belfast .........................................................................................................17
Craigavon ....................................................................................................18
Dungannon..................................................................................................19
Londonderry ...............................................................................................20
Chapter 4
Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee 
during 2006/07...........................................................................23
Adoption .....................................................................................................23
Article 4 Reports.........................................................................................24
Expert Witnesses.........................................................................................25
Guardians ad Litem and Case Management...............................................26
Judicial Continuity......................................................................................28
Recovery Orders  ........................................................................................29
Securing the Future.....................................................................................29
Transparency and Format ...........................................................................31
Appendix 1
The Membership of The Committee (1st April 2006 to 
31st March 2007)........................................................................................35
Appendix 2
Statistics ......................................................................................................37

---

FOREWORD
The 8th Report of the Children Order Advisory Committee (COAC) covers
the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. This session carried forward the
momentum generated last year with an added emphasis on solution finding
in the wake of problems identified. 
The Committee completed the work on the new concept of an all-embracing
family justice court bringing within its remit not only conventional family
matters such as ancillary relief, divorce, finance, contact, residence, Public
and Private law proceedings but also domestic violence courts and
appropriate juvenile cases with the idea of “one family, one judge”. The
resulting paper ‘Solving the Problem’ was circulated for limited comment
having received the approval of the full Committee. This coming year will
see the Family Justice Courts sub-committee considering positive steps to
take forward the concepts contained therein. 
COAC is very conscious of the changing times within which we find
ourselves. In particular it is a time of considerable change for health and
social services in light of the review of public administration. The proposed
introduction of the Health and Social Services Authority, the merging of
Trusts and the creation of the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority
all heralded significant changes to which we have had to adapt. A sub-
committee on Children’s Services reviewed the Department of Health, Social
Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) draft circular ‘Responsibilities,
Accountability and Authority of the Department for Health and Social
Services; and Health and Social Services Trusts in the Discharge of Statutory
Functions to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children’. Our
Committee identified a number of matters for clarification and closely
analysed the circular. 
In addition, the possibility of local legislative changes with our new devolved
Assembly has opened up a new avenue of approach for our deliberations. In
this context our Early Intervention sub-committee adopted a number of
important proposals in the short, medium and long term to address the
limited infrastructure of resources currently available for early intervention.
Innovative schemes such as the new court welfare system and collaborative
law in order to achieve pre-court services have all come under the close
scrutiny of that sub-committee. The detailed planning proposals laid out for
the future all work towards taking the rancour out of separation and divorce
and reducing the acrimony within the family justice system.
The breadth of the diverse tasks that COAC undertakes was well illustrated
by the sub-committee on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In
Northern Ireland, there are significant gaps in provision of such services and

---

Foreword
the sub-committee undertook two specific pieces of work to better
understand the extent of the difficulty and seek to develop alternative
solutions. Identifying the problem was the first step; this involved a scoping
exercise to identify the extent and nature of the problem. Thereafter, work
endeavoured to identify alternative solutions and was more qualitatively
based. It is intended that further work will be undertaken by independent
researchers identified by a limited tendering process. 
One of the most progressive pieces of work undertaken by COAC this year
was the decision to pilot an innovatory case management report for the court
in Public Law proceedings. That report was one of the recommendations
emanating from a COAC multi-disciplinary task group which considered the
issue of growing delay in the process of Public Law cases. The purpose of
the report is to ensure more effective and efficient case management by
directing the Guardian ad Litem to consult all of the parties at an early stage
in the proceedings and advise the court on a number of key issues. A pilot
scheme was undertaken in the County Court Division of Londonderry and an
evaluation carried out. The protocol for the use of the case management
report in Public Law proceedings throughout the jurisdiction will be part of
a revised edition of the COAC Best Practice Guidance. Multi-disciplinary
seminars will be arranged to ensure the protocol is fully utilised.
Moving from the particular to the general, COAC is actively involved in
addressing specific problems generating delay which have been drawn to its
attention through one or more of the Family Court Business Committees
(FCBC’s). Judicial continuity in one of the Family Care Centres had
presented as a problem and under the spur of the FCBC meetings and via this
medium to COAC, a contribution was made to the resolution of this issue by
discussions with senior judiciary.
Despite its innovative and creative spirit, COAC has continued to address
longstanding issues which have become part of the fabric of our work over
the years. Hence the Best Practice Standing Committee has continued its
work to update the much used Best Practice Guidance which is regularly
referred to at courts throughout the jurisdiction. An independent qualitative
assessment has been invoked and the outcome of that will be available for
next year’s report. 
The Multi-disciplinary Literature sub-committee has been going from
strength to strength with a newsletter that makes full use of information
technology to make available articles dealing with matters of common
interest throughout the family justice system including Law Reports, child
welfare, medicine and psychology. All the newsletters can be accessed via
the Northern Ireland Court Service website at www.courtsni.gov.uk in order
to maximise awareness of this publication. Efforts go on to promote as
substantial a circulation as possible to ensure that this multi-disciplinary
concept is widely used.

---

Foreword
The problems of secure accommodation have continued to be dealt with
throughout this period. Proposed arrangements, including a draft protocol
outlining the practicalities on the use of a television live link/alternative
venue in exceptional circumstances have been canvassed while of course the
young person’s attendance at court remains the preferred option. The
Committee has compiled a preliminary analysis of the responses to that
exercise and in the coming year will reflect on those responses and make
recommendations on the way forward.
The use of welfare reports under Article 4(1) of the Children (Northern
Ireland) Order 1995 has been addressed in the context of increasing concerns
about delay and delivery of such reports particularly in Private Law cases. In
order to address these concerns and in the spirit of interdisciplinary working,
the Committee invited the chairs of the four FCBC’s and the local court
administrators to have their family court offices provide bi-monthly reports
on the issue. This has provided the opportunity to identify and address any
local concerns which may arise.
Domestic violence still commands our attention and in October 2006, a sub-
committee convened a meeting in the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast to
discuss and consider the impact of domestic violence upon children with
delegates from a diverse multi-disciplinary group of experts.
The ever changing context in which COAC works and the passage of time
requires us to stand back and assess the nature of the role that COAC has in
the family justice system. Time does not stand still and our approach must
move with the grain of our times. Hence a sub-committee has been
established to formally review the role of COAC with a view to assessing the
effectiveness of the current structure, remit and operational practices. There
is a strong relationship between COAC and the FCBC’s and they are to be
considered in the same exercise. 
The FCBC’s remain the cornerstone of our work. Our minutes are circulated
to them. We draw our inspiration and our ideas from the comprehensive and
conscientious work that they carry out. It is important to appreciate that a key
ingredient of the work of COAC is to promote through the FCBC’s
commonality of administrative practice and procedure in Family Proceedings
Courts and Family Care Centres and to advise on the impact on Children
Order work of other family initiatives. Hence the enormous work which
these Committees put in is the very life blood of COAC. This Report contains
a brief summary of the tasks that all of the FCBC’s have carried out
throughout the year.
During the year we have lost another distinguished servant in Mrs Jacqui
Durkin, who has been replaced on the Committee by Mr Eric Strain. COAC
could not operate without the skilled assistance of the Northern Ireland
Court Service and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public
Safety (DHSSPS) who continue to provide a conscientious and hardworking
secretariat to the Committee.

---

Foreword
This year, with the transfer of my duties to the Judicial Review Division of
the High Court, I have stepped down from membership of COAC. It has been
both a privilege and an honour to have chaired such a committed and
dedicated group of men and women over the period. I have found that the
members of this Committee ceaselessly deployed a breadth of vision and
creative spirit which I have never encountered before. It is with enormous
sadness that I now step down but I do so secure in the knowledge that the
ongoing work of COAC within the family justice system will continue with
the same dedication.
The incoming Chair is now the senior Family Judge in Northern Ireland, Mr
Justice Weir. I welcome his appointment with the conviction that the future
of COAC could not be in more experienced or creative hands than those of
this distinguished judge. I wish him and the entire Committee every success
in the tasks that lie ahead.
The Honourable Mr Justice Gillen
Outgoing Chair of the Children Order Advisory Committee

---

The Children Order, The Courts and The
Committee
1
The Order
The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (‘the Order’) came into
operation on 4 November 1996. Widely recognised as the most
comprehensive legislation relating to children ever introduced in Northern
Ireland, it enshrines a number of key principles:
• The child’s welfare shall be the paramount consideration in court
proceedings
• Any delay in determining the question with respect to the upbringing
of a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child
• No order or orders should be made unless that would be better for the
child than making no order at all
• Where possible, children should be brought up and cared for with their
own families
• Children should be safe and protected by effective intervention, but
such intervention should be open to challenge
• Children should be kept informed about what happens to them and
should ordinarily participate (subject to age and understanding) when
decisions are made about their future and
• Parents continue to have parental responsibility even when their
children are no longer living with them. They should be kept informed
about their child and participate when decisions are made about their
child’s future
Court proceedings under the Order are known as ‘family proceedings’. The
term also encompasses a range of proceedings under other legislation
including:
• The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to children
• The Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
• The Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980
• The Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
• Part IV of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland)
Order 1989
• Section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 
• The Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order
1998 and
• Chapter 2 of Part IV of, or Schedule 15, 16 or 17 to the Civil
Partnerships Act 2004
page 1

---

The Children Order, The Courts and The Committee
The main court orders available under the Order are set out below under the
broad headings of Private Law and Public Law. Orders concerning financial
matters are not included:
1 PRIVATE LAW
• Contact, Prohibited Steps, Residence and Specific Issues Orders 
(Article 8)
• Family Assistance Orders (Article 16)
• Parental Responsibility Orders (Article 7)
PUBLIC LAW
• Care and Supervision Orders (Article 50)
• Child Assessment Orders (Article 62)
• Education Supervision Orders (Article 55)
• Emergency Protection Orders and Extension of Emergency Protection
Orders (Article 63)
• Parental Contact with Children in Care Orders (Article 53)
• Secure Accommodation Orders (Article 44)
In any family proceedings in which a question with respect to the welfare of
a child arises, the court may make an Article 8 order. This can occur either
where a person entitled to do so makes an application, or where the court
gives that person leave, or if the court itself considers that such an order is
necessary. There are four types of Article 8 orders. These may determine with
whom a child is to reside or have contact, may prohibit particular steps
being taken concerning the child without the consent of the court or any
other directions regarding specific issues concerning the child.
A family assistance order is available in exceptional cases and is the only
order where the consent of all parties is required. The order offers short-term
support and advice to a family, perhaps following a divorce or separation and
usually where one or more Article 8 orders have also been made.
The Courts
The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 confers concurrent jurisdiction
on the High Court, county courts and magistrates’ courts. It provides for two
specialist classes of courts to hear any proceedings under the Order. At the
county court level, these are Family Care Centres and at the magistrates’
court level they are Family Proceedings Courts.
Family Care Centres – these courts are presided over by county court judges.
Their function is to hear cases transferred to them and appeals from the
family proceedings court. There are four family care centres, situated in
Belfast, Craigavon, Dungannon and Londonderry.
page 2

