“What is it that family courts are there to do? Just take children away? Or are we there to provide part of the whole construct of support around families to try to enable children to remain within their family? If we are looking to remove the 8th, 9th or 10th child, the family courts can't be doing very well by this family." Statistics show that one in four people who lose a child in care proceedings return because the underlying issues have not been dealt with.” Nicholas Crichton, a former district judge and founder of the Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC).
The FDAC is an alternative family court, based on the idea of problem-solving justice, with the key aim of improving outcomes for families, reunifying children with their parents where safe to do so. Alongside the court hearing the proceedings, parents are supported by a multidisciplinary team of professionals who can provide direct supervision and support throughout the court proceedings.
The first FDAC was launched in London in 2008 and, today, there are 13 specialist FDAC teams across 19 courts, supporting families in 35 local authorities. Each site implements the FDAC slightly differently, with some courts offering pre-proceeding or post-proceeding support, whilst others provide peer mentoring, where parents who have been through similar experiences and have persevered in their recovery can support others through the FDAC process. Whilst the level of support available may differ, the core structure of substance misuse specialists, social workers, mental health specialists and a site lead remain the same.
FDAC proceedings run in a very similar way to typical care proceedings, both beginning with an initial case management hearing. For the FDAC, the parents will be introduced to the FDAC process at the first hearing and if they agree to the FDAC route, then a full assessment by the specialist team will take place within the following five days. The FDAC proceedings will then progress to a further case management hearing, taking place between week two and four of the proceedings. At this stage, an intervention plan, also known as ‘trial for change’, drawn up by the specialist team, will have been agreed by the parties. The parents will formally agree to have their case heard by the FDAC at this hearing.
The intensive support provided through the ‘trial for change’ to families usually takes place over 26 weeks and allows the multidisciplinary team to provide expert support tailored to each families’ needs. The multidisciplinary team is able to address different areas of concern, in areas like substance misuse, domestic violence and mental health issues, and the team can provide the court with a dynamic assessment of the parents as a result.
The benefits
For families, there is a perception that the FDAC is a more supportive process for parents in comparison to standard care proceedings, encouraging them to believe recovery and change are possible. Published in August 2023, Foundations’ Evaluation of Family Drug and Alcohol Courts report found that parents felt that the FDAC was supportive at crisis points, helping parents to sustain changes, rather than feeling like a punitive process. With the high-intensity, tailored support provided, parents are able to develop trust with professionals, ultimately allowing them to show that they are capable of meeting their child’s needs.
Whilst lawyers will attend the court hearings, the parents are required to attend court every two weeks for a non-lawyer review. This meeting is also attended by their FDAC key worker, their social worker and the children’s guardian if possible. A short report is prepared on the parents’ progress and this is sent to everyone before the review. The same judge will attend each of these meetings and the parents are able to speak directly to the judge. Whilst ensuring judicial oversight of the families’ needs and progress on a regular basis, the meetings also embody the problem-solving approach of the courts, allowing parents to work with professionals, rather than seeing the court proceedings as wholly adversarial.
Foundations’ report highlights notable differences in outcomes for children involved FDAC proceedings compared to those in standard care proceedings. Children whose primary carers participated in FDAC proceedings were significantly more likely to be reunified with their carers at the conclusion of the proceedings (52% compared to 12.5%). Additionally, children involved in FDAC cases had a reduced likelihood of being placed into foster care, compared to their counterparts in non-FDAC proceedings (28.6% compared to 54.7%).
For parents involved with a FDAC, the likelihood of achieving abstinence from substance misuse was over four times higher than for parents involved in traditional care proceedings. According to the CASCADE evaluation of the FDAC in Wales, the proportion of parents misusing substances at the start of FDAC proceedings as part of the pilot decreased from 83% to 54% by the conclusion of the proceedings. Among these, 29% of parents achieved complete cessation of substance misuse, while an additional 14% decreased their substance misuse.
The financial case for keeping the FDAC
In a speech delivered at the FDAC Conference in late November 2024, Peter Jackson LJ, the lead judge for the FDAC, outlined his support and belief in the FDAC model, including the economic advantages. Describing the FDAC as a responsible allocation of public resources, Jackson LJ highlighted that every FDAC case saves approximately £58,000 in state care costs, as well as £15,000 in legal costs. Supporting these claims, the Centre for Justice Innovation conducted a financial impact report on the London FDAC, which concluded that the FDAC delivers value for taxpayers, with savings of approximately £3.20 for every £1 invested.
The reduction in legal costs can be attributed to several key efficiencies, including a significantly lower reliance on external experts (7% in FDAC cases compared to 96% in standard proceedings), a decreased number of legal hearings as part of the model and a considerable reduction in contested final hearings (4% in FDAC cases compared to 24% in non-FDAC proceedings). As Jackson LJ observed, these efficiencies not only translate into financial savings, but also alleviate the burden on the court system, allowing judicial resources to be redirected towards other matters.
The Centre for Justice Innovation’s Business Case for Roll-Out offers a detailed analysis of the financial implications of implementing the FDAC for children’s services. According to the analysis, a typical FDAC team, handling 30 cases annually, not only recoups its operational costs, but also generates additional net savings for the local authority of approximately £272,000 within the same year, with post-proceedings savings amounting to around £527,000, equating to approximately £17,500 per case. Over a five-year period, the cumulative net savings for a local authority are projected to be approximately £800,000.
The FDAC in Wales
It is unfortunate that, despite the advantages of the FDAC model as outlined above, the two-year pilot programme involving the FDAC in Wales came to an unfortunate end after failing to secure long-term funding, ultimately closing its doors in November 2023. The pilot programme was supposed to set the stage for further rollout of the FDAC across Wales, following the recommendation of the Commission on Justice in Wales in 2019 that the FDAC should be established in Wales.
The pilot programme, working with two local authorities, garnered positive results. The final evaluation was highly favourable, highlighting the positive impact the Cardiff and Vale FDAC was able to achieve for families over the two years, with results being comparable to those observed in FDACs in England. During the pilot, the proportion of parents misusing substances decreased from 83% to 54% by the conclusion of the proceedings. Additionally, the percentage of children remaining in the care of their parents more than doubled, increasing from 14% to 32%.
From the perspective of service uses, the feedback mirrored findings from other evaluations of the FDAC model. Parents were overwhelmingly positive about their experience within the proceedings. In particular, noting the positive role the FDAC played in helping them change direction, the support and effort of the multidisciplinary team that supported them, and the non-judgmental, problem-solving approach adopted by both professionals and the court itself towards the families.
Unfortunately, the closure of the pilot programme in Wales was not an isolated incident; 75% of FDAC services that have ceased operation have done so within the first two years of their establishment. The FDAC offers an opportunity to ‘invest to save’; however, the reality is that local authorities find it difficult to put in place FDAC services when under pressure from central government and despite the compelling body of evidence, which indicates that the FDAC not only yields better outcomes than standard care proceedings, but is also cost effective in the medium and long term.
Final thoughts
Despite the favourable outcomes for children and families, as well as the cost saving opportunities that the FDAC provides, the FDAC remains limited to only a small proportion of families involved in care proceedings. Analysis conducted in 2024 as part of the case for investment by the Centre for Justice Innovation shows that the expansion of the FDAC could generate between £27 million and £154 million of net financial benefits, when compared to a scenario where no support is provided by central government. While the recent closure of the Cardiff and the Vale FDAC highlights the challenges faced by such services, the idea behind the FDAC has remained remarkably resilient. With a consistent and growing body of evidence showing the positive impact on families and its significant financial benefits, there is a strong case for prioritising the expansion of this model.
Copyright & permissions
