By phone or email
To speak to an adviser, please call our free and confidential advice line 0808 801 0366 (Monday to Friday 9.30am to 3pm, excluding Bank Holidays). Or you can ask us a question via email using our advice enquiry form.
Are you a parent, kinship carer relative or friend of a child who is involved with, or who needs the help of, children’s services in England? We can help you understand processes and options when social workers or courts are making decisions about your child’s welfare.
Our advice service is free, independent and confidential.
To speak to an adviser, please call our free and confidential advice line 0808 801 0366 (Monday to Friday 9.30am to 3pm, excluding Bank Holidays). Or you can ask us a question via email using our advice enquiry form.
Our online advice forums are an anonymous space where parents and kinship carers (also known as family and friends carers) can get legal and practical advice, build a support network and learn from other people’s experiences.
Our get help and advice section has template letters, advice sheets and resources about legal and social care processes. On Monday and Wednesday afternoons, you can use our webchat service to chat online to an adviser.
Last week, I joined a meeting of about 45 people proudly referred to as “Friends of Family Group Conferencing.” Count me in as part of that proud community. This gathering, hosted by the Family Rights Group, aimed to bring the FGC community together to discuss the upcoming Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the inclusion of Family Group Decision Making.
For me, this discussion has been nearly 30 years in the making. FGCs were originally designed by Indigenous people in New Zealand as a response to the over-representation of their children in the care system. They were introduced in the UK in the early 1990s and were seen as good practice in the wake of the 1989 Children Act, which promoted partnership working with families. At the time, even inviting parents to child protection conferences was groundbreaking—and contentious. Many senior leaders worried that families would undermine “sensible professional decision-making.” That was the benchmark for family partnership at the time.
Fast forward three decades, and FGCs have consistently demonstrated their value. Many local authorities have embraced the process with remarkable success, and there is clear evidence that the FGC model keeps children safe within their family networks and significantly reduces the need for children to enter state care (please see the Family Rights Group website for extensive worldwide research).
Despite its transformative potential, sustained growth has often been hindered by funding cuts and shifting political priorities. So, hearing that involving children’s wider families will finally be enshrined in legislation fills me with joy.
I’m sure you could feel the “but” coming. The proposed legislation doesn’t explicitly use the term “Family Group Conferencing.” Instead, it refers to “family group decision-making,” a term that lacks a clear definition. It’s an umbrella term which, if left vague, could encompass any meeting that involves family members. This is already happening in some parts of the country in Family Network Meetings where social workers bring families together to consult and approve their plans—a poor substitute for genuine partnership with wider families to make safe and appropriate plans for children.
This ambiguity worries me. Even with published standards, guidelines, and well-established principles, the reality of FGC practice varies widely across local authorities. I regularly review local authority services and notice a worrying pattern that has emerged since COVID—a time when referrers and coordinators fought hard to continue delivering FGCs during lockdown. Unfortunately, many local authorities have never moved beyond the “make do and mend” approaches adopted during the pandemic.
Here are some recurring issues I’ve observed:
Who Identifies Family?
Traditionally, coordinators worked with families to identify key participants—those most important to the child and their parents. Today, referrals often come with a pre-approved list of “safe” or “useful” family members, limiting exploration of the broader kin network. This shortcut significantly reduces the number of family members engaged in the meeting, undermining the richness, reach, and efficacy of the process.
The Importance of Preparation
Preparing individual family members for a conference is essential. This phase helps clarify the concerns presented by the referrer, explore family members’ views, and address barriers to participation. It takes time. Yet, this phase is increasingly rushed or skipped altogether. Virtual preparation, while convenient, cannot replace the depth and connection of face-to-face preparation. Families need time and space to process concerns, reflect on dynamics, and start crafting solutions. Cutting corners here weakens the entire process and can be unsafe, particularly for families where violence is a factor.
Private Family Time
This sacred space, unique to the FGC model, allows families to speak openly and reconnect, leading to creative solutions that are culturally appropriate. When families are handed a checklist of questions (often a disguised plan needing approval), the focus shifts to ticking boxes rather than having meaningful conversations, exploring impacts, and genuinely solving problems.
Children’s Participation
FGCs are about ensuring families and children have a voice in decisions affecting their lives. Children can participate in planning the meeting, choosing who is invited, designing invitations, deciding on refreshments, and determining how they’d like to engage. Yet, there is a growing trend of excluding children, with their “wishes and feelings” gathered secondhand and presented at the meeting. This shift seems driven by professional discomfort rather than family needs, and it’s unacceptable.
It’s Called Remote Working for a Reason
Tools like Teams and Zoom have their place, but they shouldn’t become the default in social work practice, especially not in FGC work. Virtual meetings may suit professionals, but they rarely serve families. Coordinators are often pressured to reduce preparation time by conducting it virtually, and some conferences are still being held on Teams. Such conferences lack the depth and connection of in-person gatherings. When private family time is offered, families often report feeling “watched.” This is another example of organisational expediency trumping what works best for families.
FGCs are about more than just making a plan—they’re about giving families ownership of their challenges and solutions. When done right, they empower families to rebuild relationships, tackle tough conversations, and create lasting change. However, if we prioritise speed and convenience over quality and care, we risk losing the positive impact families bring.
This bill is an important and welcome opportunity to ensure local authorities recognise wider families as people worth doing business with. For some organisations, this will require a significant cultural shift and practice changes to support social workers in the power-sharing required.
Sadly, the past 30 years have shown that organisational needs increasingly drive practice. We must be vigilant about how the bill is implemented to ensure the highest standards are upheld. Families deserve nothing less.
Sharon Inglis is a dedicated FGC Practitioner, Consultant, Trainer, and Director of Circles Training and Consultancy Limited, an organization established in 2007 to support the implementation of FGCs and other restorative processes. Follow her on LinkedIn to read more of her blogs in this series.
Your donation will help more families access expert legal advice and support from Family Rights Group.
Donate Now