---

The Children Order, The Courts and The Committee
Family Proceedings Courts – these courts are constituted as juvenile courts
presided over by a resident magistrate who sits with two lay magistrates.
There are seven family proceedings courts – one for each county court
1
division and they exercise jurisdiction throughout the division in which they
are situated.
The concurrent jurisdiction referred to above is regulated to ensure that
children’s cases are heard at the appropriate level of court and that
proceedings regarding the same child are heard in the same court. Subject to
the overriding principle that delay is likely to prejudice the welfare of the
child, Children Order cases may be transferred upwards to the higher courts
when specific criteria have been established. These criteria can include
where the matter is exceptionally grave, complex or important, or to
consolidate with other family proceedings.
The general rule is that all Public Law proceedings are to be commenced in
the family proceedings court. This is also the case with free standing Private
Law applications i.e. those applications made when there are no other
ongoing family proceedings. As regards connected Private Law applications
e.g. where there are divorce proceedings pending in the county court or High
Court, such applications are required to be made at that court.
The Committee
In recognition of the importance of the Order to children and their families,
COAC was established:
• To advise Ministers on the progress of Children Order cases through
the court system with a view to identifying special difficulties and
reducing avoidable delay and
• To promote through Family Court Business Committees commonality
of administrative practice and procedure in family proceedings courts
and county courts and to advise on the impact on Children Order work
of other family initiatives
COAC is chaired by the Judge of the Family Division of the High Court of
Justice in Northern Ireland and its membership reflects the broad spectrum
of disciplines and professions engaged in working with children, both in the
courts and in other spheres. The membership of the Committee during the
currency of the report is set out at Appendix 1.
page 3

---

page 4

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
2
BEST PRACTICE 
The current Best Practice Guidance1 (launched on 8 December 2003) has
served as a very useful case management tool for effective implementation
of Children Order cases through all three tiers of family courts.
This sub-committee is tasked with reviewing the legislation, case law and
existing guidance together with the drafting of new guidance to discuss the
aims and objectives of this first major review, the mechanism and proposed
timescales.
Initially, it had been hoped that the various groups would complete the
review within this reporting period with a draft Revised Best Practice
Guidance available for consultation in early autumn. Many convenors have
completed the review of their sections but several areas still require attention. 
New sections – such as ‘Video Link’ require changes to Court Rules. This
has happened with the Rules of the Supreme Court but equivalent
amendments to the Family Proceedings Rules (Northern Ireland) 1996 and
the Magistrates’ Courts (Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995) Rules
(Northern Ireland) 1996 are outstanding. Whether the proposed amendments
to Rules will include cases involving secure accommodation applications
and “parties” rather than just witnesses is yet to be confirmed. If parties are
to be allowed to give evidence by video link this may require amendment to
primary legislation.
Finally, the Institute Of Child Care Research, QUB are conducting an
independent survey of the effectiveness of the current Best Practice
Guidance, with the intention that their findings will be reflected in the
Review. They are nearing the completion of their task and the sub-committee
looks forward to considering their findings.
CHILD AND ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES (CAMHS)
Across the UK there are significant gaps in the provision of Child and
Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Despite recent significant
improvements, this is also the position in Northern Ireland. Many of these
difficulties arise, not because of financial pressures but because there is not
a readily available pool of specialist trained staff. This problem is not
amenable to quick solutions.
1 Copy available at www.courtsni.gov.uk 
page 5

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
Concerns have been raised about the ongoing difficulties of delivering a
responsive service to the courts. Consequently, it was thought advisable to
create a sub-committee of COAC to look at this issue. A current concern for
2 COAC is the number of children with significant emotional, psychological
or psychiatric problems appearing before the family courts and the
inadequacy of existing arrangements to assist those courts to determine what
is in the children’s long term best interests. 
The sub-committee, after consideration, decided it should undertake two
specific pieces of work to better understand the extent of this difficulty and
seek to develop alternative solutions. A sum of money has been identified to
appoint independent researchers to carry out this work on behalf of COAC. 
The first piece of work involves a scoping exercise to identify the extent and
nature of this problem. A questionnaire has been designed and agreed by the
sub-committee. Its purpose is to elicit through a review of the last one
hundred closed cases involving the Northern Ireland Guardian ad Litem
Agency (NIGALA), the number of cases where CAMHS issues have been a
difficulty in the interface between the courts and health and social services. 
The questionnaire will also: 
• Identify the types of problems that were encountered
• How this played out in the various stages of the judicial process and 
• Whether these issues were being experienced equally across the
Province
The objective of this work is to gather more reliable data as to the prevalence
of this problem across the region as a whole.
The second piece of work which endeavours to identify alternative solutions
is more qualitatively based. It involves examining in some detail a number of
cases where significant problems have been identified. These cases will all
meet the criteria of having generated a high level of concern from all of the
professionals involved in relation to the vulnerability of the child and/or the
potential danger they posed to themselves and others. Through the use of
focus groups involving key members of the legal, health and social services
professions alongside some wider review of practice across the UK, the
expectation is to develop some different thinking as to how these issues
might be addressed. 
It is intended that this piece of work would be undertaken by independent
researchers who would be identified through a limited tendering process. The
individuals appointed would be required to meet the following professional
standards:
page 6

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
• A knowledge of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, the
Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Adoption (Northern
Ireland) Order 1987 and other relevant legislation, Rules and
2
procedures
• A knowledge of children’s rights
• An understanding of the interface between the court and children’s
services
• Previous experience in conducting audits of this nature
For both pieces of work, the final report would be very much focused on the
collection and analysis of the data. There is no intention that the report will
identify any child or their family and great care will be taken by the sub-
committee in the quality assurance of any report so as to ensure
confidentiality.
These proposals are currently being considered by the judiciary to ensure
that they are compliant with expected protocols in relation to the handling of
confidential court material. A decision is awaited. Once this has been made,
the sub-committee will reconvene to decide how best to proceed.
CHILD CONTACT CENTRES
The establishment of Child Contact Centres in Northern Ireland has been a
major step forward in assisting children in establishing (and re-establishing)
contact with a parent or relative.
Difficulties - real, imaginary or contrived can arise when the parent with the
residence order expresses concerns about contact with the absent parent. The
availability of Child Contact Centres goes a long way to allaying those fears
and removing obstacles in the path of contact. The children can be brought
to centres, usually based in church or other community facilities and can
meet and play with their absent parent or relative. This contact takes place in
a safe and supervised yet not intrusive atmosphere. 
The existence of a Child Contact Centre in a locality makes the task of the
courts much easier when it comes to the making of contact orders which
require a degree of supervision. With the expansion in the number of centres
and their success, we have been pleased to note that in some cases parents
are agreeing to contact in these centres without any application to the courts.
It has been long recognised that the establishment and running of a Child
Contact Centre had to be driven by local community initiative. Whilst the
staff in these centres are unpaid volunteers, it was necessary to establish a
degree of secure income in the medium to long term so that centres would
not have to rely solely on their own fund raising. Such income was required
to assist in training, an element of administration and running costs. COAC
established this sub-committee to provide impetus to the representations that
page 7

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
had already been put forward to the Government concerning the lack of any
coherent funding strategy. In last year’s report, we were happy to advise that
through these efforts and the efforts of many others, some progress was
2 made.With the funding position secure in the medium term, it was felt that a sub-
committee solely dedicated to this issue was no longer required and a
decision has been made to terminate its role. COAC remains committed to
the concept of Child Contact Centres and will provide its full support to the
National Association of Child Contact Centres (NACCC) and to local groups
attempting to establish centres in their locality. 
CHILDREN’S SERVICES
This sub-committee was tasked with reviewing the DHSSPS draft circular
‘Responsibilities, Accountability and Authority of the Department for Health
and Social Services; and Health and Social Services Trusts in the Discharge
of Statutory Functions to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children’.
The general view of the sub-committee was that the document was a helpful
clarification of the respective roles of the Department, Health & Social
Services Boards and Trusts. As such there was broad-based support for the
paper. It was felt that in the absence of formal legal determination in a “test
case” that the document clarified for all parties their legal roles and
responsibilities. 
It was noted that the document had been issued at a time of considerable
change for health and social services in the light of the review of public
administration. The proposed introduction of a Health and Social Care
Authority, the merging of Trusts and the creation of the Regulation and
Quality Improvement Authority meant that new roles and relationships were
in the process of being developed. 
This document was thought to assist this process, particularly in the light of
the clarification that the Chief Executives of the five Trusts will be
accountable to the Chief Executive of the Health Authority and Social Care
Authority. This was felt to provide a clear line of accountability from the
Trusts through the Boards/Authority to the Department. 
A number of issues were identified for further clarification. As always it was
recognised that there were issues of resourcing which would impact upon the
priorities developed as a consequence of this guidance. In general terms
however, it was welcomed.
page 8

