By Gillian Hunter, Monica Thomas, Nicola Campbell

Summary of findings • Findings are based on 21 in-depth interviews with parents (16 women and 5 men) involved in public law care proceedings between late 2019 and 2023. Three were involved in proceedings to become a special guardian. • Collectively, parents had experiences of various aspects of public law, including in relation to care, placement, special guardianship and emergency protection orders. • They described wider circumstances associated with the family court proceedings, including experiences of domestic violence, substance misuse and mental health. Over a third reported contact with social services and the care system as a child. • Unsurprisingly, contact with social services prior to court proceedings was generally fractious. Parents reported complying with requests for reports, assessments and tests but distrusted and often disputed how findings were subsequently presented by the local authority to the court. • Parents perceived themselves to be outsiders or by-standers at court proceedings. They sat at the back of the courtroom when attending in person and were muted in virtual hearings. They had few opportunities to speak unless providing formal evidence to the court and they understood little of what was being discussed by the judge and legal professionals. • Experiences of legal representation were mixed and while a minority reported being well-supported by their lawyer, with regular updates or post-hearing explanations of proceedings, most felt their lawyer did not adequately represent their lives or views, or challenge aspects of evidence that they considered to be wrong or unfair. 

• The judge’s conduct played a significant part in shaping parents’ reported family court experiences. Judicial kindness or a lack of attention, and informal and more formal comments made by the judge – both positive and negative – were remembered well after the hearing was over. For example, judicial ‘instruction’ about what parents needed to do to have children returned to their care was described as giving hope for the future. • Time was a recurring theme in interviews, with some aspects of the process felt to move too slowly and others too fast. This includes perceptions of the process moving too quickly towards court proceedings and the ‘backwards and forwards’ of court hearings. Participants also talked about being rushed into making what were essentially life-changing decisions about both temporary and permanent care arrangements of their children. • The harmful impact of processes of racialisation, institutional racism and cultural stigma was also raised by Black and Black Mixed Race parents, as well as caregivers to children racialised as Black Mixed Race. However, participants were sometimes hesitant to raise such concerns out of fear of being seen to be pulling ‘the race card’. • Voluntary sector services were the main providers of assistance, including counselling, especially after children had been removed and parents felt largely abandoned by the statutory system. Parents reported initial feelings of anger, shock, confusion and longterm grief at the removal of their children. Six parents referred to feeing suicidal and self-harming either during or following the conclusion of their proceedings. The importance of peer-based support through community groups and social media was also noted as important for coping with the aftermath of the family court. 

London: Revolving Doors, et al., 2024. 24p.