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 
Domestic violence and abuse remains a serious problem in our jurisdiction.
It has a devastating impact on victims and their families. Each year in
Northern Ireland over 700 families are forced to be re-housed as a result of
violence in the home. Violence in the home is particularly disturbing for
2
children and local research2 suggests that at least 11,000 children in this
jurisdiction are living with domestic violence on a daily basis. It is believed
that a large number of those children have either been in the same or next
room when the violence has taken place.
One in 14 children in the United Kingdom may receive poor exam results
because of the effects of domestic violence in their homes. Children may
suffer from a range of effects including low self-esteem, aggression,
behaviour and adjustment problems. Young people who grow up with
violence are more likely to be abused themselves and may suffer some of the
same behavioural problems as direct victims.
In October 2006, the sub-committee convened a meeting in the Royal Courts
of Justice, Belfast. The objective was to discuss and consider the impact of
domestic violence upon children. 
The delegates consisted of a diverse multi-disciplinary group of experts who
through their own professional disciplines are involved directly or indirectly
with children who experience domestic violence. 
The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) gave a brief outline of their Domestic
Violence Policy which had launched earlier that year. The Family Judge
described the evidential hurdles to be surmounted when presenting domestic
violence cases in court. He also promoted the COAC discussion paper
‘Solving the Problem’ which proposed a court system to deal with families
as a whole under the theme of “one family, one judge”. This paper included
a recommendation for integrated domestic violence courts, where related
criminal and civil matters in suitable cases would be dealt with in the one
court venue with access to appropriate support services. 
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)
promoted their Young Witness Service, set up in 1999 to support children
giving evidence in criminal trials, to include cases which embrace domestic
violence. NSPCC have piloted a TV link service for young people involved
in certain Crown Court trials which has been very successful. NSPCC hoped
to extend this service regionally to include magistrates’ courts. 
The Office of Law Reform highlighted the Northern Ireland Law Reform
Advisory Committee’s preliminary exploration of legislative provision to
provide a range of special measures for vulnerable witnesses and children
involved in civil cases, to include domestic violence. 
2
Behind Closed Doors: The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children, UNICEF August 2006
page 9

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
The family master described how COAC Best Practice Guidance, launched
in December 2003, is currently under review. The revised Guidance will
include a commentary on the use of video link in the family courts. Video
2 link is already widely used in the High Court to facilitate expert witnesses
giving evidence from remote site locations. It is hoped to extend this service
to children and other vulnerable witnesses in appropriate cases. This
initiative enhances the Northern Ireland Law Reform Advisory Committee’s
current project. 
There was considerable discussion regarding the availability and evaluation
of programmes for alleged perpetrators of domestic violence and how this
might be considered alongside the development of the new regional
comprehensive assessment of children in need, UNOCINI. There was a
proposal that the Regional Steering Group on Domestic Violence (RSG)
should consider collating data in respect of perpetrators programmes, to
include evaluation and consideration of the risk assessment models used. 
Representatives from the RSG also provided an overview of the first year of
the Regional Domestic Violence Strategy ‘Tackling  Violence at Home’,
particularly those parts relating specifically to children and young people. 
The meeting provided everyone who attended with the opportunity to learn
more about other professional’s initiatives on a common and important issue. 
EARLY INTERVENTION 
In last year’s report from this sub-committee a number of questions were
posed. Shortly thereafter, we made a number of decisions in relation to those
questions and a set of proposals was submitted to COAC. 
Before summarising these, the Chair would like to thank the sub-committee
members who gave the benefit of their expertise from a number of different
disciplines.
The sub-committee concluded that there is currently a limited infrastructure
of resources for early intervention such as family mediation services, Relate
NI or Barnardo’s.  We also looked to the court welfare officer system and
collaborative law as means of achieving pre-court services and bore in mind
the Government document ‘Parental Separation: Children’s Needs and
Parents’ Responsibilities’ wherein it was declared: “the government does not
plan to make mediation compulsory”.
The sub-committee then considered what bodies should be involved in
services, ranging from general practitioners (GP’s) - who could provide
leaflets and advice, Barnardo’s, Women’s Aid and police domestic violence
officers to lawyer-led pre-court interventions using services like the court
welfare officers or family mediation.
page 10

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
We also concluded that the gate-keeping role was important. There are times
when child protection, abduction threats, cases of mental instability of one
partner or where criminal proceedings against one party are ongoing (to
2
name but a few) completely rule out negotiation at that time. Who will
decide when the issues are such that early settlement is impossible? The
Trusts or safeguarding boards will have a role here as will courts dealing e.g.
with an associated criminal case.
The following are the proposals of the sub-committee:
In the short term
• That lawyers be encouraged to avail of their expertise to negotiate and
if appropriate undertake further training in that regard
• To encourage the Law Society to make available guidance on dispute
resolution
• To encourage the collaborative law model
• Make available literature on mediation services to groups such as
Relate NI, Women’s Aid, Citizens Advice Bureau, GP’s etc
• Consider funding to run an advertising campaign to raise awareness
In the medium term
• To encourage and promote a dramatic increase in the number of
counsellors and mediators
• To move towards legislation to provide mediation as a requirement
before initiating proceedings, subject to a suitable screening process
for domestic violence, child abuse etc
• To avail of forthcoming changes in legal services provisions to access
public funding for a range of alternative professional services
In the long term
• To work towards a unified family justice court
• To provide a one-stop system to provide advice, counselling and
mediation
• To divert children from offending and parents from disputing trivial
points
One of the main requirements is the new legal aid scheme in the Access to
Justice provisions, now due in 2008. In cases of personal payers, access to
mediation services is easier. Also, harmonisation of the court welfare officer
system throughout the jurisdiction will greatly assist. 
In any event, the sub-committee are strongly of the view that with necessary
safeguards, we should work towards a scheme which takes the rancour out of
separation and divorce which impacts so much on children.
page 11

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
Perhaps the final note should be one of optimism, as our own local Assembly
may now provide the means to move forward boldly with changes in the legal
framework to provide early intervention.
2 FUTURE OF THE CHILDREN ORDER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (COAC)
When COAC was formed in 1997, it was envisaged that it would remain in
place for a number of years but in due course its existence would be reviewed
to determine if it still had a productive role to play in this important area. 
During the period of this report, a number of discussions were held about the
remit and future of the Committee in its present format. Increasingly there
has been frustration expressed by some members in respect of its present
remit. The view is that it is too narrow and restrictive and it has been
suggested that a remit similar to the Family Justice Council (FJC) in England
& Wales would be more appropriate.
Taking into consideration that COAC has been operating for 10 years, it was
agreed that it was appropriate to formally review its role with a view to
assessing the effectiveness of the current structure, remit and operational
practices. There is a strong relationship between COAC and the Family Court
Business Committees (FCBC’s) and it was agreed that they have also to be
considered in the same exercise.
To take this work forward, the following terms of reference were agreed:
• Evaluate how effective COAC has been in meeting its terms of
reference i.e.  “To advise Ministers on the progress of Children Order
cases through the court system with a view to identifying special
difficulties and reducing avoidable delay; and 
To promote through Family Court Business Committees commonality
of administrative practice and procedure in the family proceedings
courts and county courts and to advise on the impact on Children
Order work of other family initiatives”
• Assess the need to retain an advisory group to comment on the
progress of Children Order cases through the court system
• Make recommendations on the future direction, structure and role of
COAC
The final decision on how this review should be taken forward will be made
by the DHSSPS and Northern Ireland Court Service taking account of the
views of the new Chair and Committee.
page 12

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
INTEGRATED FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS 
2
This sub-committee was established to consider the concept of an
overarching family justice court which would adopt a more holistic, joined
up approach to incorporating Public Law, Private Law, aspects of youth
justice and domestic violence all within a new family court setting. 
The sub-committee drew up and found approval from the Advisory
Committee as a whole for a paper entitled ‘Solving the Problem’. This has
been circulated to a wide group of agencies throughout Northern Ireland
including all the Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts.
The key proposal contained in this lengthy document is the merit of having
relevant proceedings linked together. The practical and resource restraints are
impediments that have to be surmounted but the general principle seems
unanswerable. Consideration is being given to a pilot scheme within the
family proceedings courts following implementation of the ICOS (Integrated
Court Operations System) family module. 
‘Solving the Problem’ is a wide embracing and inclusive attempt to deal with
the wide ranging problems of family justice. Sections deal with the concept
of “one family, one judge”, domestic violence courts, the care interface with
youth justice and the need for transparency throughout the process.
The paper chimes with the gathering momentum of concern for children in
the justice system. In the current climate of fear regarding youth crime, the
age of criminal responsibility is a matter now much discussed. With one of
the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Western Europe perhaps the time
is now ripe to consider new and more interventionist approaches to youth
crimes adopted in Europe and elsewhere. We share a determination to keep
teenagers out of court and solve family problems in all their manifestations
through early intervention and appropriate mentoring, leading on from such
initiatives as the Youth Justice Board of 1998.
The sad fact is that children under the age of 10 were prime suspects in
nearly 3,000 crimes last year according to figures released under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Police statistics show that 2,840 crimes
including harassment, wounding and burglary were thought to have been
committed by children younger than 10, the age of criminal responsibility. 
The method of dealing with this problem is now very much in the public eye.
Earlier this year a report from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at
King’s College, London recommended considering raising the age of
criminal responsibility to 14, 16 or 18. Conferences abound dealing with the
need to support vulnerable children. It is our conviction that the remedy to a
great extent lies within a joined up family justice system wherein children
and families as a whole are dealt with consistently and holistically. 
page 13

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
2 MULTI-DISCIPLINARY LITERATURE 
The remit of the sub-committee is:
“To survey periodical academic literature and other relevant publications to
ensure that those involved in the family justice system should be kept
informed of research and development in this field.”
The sub-committee produces an electronic Multi-disciplinary Newsletter
which is issued two or three times a year. Its purpose is to facilitate access to
a selection of summaries of articles, books and literature within the various
disciplines in family justice and childcare and to raise awareness of this
literature on an interdisciplinary basis. The Newsletter is divided into three
sections:
• Law Reports
• Child Welfare
• Medicine and Psychology
Making full use of information technology, the Newsletter contains links to
the original cited document where possible. For the journal article
references, the abstract of the article is included; for books and reports, there
is a short summary of content. Where there is hypertext, if you
simultaneously press “control” and left-click your mouse, you will be linked
to the relevant website (provided you are connected to the internet and are
licensed to enter the website). 
All of the Newsletters can be accessed under the Northern Ireland Court
Service website at www.courtsni.gov.uk. To maximise awareness, they have
been circulated to a wide range of individuals and groups in the legal,
academic, voluntary, social services and medical fields.
To access back numbers of the Newsletter go to www.courtsni.gov.uk. Under
‘Publications’, select ‘Family Law and Childcare Literature’. The previous
editions are then listed and can be read by clicking on the title. The portal is
updated regularly with the titles and summaries of articles and literature
submitted by members of the sub-committee.
At this stage, the expectation is that readers will scan the material extracting
what is of interest. The sub-committee is considering more sophisticated
means of classification for future editions. 
The sub-committee wishes to promote as wide a circulation as possible. Any
individuals or groups who wish to be included in future circulation lists
should contact us via email at [email address].
page 14

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
SECURE ACCOMMODATION
2
Following on from the recommendation of the sub-committee that it was
right in principle to extend television live link to applications for secure
accommodation and to permit such applications to proceed in alternative
venues, the Committee published a consultation paper which invited views
on the issues.
The paper, published on 30 September 2005, sought views on the overall
proposals together with a draft protocol and risk assessment procedure which
had been prepared by the sub-committee.
Responses to the paper were requested by 28 October 2005 and in the event,
10 responses were received. The majority came from voluntary/community
organisations and Health and Social Services Boards/Trusts. However, the
Family Law Sub-Committee of the Northern Ireland Resident Magistrates’
Association (NIRMA), the Northern Ireland Lay Magistrates’ Association
(NILMA) and NIGALA also commented, as did one individual. 
For most of the voluntary/community organisations, the young person’s
attendance at court remained the preferred option and with that in mind, the
Children’s Law Centre suggested that further consideration should be given
to other options, including the use of additional social services staff and
transporting arrangements.
Several of those organisations did however, add that if the live link
facility/alternative venue was endorsed, it should only be used in exceptional
circumstances and initially be operated on a pilot basis. In addition, it was
felt that the young person who was the subject of the application should
receive appropriate information and be helped to exercise his or her rights in
terms of accessing information, having a say, participating, receiving a “fair
trial” and accessing appropriate and independent legal advice. 
NIGALA broadly supported the proposed arrangements provided they were
used as the exception, rather than the norm and NILMA also voiced its
support.
The majority of NIRMA members also welcomed the possibility of a
television live link in exceptional circumstances and highlighted the role of
the resident magistrate in assessing the available options. However, there was
a minority view which suggested that consideration be given to the provision
of secure transport and the safe keeping of the young person in court pending
the hearing.
NIRMA also suggested that it would be inappropriate and counter-
productive to use the secure accommodation facility, which is the young
person’s home and therapeutic environment as the alternative venue for
hearing.
page 15

---

Work of Sub-Committees during 2006/07
2 The individual respondent expressed strong reservations about the live link
facility/alternative venue on the basis that legally those arrangements could
only be used on second and subsequent hearings. Concern was also
expressed about the reliability of television live links and their suitability for
lengthy hearings.
Overall, there was a strong call to assess the proposed new arrangements by
reference to international law and the young person’s best interest.
On the issue of the draft protocol, it was suggested that the practical
outworkings of the new scheme required careful consideration and there
were queries about access to legal representation and family support.
NIGALA also emphasised the need for an ongoing system of monitoring and
evaluation.
The Committee has compiled a preliminary analysis of the responses to the
consultation exercise and in the coming year will reflect on those responses
and make recommendations on the way forward.
page 16

---

Work of Family Court Business Committees
during 2006/07
BELFAST 
3
The Committee met four times during the period of this report and sought to
use the meetings to fulfil two functions. Firstly, they provided a forum for an
exchange of views for those involved in the family courts in Belfast and
secondly, they facilitated representatives of various relevant groups to make
presentations to the Committee on matters of mutual interest.
Issues raised during the year included:
Delay in Providing Reports
This was an ongoing problem which often led to hearing dates being vacated.
It was accepted that all of those involved must take responsibility. The
judiciary must make clear the purpose of the report and provide names,
addresses and birthdates of those involved. It is also essential that Directions
are forwarded promptly to the appropriate Trust with if possible, the name of
the appropriate social worker. Trusts must endeavour to produce the report
within the timescale set down by the court; if they believe that this is
impossible they should inform the court immediately so that if a date has to
be vacated it could be filled by another case. 
Unavailability of Witnesses
Again, this often leads to hearing dates having to be vacated. The Committee
accepted that there were often valid reasons for non-availability but asked
that the party whose witness was unavailable make an application to the
court as soon as they become aware of a difficulty and not leave it to the
hearing date.
In respect of both the above matters, the Committee believed that the court
office should have a system which indicates a breach of a Direction when it
happens so that immediate steps may be taken to preserve the hearing date.
The introduction of the Integrated Court Operations System (ICOS) should
assist in this regard.
Information Technology
The roll-out of ICOS Family Module occurred during the year under review.
This will take some time to properly evaluate but should help with the
processing of cases. It also allows the judiciary access to court diaries and
lists.
The Committee heard that there had been little use made of telephone
conferencing in Belfast. This may be due to the proximity of Laganside
Courts Complex to the Bar Library.
page 17

---

Work of Family Court Business Committees during 2006/07
Video conferencing has been used to allow witnesses from outside Northern
Ireland to give evidence without travelling to this jurisdiction. This has
proved very successful and its use is increasing steadily. An issue was raised
3 in that there can be a difficulty for counsel in consulting with the witness in
private and this will be addressed. 
Target Times
There was discussion about the proposal to introduce target times for the
completion of both Public Law and Private Law cases. It was agreed that
there was an obligation on everyone to deal with cases as quickly as possible.
It was also agreed however, that all Children Order cases are different and
that if purposeful delay is for the ultimate welfare of the child then that must
take precedence over arbitrary time targets.
The Committee benefited from presentations on the following topics:
• Collaborative Practice
• Children’s Right to Family Life
• Family and Child Care Processes
• Barnardo’s ‘Domestic Violence Risk Assessment Model’
The Committee are grateful to all the speakers for their very interesting
presentations.
CRAIGAVON
This Committee met on three occasions during the period 1 April 2006 to 31
March 2007.
Following on from last year’s report in which the lack of a proper court
welfare officer service at Craigavon Family Proceedings Court (FPC) was
highlighted, in September the Committee was pleased to be informed that
funding had been secured. The officer took up the post in January 2007. The
appointment had immediate beneficial effects in terms of reducing the need
for written reports and in resolving many cases through prompt mediation. 
Progress was also made on the listing and hearing venue of care cases. As a
result of representations made by the Committee, a review was undertaken
and a decision made that the Family Care Centre (FCC) should sit in
Craigavon and that one week in four would be allocated for care business.
Her Honour Judge Loughran is presiding at present and both the profession
and the court staff find that business is being conducted much more
expeditiously and effectively as a result of the changes.
A change was also made to the sittings of Craigavon FPC. As a result of an
increase in youth business, the mixed FPC/Youth sitting was no longer
viable. Northern Ireland Court Service accepted the recommendation that the
page 18

---

Work of Family Court Business Committees during 2006/07
sitting in question should become a youth court and that a mixed
FPC/Domestic sitting should take its place.
3
No progress has yet been made on the provision of a Child Contact Centre
for Craigavon. The acting Chair attended a seminar on the subject run by
DHSSPS and reported back to the Committee that the Department were
looking at the possibility of organising “outreach” Contact Centres e.g.
Armagh Contact Centre might be funded to organise a centre in the
Craigavon area. The issue will remain on the agenda.
During the year, the Committee regularly monitored the statistics for
disposal rates and sitting times. In general, these compared favourably with
other courts. The Committee also monitored the introduction of the ICOS
family module in Craigavon. It went live in January and after a few teething
problems, appears to be working well.
Other issues discussed by the Committee during the year were the attendance
of lay magistrates, the provision of education to children in care, practice in
appeals to the FCC and the creation of the five new Trusts.
The acting Chair would like to thank the members of the Committee for their
contributions and the various members of court staff who acted as secretary
during the year.
DUNGANNON
During this reporting period, Dungannon Family Courts Business Committee
monitored the timescale in respect of Article 4 welfare reports and was
satisfied that an agreed target timescale of 6 weeks was being achieved in the
majority of cases. 
However, there still remains a concern in the Cookstown and South Tyrone
areas in that different Trusts (even after the recent reorganisation) apply
different strategies to the role and employment of court welfare officers. The
ideal solution would be a court welfare officer(s) employed to encompass the
entire Petty Sessions District with funding provided by the several Trusts
involved.
The presiding RM continues to deal with family proceedings business
throughout the Division, sitting both in Dungannon and in Omagh. The
increasing workload in the Family Proceedings Court has resulted in a
successful application for an extra sitting day per month. This has been
allocated as the third Monday of the month with the court sitting at Omagh.
Also, the Chair and presiding resident magistrate attended the official
opening of Omagh Child Contact Centre. The Centre provides a safe,
friendly environment for families who are splitting up and is somewhere for
the non-resident parent to spend time with their children. 
page 19

---

Work of Family Court Business Committees during 2006/07
LONDONDERRY
3 This Committee continued to monitor the situation in relation to avoidable
delay. NIGALA together with the assistance of practitioners undertook to
make a list of experts who would be available to undertake work in the
jurisdiction, including their particular field(s) of expertise. 
However, it is not only the shortage of experts that have proved a source of
delay but also the need to keep them informed of changes to the
circumstances of the individual(s) they are reporting on and to come back to
the court and ask that relevant, up-to-date material be forwarded to the
experts as soon as that material becomes available, rather than waiting to
bring it to the court’s attention at the next review date.
This year, the addition to the Committee of a further solicitor and two
representatives from Foyle Child Contact Centre has proved invaluable. As a
result of the contribution of the latter, the need to draw up a court referral
form was identified; this form is filled out in court by the parties and
includes the dates and times when the child is to attend the Centre. In
appropriate cases, arranging a pre-contact visit to the Centre allows the
custodial parent who may have concerns about contact to see the facilities
available in this neutral environment and meet some of the volunteers. 
The form also informs the Centre Manager and staff precisely what the court
has ordered in respect of how long the custodial parent should remain in the
Centre in order to settle the child and introduce them to the contact volunteer.
This helps ensure that the contact volunteer has the child’s confidence when
introducing the non-custodial parent. This innovation has proved necessary
because on occasions, the custodial parent does not want to have any direct
contact with the non-custodial parent, at least initially. 
Through careful financial management, the Centre has been able to employ
a co-ordinator to liaise with legal professionals and the court in relation to
the Centre’s capacity to take referrals. 
This year, a second Summer Ball was held in the City Hotel to raise funds.
This event is encouraged and supported by the Committee and we would
once again like to thank those who attended what was a very enjoyable
evening. The Committee looks forward to having at least one more such Ball
in 2007 after which it is hoped there will be more funding available for the
Centre. There is no doubt that the money raised in the last two years from
these events has been of significant assistance to the financing of the Centre.
During the period covered by the report, NIGALA ran a case management
pilot scheme in Londonderry3 where after eight weeks, the guardian assigned
3
For a detailed report on the pilot scheme and outcome, please refer to Chapter 4 section entitled ' Guardians ad
Litem and Case Management' beginning at page 26
page 20

---

Work of Family Court Business Committees during 2006/07
to a Public Law case was under an obligation to make recommendations on
three specific aspects of its management. This included whether or not expert
evidence would be required and if so, the nature of such evidence together
3
with the identification (where possible) of a particular expert. The guardian
was to play a pivotal role in recommending a case time-table to the court and
to advise on the degree of participation of the child who was the subject of
the proceedings. The NIGALA representative informed the Committee that
the number of cases available to the pilot was relatively small and
consequently the scheme was to be kept under review though initial reports
were encouraging. 
The question of telephone conferencing and the use of evidence being given
by television live link have been a feature of the Committee’s discussions on
a number of occasions. It was proposed that the court should take a more
proactive role in raising the profile and value of these facilities. However, it
was noted that for telephone conferencing to be used, the consent of all the
parties involved was necessary. The Committee in principle saw no reason
why a judge could not indicate his preference for a Directions Hearing to
take place via telephone conferencing subject to the consent principle. A
recent change to court rules providing for evidence of a witness to be given
by way of video link will no doubt be closely monitored by the Committee
in the future. 
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have
attended and contributed to the work of the Londonderry Family Court
Business Committee.
page 21

---

page 22

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The
Committee during 2006/07
4
ADOPTION
In July 2006 DHSSPS issued a consultation document on the proposed
reform of adoption legislation in Northern Ireland. The consultation period
ran until 1st September 2006. However, at its September meeting the
Advisory Committee resolved to seek an extension of time to submit a
response on the proposed reforms. While the statutory remit of COAC is
expressly confined to the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995,
stakeholders were anxious to comment on provisions which have such a
substantial interface with and impact upon the lives of children in the public
care sector in Northern Ireland.
A sub-committee was established to furnish COAC’s response.
Children require and have a right to expect a stable and permanent family
life. Where possible this should be provided by the birth family. Where this
is not possible, then an adoptive placement should be available if this is
consistent with the child’s best interests. Looked after children deserve stable
interim placements pending the completion of assessments and
determination of court processes. 
Having reviewed the consultation document in depth, COAC concluded that
the proposed new adoption legislation is to be broadly welcomed. The
commitment to enshrine the welfare of the child as the paramount
consideration must embrace the rights afforded to children by Articles 3, 9,
12 and 21 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC). 
However, the Advisory Committee was conscious that the full benefit of the
proposed reforms will only be realised if those responsible for
implementation of the legislation are properly and adequately resourced. It is
imperative that those tasked with the implementation and delivery of
services under this legislation have sufficient financial and human resources
to enable effective delivery to all stakeholders and service users. 
Implementation must be monitored against clear performance indicators to
guarantee best outcomes for children. Performance indicators must be
informed by the experience of other jurisdictions and international exemplars
of best practice should be identified and adapted for use in Northern Ireland.
The consultation addressed adoption and other issues which fall within the
remit of DHSSPS. COAC would wish to see other Departments taking
forward work to address the issue of separate representation in Private Law
page 23

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
cases and the Committee would be keen to see the equivalent implementation
of Article 122 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 replicated in Northern
Ireland. 
4 COAC looks forward to the publication of the draft legislation and even more
significantly to the production of the rules and regulations which will
underpin the implementation of the new law.
ARTICLE 4 REPORTS 
A recurrent theme in many of the discussions held in the four Family Court
Business Committees (FCBC’s) has been the provision of Article 4 welfare
reports. Under Article 4(1) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995: 
“A court considering any question with respect to a child under this Order
may ask an authority to arrange for a suitably qualified person to report to
the court on such matters relating to the welfare of that child as are required
to be dealt with in the report.”
Concerns were voiced that in some areas it was taking an increasing amount
of time to deliver such reports to the courts, particularly in Private Law cases.
Anecdotally, the reasons for this have been many and varied. In order to
address these concerns and in the spirit of interdisciplinary working the
Committee invited the chairs of the four FCBC’s and the local court
administrators to have their family court offices provide bi-monthly reports
on the issue. 
The format of the reports include the date of the court, the type of Private
Law case, the Trust directed to complete the report, the date it is to be filed,
details of any request for an extension of the filing date together with the date
on which it is ultimately filed. This information forms the basis of a
composite report compiled by the secretariat which is then delivered at each
meeting of the Committee as a standing item on the agenda.
The format of this report to COAC is anonymised. It was also suggested that
it may be of benefit for the FCBC’s to include the local report provided by
their family offices and courts as a standing item on their own agendas. This
would provide an opportunity to identify and address any local concerns the
various disciplines involved in providing or using this service might have.
The appointment of court welfare officers at a number of court venues has
the potential to affect the number of requests for such Private Law reports
issuing from the courts.  The information available from the logs may
therefore be of assistance to the DHSSPS if they are to consider further
appointments. 
page 24

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
It is also appreciated that at the time when this exercise was introduced both
the judiciary and court staff have been heavily involved with the Integrated
Court Operations System (ICOS) and in particular the roll out of the ICOS
4
Family Module to the county court and magistrates’ court tiers. Their
assistance in this process has been vital and is gratefully acknowledged as
such by the Committee. 
EXPERT WITNESSES
The cases involving children that come before the family courts are both
complex and serious. They lead to life-changing decisions for children about
whether they will stay with their current family, change home within their
family, move into the care of the state or on to a new permanent family with
strangers. 
In order to make good and lasting decisions about these very difficult
matters, courts require high quality expert evidence to assist them. If it is not
available children and their families will be denied their human rights.
Children need decisions to be made without unnecessary delay so the
availability of expertise is crucial to ensure timely decisions. The evidence
needed relates not only to harm that has been suffered, but also assessments
and opinion evidence of the likelihood of change and future recurrence of
harm. 
Recent public concerns about the standard of expert evidence related to the
issue of harm to children and about how Private Law disputes are adjudicated
have thrust this area of law under an intense spotlight. Many professionals
from other disciplines argue that the current climate is not conducive to
retaining high quality experts within the court arena and are deterred from
taking on expert witness work. It is in the interests of everyone concerned
with family justice that those with high calibre expertise should be retained
within this challenging area of work. Practitioners already report difficulty
in identifying a suitable expert to undertake necessary assessments within
the court timetable. 
It is essential that when appropriate, the courts should have access to the
evidence of expert witnesses. 
A recurring theme on the Committee’s agenda has been the role and
provision of expert witnesses in Children Order proceedings. The Committee
reviewed the options for the identification and recruitment of experts in
family law proceedings.
Two models for raising awareness of individuals - with the requisite skills
and knowledge essential to assist courts in resolving complex family issues
- to undertake the role of expert witness were identified: 
page 25

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
1. The production and circulation of a local directory of experts for
reference by practitioners, the courts and the Northern Ireland Legal
Services Commission (NILSC)
4 2.The production of guidance for practitioners, the courts and NILSC on
how to access existing databases to identify expert witnesses
The optimum solution would be the production and publication of the COAC
Directory of Expert Witnesses. The two fundamental problems with this
proposal remain cost and accreditation. 
In the absence of a local directory, the Committee determined to undertake a
substantial revision of the section of the Best Practice Guidance dealing with
expert witnesses. The purpose of the revision was to:
• Update the guidance to reflect recent developments in respect of expert
witnesses
• Provide more practical guidance to practitioners regarding the process
of instructing an expert witness, including funding 
• Provide links to existing directories, lists and registers of expert
witnesses to afford practitioners the optimum chance of recruiting an
appropriately qualified expert
This proposal is an interim measure designed to address current difficulties.
The long term solution will require an exercise not dissimilar to the process
completed in England & Wales ‘The Use of Experts: Quality, price and
procedures in publicly funded cases’ issued by the Legal Services
Commission in November 2004. 
That consultation generated considerable debate but the objectives of
providing a single authoritative point of reference for courts to accredited
expert witnesses who are properly remunerated for the essential service they
offer can easily be translated to Northern Ireland.
GUARDIANS AD LITEM AND CASE
MANAGEMENT
In 2006-07, COAC agreed to pilot an innovatory case management report for
the court in Public Law proceedings. This report was one of the
recommendations emanating from a COAC Multi-disciplinary Task Group
which considered the issue of increasing delay in the processing of Public
Law cases and the likelihood that such delay, when not purposeful, would
prejudice the welfare of the child.
The purpose of the report to the court was therefore, to ensure more effective
and efficient case management by directing the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to
consult all of the parties at an early stage in the proceedings and advise the
court on:
page 26

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
• A timetable for proceedings
• The need for expert opinion/witness
• The participation of the child who is subject of proceedings
4
In March/April 2006, a pilot of the protocol was undertaken in the County
Court Divisions of Londonderry and Fermanagh & Tyrone including
Londonderry, Omagh and Dungannon FPC’s.
An evaluation of the pilot was undertaken in September 2006. Using a postal
survey the views of those involved, namely members of the judiciary,
members of the legal profession, social workers and GAL’s were ascertained.
In total there were 33 cases, involving 41 children. 
On review of the responses, the following themes emerged:
• When the process worked well, it was considered to be beneficial to
the court process and the child
• The application type determined whether there was a requirement for
a report at the 8-week stage i.e. care order applications as opposed to
secure accommodation order applications
• Administrative delays impacted on the working of the process
• Not all of those involved demonstrated an understanding of the
protocol or individual responsibilities
• There was seldom a ‘collaborative’ or ‘collective’ working of the
parties making the GAL’s role in co-ordinating the views of the parties
for advising the court difficult to achieve
• There was a need for the process to be managed by the judiciary i.e. a
more effective use of initial/review Directions Appointments and
guidance to the parties to work collaboratively in producing a case
management report by the GAL
• In some circumstances, the court timetabled the case at the first
hearing. In this context, when the case management report was
produced at the 8-week stage, it constituted a ‘review’ of the existing
timetable 
• Consideration of the need for an expert witness(es) should be a
requirement of all parties early in proceedings
• Moving the focus on to the overall ‘participation’ of the child in
proceedings rather than the ‘attendance’ of the child at hearings
received unanimous support
Although the pilot revealed weaknesses, these were in part anticipated. It was
recognised that to initiate change to established methods of practice
involving practitioners from different disciplines, fundamental change in
both attitude and culture is required.
What did emerge is that the concept of a case management report produced
by the GAL at an early stage in proceedings was potentially beneficial to the
court process and decision making for children.
page 27

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
On the 1st March 2007, a number of key recommendations were considered
and subsequently endorsed by COAC; these being:
4 •At the first hearing the court should if it deemed appropriate, direct the
GAL to prepare a case management report in collaboration with all
parties to the case. Timing of the report will vary depending on the type
of case and the level of court, but it should be tabled at approximately
the 8-week stage
• All parties should be directed to contribute to the co-ordination of the
case management report
• In the event that the court has set a timetable for the case at the first
hearing, the timetabling proposal contained in the case management
report will assist the court in reviewing the initial timetable and
amending as necessary
In 2006-07, a protocol for the use of the case management report in Public
Law proceedings throughout the jurisdiction will be part of a revised edition
of the COAC Best Practice Guidance. Multi-disciplinary seminars will be
arranged in the autumn of 2007 in each of the areas covered by the FCBC’s
and thereafter it is expected that the new protocol will be fully utilised.
The key to the success of this initiative is the acceptance of the need by all
of the disciplines involved to work collaboratively and to positively assist the
GAL in the production of the report. Ultimately of course, the responsibility
for case management continues to rest with the judiciary.
JUDICIAL CONTINUITY
Judicial continuity is encouraged under the Children Order and is something
which all judiciary at every level are keen to provide in all types of work and
especially in family proceedings before the court. 
A problem arose in the area covered by Craigavon Family Care Centre
(FCC). The volume of work being dealt with in the FCC had grown and as
no specific judge had been allocated on a regular basis to this work,
difficulty was experienced in getting the cases dealt with and concluded in
front of the same judge. 
In order to keep judicial continuity, the cases were listed in front of the
relevant judges wherever they were sitting. This presented serious problems
for both the public in the cases and court staff managing the files. 
The public who appear in Children Order cases are often vulnerable people
who are socially excluded and would find it very difficult to attend courts
using public transport to venues distant from their own locality. The case
papers (and often staff) were also required to follow the judge. This problem
was raised at the Family Court Business Committee meetings and through
this medium to COAC.
page 28

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
Following on from these discussions, an approach was made to the Recorder
of Belfast, the most senior County Court Judge and subsequently
arrangements were put in place to ensure that Craigavon FCC (sitting in
4
either Craigavon or Newry) would have a regular and consistent judicial
presence to hear FCC cases. 
As a result the problem was dealt with swiftly, to the benefit of the public and
in a cost effective manner.
RECOVERY ORDERS
As pointed out in our last Annual Report, one of the important reforms
effected by the Family Law Act 1986 was to provide for recovery orders in
Private Law cases under Section 34. While the statute itself applies equally
to Northern Ireland, the necessary subordinate legislation has never been
promulgated in our jurisdiction. 
It follows that, for the past 20 years it has remained the position that a care
parent who for example has obtained a residence order in a Family
Proceedings Court, must resort to the inherently slow and blunt instrument
of an originating summons on complaint any time the other parent should fail
to return the child after a contact visit. This can mean a delay of several
weeks. 
Northern Ireland lacks the equivalent to Rule 31A of the Family Proceedings
Court (Children  Act 1989) Rules 1991 (‘Applications and orders under
sections 33 and 34 of the Family Law Act 1986’). This includes provision for
recovery applications to be made ex parte in urgent cases and provides for an
order which empowers the police to enter and search premises and to use
reasonable force in order to recover the child and return him or her to the care
parent. It is matter of great regret that this matter has still not received
appropriate attention.
SECURING THE FUTURE
Children and young people need to be loved, to be cared for, to live in safety
and to be protected from abuse. They need to be supported to achieve their
full potential so that they may grow into confident, well-adjusted adults. For
the majority of children and young people, their family provides this care and
support. 
Some families however need extra support to help them and for a small
number of children and young people, additional steps have to be taken to
ensure they are safeguarded from harm. In these circumstances, the
responsibility for the child’s or young person’s protection and wellbeing
becomes the shared responsibility of a range of public services, including
social services, the judiciary, the Police Service for Northern Ireland, health
and education services.
page 29

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
The decision to intervene in family life is never taken lightly. Taking on
direct responsibility for the protection and wellbeing of children and young
people requires the highest level of skills, integrity and dedication. The
4 courts rely on high quality information and assessment by social workers to
assist them in their determination of what care arrangements will be in the
best interests of the child. 
Findings from DHSSPS inspections of child protection services, while
identifying some areas of good practice, also highlighted serious failings in
the safety, quality and consistency of child protection services across
Northern Ireland. As a result of these findings, a fundamental reform of child
protection services has been initiated with the aim of improving and
strengthening the capacity of public services to effectively meet the needs of
children and young people and support them to achieve their full potential
and grow into confident, well adjusted adults.
Robust governance and performance management arrangements are being
put in place to ensure that front line workers are supported to plan and
manage their practice safely and effectively. High quality supervision is
critical to this process. The development of leadership capability and
managerial competence are priorities in the new arrangements for Health and
Social Care (HSC) to ensure high quality professional supervision is
available for staff managing complex, challenging and often high risk
situations. 
It is recognised that child protection starts with having effective family
support services in place with an emphasis on prevention and early
intervention. Consequently, there has been significant investment in ‘early
years’ services and proposals for further strengthening family support
services are imminent. These services are designed to provide support for
families in caring for and raising their children safely and responsibly. 
For the small number of children and young people who are assessed at risk,
enhanced child protection teams supported by principal practitioners
delivering services based on a common “Care Pathway” model are being put
in place. Founded on core principles of equity of access and consistency
throughout the region, the Care Pathway model will mean a more effective
child protection service to children at risk or in need. 
Concentrating resources at the “front end” of the service will ensure that the
most experienced and able staff are retained in practice. Principal
practitioners’ responsibilities will include support for social workers in the
management of complex cases and providing expert advice and consultation
to colleagues. This will help ensure higher quality assessments, more
effective interventions and the provision of a safer service with better
outcomes for children and young people. Priority areas for the deployment
of principal practitioners in each of the new HSC Trusts are: 
page 30

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
• Child protection
• The courts 
• Residential children’s homes/disabled children
4
These new child protection teams will make use of a single assessment
framework (including risk assessment and a mental health needs component)
for children in need across the region. This will ensure a consistent approach
to recording and assessing information and the application of common
thresholds for specific interventions regardless of where children live in
Northern Ireland. This single assessment framework will also promote and
support improved communication and information sharing between
disciplines and agencies involved in child protection work.
A new statutory, regional Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland is being
planned to replace the non-statutory Area Child Protection Committees. This
measure is designed to ensure greater co-operation at the highest level within
Government Departments, HSC, local government and in the voluntary and
community sectors.
Improving the outcomes for children and young people who cannot be cared
for by their own family will always be difficult, complex and challenging. No
one discipline or agency can achieve this on their own. A multi-disciplinary,
interagency approach to child protection work is therefore essential. This
requires a shared commitment, effective communication and a focus on
achieving the best outcomes for children. As importantly, it requires listening
to and working closely with children and young people and their families to
understand their aspirations, their difficulties and their preferred solutions. 
Together, sharing responsibility, we can ensure the needs of children, young
people and families are met.
TRANSPARENCY AND FORMAT 
During the last year COAC has given consideration to how the family court
can be more effective. The issues of transparency and court format have in
particular been considered.
At present family courts are held in private and judgments (while given to the
parties involved in the proceedings) are not made public; press reporting is
of a restrictive nature.
There are those that argue that the current system is transparent as persons
involved in proceedings concerning their private family matters are
represented, present throughout the hearing and are given reasons for the
decisions made.
page 31

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
Others suggest that because the public are more generally not made aware of
the facts on which the decisions are made, confidence in the system is
reduced. The issue of public confidence is particularly relevant to decisions
4 concerning contact of children with the non-custodial parent. It is felt that if
the difficulties faced by courts when making these decisions were in the
public domain, the reasons for the decisions would be better understood. In
addition, it would perhaps give the public a clearer picture of what is the
effect on children if appropriate arrangements for contact are not made by
the parents themselves when separating.
A further argument to be considered is that in a small community, even if
cases are anonymised (in country areas in particular) a family could be
identified and individual rights to a private family life consequently
breached. It is important to remember that in contact disputes, children in
Private Law cases while the subject of the proceedings, are not a party to
them yet they may well be identified through the reporting of the cases.
The issue of transparency in family proceedings and what degree of
reporting of these proceedings is required to ensure confidence in the family
justice system in Northern Ireland clearly needs further debate. It should
involve the judiciary, legal profession, DHSSPS, members of the public and
those whose responsibility it is to implement family law policy. As the
decisions made in the family justice system have a profound effect on
children, their views should also be sought on this issue perhaps through the
auspices of the Children’s Commissioner.
Initially in England & Wales, family courts were receptive to more public
reporting of judgments. However Lord Falconer, the then Lord Chancellor
suggested that more consideration should be given to the issue before any
final decision was taken particularly because of the potential effect on
children’s best interests and rights of privacy. More recently, readers will be
familiar with the consultation paper entitled ‘Confidence and
confidentiality: Openness in family courts – a new approach’ issued by the
Ministry of Justice and we will no doubt, wish to continue the debate on
transparency in the light of their findings.
At present there is no real evidence as to whether or not the public in
Northern Ireland wish family decisions to be reported more widely. The
reasons for transparency require to be closely examined and conclusions not
drawn as a response to criticism of particular court decisions.
The format of the court is also an issue that not everyone agrees on. There
are those who believe the court is too formal while others take the view that
a degree of formality is required. The judiciary have taken the decision that
wigs and judicial robes should not be worn at Direction Hearings or at family
court hearings in the higher courts although at present, some individual
judges wish to retain the discretion to wear their wig and judicial robes if
they feel it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances of an individual case. 
page 32

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
Neither the judiciary nor counsel robe in court hearings which involve
vulnerable adults or during cases where children are present. Barristers do
continue to wear their wigs and gowns at court hearings. The Bar argue that
4
children quite often wish the judge to wear a wig and gown and that the
parties, particularly in Public Law proceedings, feel that the judge so attired
marks his/her independence. They do not wish to have the proceedings
conducted in a manner similar to a Trust “looked after children” (LAC)
review. The contrary view is that independence comes from the way the
proceedings are conducted. Independence is also exhibited in the quality of
a reasoned decision. 
The manner in which family court proceedings are conducted itself has been
scrutinised. There are those who have argued against an adversarial system
and advocate a wholly inquisitorial one. The consensus of opinion is that an
adversarial system which has an inquisitorial element is the best way to make
factual decisions and judge the calibre of expert evidence. The conduct of a
case in an adversarial manner does not equate to aggression and judges
themselves may wish to have an inquisitorial role by asking questions of a
witness where it is felt that an insufficient answer does not give the degree
of clarity necessary to assist in deciding an issue in dispute. Similarly, where
it is felt that an aspect of the case has not been addressed, the judge may
direct probative questions to elicit information to assist in making the
decision. 
There is no reason why these two approaches cannot exist side by side. Court
listings have been improved and in Northern Ireland it is recognised that
there is an experienced pool of family judges and magistrates. It must be
clearly remembered that court practices and procedures cannot be drawn up
in a manner which favours one party over the other(s). 
It has been recognised that the best forum for making suggestions to improve
the family justice system is in the first instance through the Family Court
Business Committees. These Committees have a membership that is
representative of all parties with a legitimate interest in the running of the
family court and they have the ability to co-opt those with expertise or
insight into a particular problem. 
The role the judiciary play in advancing interdisciplinary working in the
family justice system has also been examined. The purpose of
interdisciplinary work is to ensure that all agencies who have relevant
information about the welfare and wellbeing of a child impart that
information to each other. This should mean that all relevant information is
available to the court when deciding the child’s case thus ensuring that a
well- informed decision is reached. 
page 33

---

Issues Considered/Addressed by The Committee during 2006/07
Judges may contribute to general discussions on family justice issues, giving
the benefit of their particular expertise and experience. However, they should
not be regarded as interdisciplinary working childcare professionals. Judges
4 must not only be independent but must be seen to be so, as they will be called
upon to be the final arbiter in cases which cannot be otherwise resolved. 
page 34

---

Appendix 1
The Membership of The Committee (1st April 2006
to 31st March 2007)
Chair
Mr Justice Gillen
High Court Judge (Family Division) 
High Court of Justice in Northern 
Ireland
Members
His Honour Judge Rodgers
County Court Judge and Family
Judge of the Belfast Family Care
Centre
Her Honour Judge Philpott QC
Recorder of Londonderry and Family
Judge of the Londonderry Family 
Care Centre
His Honour Judge McFarland
County Court Judge and Family 
Judge of the Dungannon Family
Care Centre
Master Wells
Master of the Office of Care and 
Protection, High Court of Justice in 
Northern Ireland
Mr John Meehan RM
Resident Magistrate
Mr Ronnie Williamson
Executive Director of the Northern  
Ireland Guardian ad Litem Agency
Mrs Janet Leckey
Chair of the Northern Ireland Lay
Magistrates Association
Mr Fergal Bradley
Head of Child Care Policy 
Directorate, DHSSPS
Mr Paul Martin
Chief Inspector, Social Services 
Inspectorate, DHSSPS
Mrs Catherine Dixon
Solicitor
page 35

---

Appendix 1
Mr Cecil Worthington
Representative of the Association
of Directors of Health & Social
Services Trusts
Mr Hugh Connor
Director of Social Services, Eastern
Health & Social Services Board
Mrs Gillian McGaughey
Barrister at Law
Mrs Wendy Beggs
Directorate of Legal Services, Central
Services Agency
Miss Brenda Donnelly
Official Solicitor to the Supreme 
Court
Mrs Laura McPolin
Office of Law Reform
Mr Eric Strain
Northern Ireland Court Service
Ms Tara Caul
Children in Northern Ireland
Mrs Audrey Quigley (DHSSPS)}
Secretariat
Mr Austin Harper (NI Court Service)}
page 36

---

Appendix 2
Statistics
Commentary
The statistics which form the basis of the tables and figures in this appendix
are collected as a census of the Children Order business in all the courts in
Northern Ireland. Except where otherwise indicated, all figures and tables
cover the financial year 2006/07. With the exception of those figures
contained in Tables 3 and 4 which are case based, figures relate to individual
applications. There may be more than one application per child and more
than one child per case. 
Wardship Actions
At the time of the introduction of the Children Order in November 1996, a
marked decline in the number of wardship actions made in the High Court
was observed reflecting the restrictions placed on such applications by the
Children Order. Since the introduction of the Order, wardship actions have
remained at a consistently low level with no significant increase observed
between 2002 and 2007 (See both Table 1 and Figure 1). 
Applications and Disposals
Table 2 shows the number of applications lodged and disposed of in all court
tiers for 2006/07. Applications lodged out-numbered disposals causing an
increasing number of outstanding applications. Figure 2 shows the number
of applications lodged and disposed of each year since 2002.
During 2006/07, 12% of applications lodged concerned Public Law and 88%
concerned Private Law. In terms of disposals, 11% of applications disposed
of concerned Public Law and 89% concerned Private Law (See Figure 3).
Care cases accounted for the majority of Public Law orders made (see Table
5 and Figure 6a) where the percentage decreased from 38% in 2005/06 to
29% in 2006/07. The most common types of order made in Private Law were
contact (54%) and residence (31%) (See Figure 6b).
page 37

---

Appendix 2
Transfers
Table 3 shows the number of cases transferred and the reasons for transfer
quoted. More than one reason may be given for transfer in each case. The
most numerous reasons given for transfer to the Family Care Centres was
complexity (61% in 2005/06 and 61% in 2006/07), while for transfers to the
High Court the main reasons were complexity and consolidation (41% and
44% respectively in 2006/07). During 2006/07 transfers from the Family
Proceeding Courts and Magistrates’ Courts to the Family Care Centres made
up 63% of all applications transferred. In 2005/06, such transfers accounted
for 66% of all applications transferred.
Disposal Times
Table 4 and Figure 5 show the relative disposal times for both Public Law and
Private Law cases in each court tier for 2006/07. In the Family Proceedings
Courts, average disposal times were 30 weeks for Public Law and 24 weeks
for Private Law cases. In the Care Centres, they were 48 weeks for Public
Law cases and 42 weeks for Private Law cases. Public Law cases in the High
Court took 29 weeks and Private Law cases took 37 weeks. Lodgement to
disposal times for Public and Private Law cases have increased by 2 weeks
between 2005/06 and 2006/07 overall. It should be noted that because of the
relatively small numbers at the High Court and county court tiers,
comparatively few long cases can substantially affect the average time taken
to dispose of cases.
Disposal Types
Table 5 shows the distribution of the different types of disposal made for
2006/07. Orders made accounted for 76% of all disposals in 2006/07 (72%
in 2005/06), 7% resulted in an order of ‘no order’ in 2006/07 as compared
with 8% in 2005/06 while 14% of the applications were withdrawn (16% in
2005/06) and 4% were refused (4% in 2005/06).
In 2005/06, 7958 interim orders were made. The number of interim orders
decreased by less than 1% to 7899 in 2006/07. These were made up primarily
of contact, residence and care orders. 
Age of Children
Table 6 shows the distribution of children's ages. One third (33%) of children
involved in the cases were within the 0-4 years old category (Figure 8).
page 38

---

Appendix 2
Annual Comparisons
To provide a broad picture of yearly trends since the commencement of the
Children Order, Figures 9(a), 9(b) and 9(c) illustrate the number of
applications lodged and disposed of in each of the court tiers. Between
2005/06 and 2006/07 the number of applications lodged decreased by 12%.
There was also a 14% decrease in the number of disposals between 2005/06
and 2006/07.
Figure 10 presents the number of orders and disposals for 2002/03 to
2006/07. Parental responsibility disposals decreased by 18% between
2005/06 and 2006/07. Contact (permission) decreased by 5% between
2005/06 and 2006/07. The number of applications for residence orders
disposed of also decreased by 5% between 2005/06 and 2006/07 and care
cases disposed of decreased by 4% between 2005/06 and 2006/07. 
Table 1
Wardship Actions (April 2001 - March 2007)
Wardship 
Actions
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
Non 
4
9
2
1
16
Emergency
Immediate 7
13
15
17
1
Provision
Jurisdiction
8
1
0
1
0
page 39

---

Appendix 2
Table 2
Applications and Disposals
01/04/06 - 31/03/07
Applications
High County 
Magistrates' 
Total
Court
Court
Court
High Court
Care Centre
Other
FPC
Other
Public Law
25
80
0
535
0
640
Private Law
132
172
0
4267
0
4571
Total
157
252
0
4802
0
5211
Disposals
High County 
Magistrates' 
Total
Court
Court
Court
High Court
Care Centre
Other
FPC
Other
Public Law
23
70
2
463
1
559
Private Law
119
176
1
4020
0
4316
Total
142
246
3
4483
1
4875
page 40

---

Appendix 2
Table 3
Transfer of Business (Reasons)
01/04/06 - 31/03/07
To
Conven-
Urgency
Gravity
Importance
Complex-
Consolid-
Other
Total
Number of
ience
ity
ation
Reasons
Cases[1] 
Transferred
High Court
0
2
2
0
14
15
1
34
33
Care Centre
Belfast
2
0
0
0
20
5
8
35
35
Dungannon
1
3
1
0
2
0
0
7
5
Londonderry
0
0
0
0
16
3
2
21
21
Craigavon
0
0
2
0
7
2
0
11
9
Family 
Proceedings
Court
Ballymena
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Belfast
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
Dungannon
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
Omagh
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
Londonderry
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
Newry
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Ards
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Craigavon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
7
6
5
2
59
28
11
118
111
[1] Cases may have more than one application.
Table 4
Disposal Times
01/04/06 - 31/03/07
Lodged to final hearing times (in weeks) for cases entered in the designated
courts
High Court
Care Centre
Family Proceedings Court
Total
Public Law
29
48
30
32
Private Law
37
42
24
25
page 41

---

Appendix 2
Table 5
Orders and Disposals
01/04/06 - 31/03/07
Business Order(2)
No Refused
Withdrawn
Total
Interim 
Made
Order
Order[1]
Parental 200
17
31
67
315
12
Responsibility
Contact: Permission
1,948
146
103
274
2,471 3,846
Contact: Refusal
27
6
5
8
46
11
Residence
1,117
93
36
203
1,449
920
Prohibited Steps
70
22
14
53
159
165
Specific Issues
67
13
7
35
122
23
Family Assistance
18
2
0
0
20
11
Care
191
44
5
40
280
2,700
Supervision
21
4
0
5
30
32
Education Supervision
17
1
0
5
23
4
Child Assessment
0
0
0
0
0
0
Emergency 27
0
0
3
30
8
Protection
Extension of EPO
2
0
0
0
2
4
Recovery
11
0
0
0
11
6
Secure 59
3
0
13
75
97
Accommodation
Article 53 Contact
20
3
0
7
30
8
Appointment of 
123
16
0
19
158
2
Guardian
Contribution & 
12
1
0
0
13
1
Other Financial
Non-molestation
3
1
0
3
7
35
Article 56
1
4
1
3
9
1
Other Orders, 
280
4
15
18
317
9
Applications
Occupation Articles
0
0
0
0
0
3
Exclusion Requirement
2
0
0
2
4
1
Total
4,216
380
217
758
5,571 7,899
[1] Interim orders are taken from court sittings returns; application disposals are taken from
final disposal forms. The figures do not necessarily refer to the number of cases.
[2] Figures for final orders are derived from ICOS for the High Court & from manual forms for
FPC’s and FCC’s. Caution should be used when comparing this table with previous years. 
page 42

---

Appendix 2
Table 6
Children Subject to Applications
Age and Gender of children involved[1] 01/04/06 - 31/03/07
Age Range 
Number of children in respect of
whom orders have been made
0-4
5-8
9-12
13-16
Male
722
678
485
266
2,151
Female
671
590
458
292
2,011
Total[2]
1,407
1,287
962
566
4,222
[1] Includes children not subject to an application disposed of 
[2] Includes 60 children whose gender is unrecorded
Table 7
Business Volume - Care Centres and Related Courts 
Applications - 01/04/06 - 31/03/07
Public
Private
Total
Belfast
Care Centre
40
75
115
County Court
0
0
0
Family Proceedings Court
324
2,353
2,677
Magistrates' Court
0
0
0
Total
364
2,428
2,792
Craigavon
Care Centre
30
72
102
County Court
0
0
0
Family Proceedings Court
92
1,089
1,181
Magistrates' Court
0
0
0
Total
122
1,161
1,283
Dungannon
Care Centre
8
9
17
County Court
0
0
0
Family Proceedings Court
68
259
327
Magistrates' Court
0
0
0
Total
76
268
344
Londonderry
Care Centre
2
16
18
County Court
0
0
0
Family Proceedings Court
51
566
617
Magistrates' Court
0
0
0
Total
53
582
635
page 43

---

Appendix 2
Table 8
Business Volume - Care Centres and Related Courts 
Disposals - 01/04/06 - 31/03/07
Public
Private
Total
Belfast
Care Centre
26
75
101
County Court
0
0
0
Family Proceedings Court
240
2,149
2,389
Magistrates' Court
0
0
0
Total
266
2,224
2,490
Craigavon
Care Centre
28
62
90
County Court
2
1
3
Family Proceedings Court
102
1,039
1,141
Magistrates' Court
1
0
1
Total
133
1,102
1,235
Dungannon
Care Centre
6
6
12
County Court
0
0
0
Family Proceedings Court
63
300
363
Magistrates' Court
0
0
0
Total
69
306
375
Londonderry
Care Centre
10
33
43
County Court
0
0
0
Family Proceedings Court
58
532
590
Magistrates' Court
0
0
0
Total
68
565
633
page 44

---

Appendix 2
Figure 1
Wardship Actions (April 2002 - March 2007)
18
17
16
16
15
15
14
13
12
10
9
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
8
6
b
e
r
o
f
W
4
N
u
m
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Year
Non Emergency
Immediate Provision
Jurisdiction
Figure 2
Applications Lodged and Disposed of
(April 2002 - March 2007)
8000
18
7000
6672
6534
16
6118
6154
5897
6000
5624
5939 5683
14
5211 4875
500012
40 1000
b
e
r
o
f
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
300 80
N
u
m
200 6
0
100 4
0
2
0
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
0
2000/01
2001/02
20
Y 0
ea2r/03
2003/04
2004/05
Lodged
Disposed of
8000
7000
6000
page 45
5000

---

Appendix 2
Figure 3 (a)
Applications Lodged (April 2006-March 2007)
Public Law
12%
Public Law
Private Law
Private Law
88%
Figure 3 (b)
Applications Disposed of (April 2006-March 2007)
Public Law
11%
Public Law
Private Law
Private Law
89%
page 46

---

Appendix 2
Figure 4(a)
Children Order Public Law Applications Lodged and
Disposed of (April 2002 - March 2007)
Supervision Orders Lodged and Disposed of
60
46
41
40
31
31
29
30
b
e
r
o
f
O
r
d
e
r
s
21
18
20
12
12
N
u
m
0
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Year
Lodged
Disposed of
Figure 4(b)
Care Orders Lodged and Disposed of
600
526
470 453
409
415
400
365
357 306 336 240
b
e
r
o
f
O
r
d
e
r
s
200
N
u
m
0
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Year
Lodged
Disposed of
Figure 4(c)
Emergency Protection Orders Lodged and Disposed of
120
109 111
94
94
90
80
81
b
e
r
o
f
O
r
d
e
r
s
60
52
57
N
u
m
32
28
30
0
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Year
Lodged
Disposed of
page 47

---

Appendix 2
Figure 5
Disposal Time in Weeks (April 2006 - March 2007)
60
50
48
42
e
(
w
e
e
k
s
)
40
37
32
30
29
30
25
24
20
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
T
i
m
10
0
Al Court
Family
Care
High
Types
Proceedings Court
Centre
Court
Court Type
Private
Public
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Al Court Types Family Proceedings
Care Centre
High Court
Court
page 48

---

Appendix 2
Figure 6(a)
Public Law Orders Made (April 2006 - March 2007)
Care
Other Orders/ Applications
Supervision
50%
Education Supervi
Care
29%
Emergency Protect
Secure Accommod
Article 53 Contact
Supervision
Recovery
3%
Other Orders, Appl
Education Supervision
Recovery
2%
1%
Emergency Protection
Article 53 Contact
3%
3%
Secure
Accommodation
8%
Figure 6(b)
Private Law Orders Made (April 2006 - March 2007)
Specific Issues
Other Orders/
3%
Applications
Prohibited Steps
1%
3%
C
C
Residence
31%
P
R
P
S
O
Contact: Permission
Parental Responsibility
54%
7%
Contact: Refusal
1%
page 49

---

Appendix 2
Figure 7(a)
Applicants (April 2006 - December 2006)
HSS Trusts
Other
10%
1%
Mother
Other Family
Father
2%
Grandparents
Mother
Grandparents
30%
Other Family
6%
HSS Trusts
Other
Father
51%
Figure 7 (b)
Respondents (April 2006 - December 2006)
Other Family
HSS Trusts
4%
1%
Grandparents
Other
1%
1%
Mother
Father
Grandparents
Other Family
Mother
63%
HSS Trusts
Other
Father
30%
NB: Percentages may total to greater than 100 due to rounding. Includes figures from FPC and
FCC up until the end December 2006.
page 50

---

Appendix 2
Figure 8
Age and Gender of Children Involved
(April 2006 - March 2007)
800
722
700
671
678
590
600
485
500
458
400
b
e
r
o
f
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
300
266
292
N
u
m
200
100
0
0 to 4
5 to 8
9 to 12
13 to 16
Age (Years)
Male
Female
Figure 9(a)
Applications Lodged & Disposed of in Family
Proceedings Court (April 2002 - March 2007)
800
7000
700
6078
5987
6000
5362
5480
5442
5451
600
5007
5200
5000
4802
500
4484
400
4000
300
3000
b
e
r
o
f
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
200
N
u
m 2000
100
1000
0
0 t0o 4
5 to 8
9 to 12
13 to 16
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Year
Lodged
Disposed of
7000
6000
page 51
5000

---

Appendix 2
Figure 9(b)
Applications Lodged & Disposed of in Family Care Centre
(April 2002 - March 2007)
400
328
328
308 317
300
270 256
251
252 249
197
200
b
e
r
o
f
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
N
u
m
100
0
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Year
Lodged
Disposed of
Figure 9(c)
Applications Lodged & Disposed of in the High Court
(April 2002 - March 2007)
400
500
411
300
400
368
300
300
274
274
200
200
186
180
b
e
r
o
f
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
166
157 142
100
N
u
m
100
0
2000/01
20001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Year
Lodged
Disposed of
500
400
page 52
300

---

Appendix 2
Figure 10
Orders & Disposals (April 2002 - March 2007)
3500
3000
2537
2595
2471
2500
2364
2282
2000
1633
1519
1520
1449
1500
1427
b
e
r
o
f
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
N
u
m 1000
500 399
459
377
447
438
343
384
292
315
280
0
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Year
Parental Responsibility
Contact: Permission
Residence
Care
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
page 53

---

Notes
page 54

---

Notes
page 55

---

Notes
page 56

---