CHILD advocates and trained Sheriffs willing to meet kids outside the court room – or even get down on their knees with crayons – along with real culture change that puts the views of all children at the very heart of family courts. That is what is needed to ensure the Children’s Bill will succeed, it has been claimed.

Leading Scottish child rights campaigners welcomed the proposed Bill, announced by the Scottish Government last week, which aims to prioritise children’s best interests in family law cases and ensure their views are heard by the court.

Highlights include the regulation of child contact centres and welfare reporters, and improvements for domestic abuse victims and their children, allowing for screens and video links to be used in Child Welfare Hearings.

But speaking to the Sunday National this week Bruce Adamson, Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, along with charities and academics, said that while the Bill was an important step, it was essential it was implemented to allow even the youngest of children to have their voices heard.

Adamson said: “The Bill is really in line with a lot of work being done across Europe in the last decade – there has been a big movement in terms of child-friendly justice. In Scotland that’s been a long time coming and I think this Bill takes us a big step closer in recognising the importance of getting children’s views.”

Decisions reached in the family courts – following separation of parents – include who a child will live with and how much contact with the other parent they will have.

“We are talking about decisions that go right to the heart of a child’s life and the way in which they can be determined at times of distress involve very legalistic processes,” added Adamson. “There can be a real disconnect between the child and the decisions made and that can cause significant distress.”

Good work is being done in some instances, added Adamson. Two years ago, Sheriff Aisha Anwar published a letter, written to a child explaining why she had granted indirect contact with the father even though the child didn’t want to see him. In clear, plain English she wrote that she understood the reasons the child had for that view but had heard about positives in their relationship, saw evidence that the father had learned from his mistakes and thought their relationship important.

Adamson added: “It might be that the judge can explain: ‘I understand you really wanted to see your parent but I have asked your mother or father to work on their anger before that happens.’ “It’s about explaining so that children don’t blame themselves. When you have child-friendly decisions they are more likely to be better decisions that are thought through and more likely to be adhered to. That’s good for parents too.”

He is in touch with the head of the youth court in New Zealand, who – dealing with a child in distress who was facing being placed in secure accommodation – decided to go for a walk with her so they could chat away from the formal courtroom environment. After hearing more about her situation, he granted bail and contact with her father.

Six weeks on she is making great progress, he claimed. In other cases sheriffs have “got down on their knees with crayons” to do drawings to help children express their views.

The duty, Adamson stressed, should be on the court to hear from all children – not just those who were over 12 years old – presumed by law to be capable of decision-making, but also very young children and those with communication difficulties.

“That can be through art, through storytelling, using people who are really well trained to work with children,” he added.

“The big challenge is making sure we have enough resource. It’s going to be a big challenge for the legal professional. It’s really exciting – it’s a great step forward but implementation is going to be really key.”

Anna O’Reilly, an assistant director of Children 1st, said she was hoping the Bill would help children be listened to. “At the moment 12 is seen as this magic age when children are able to give their views,” she said. This will often mean that for children under 12 it is much harder.

“I can think of a number of situations where children have put their view through a trusted professionals, maybe written a letter or found different ways of doing that, been supported to think about it, then whatever they say is not taken into account [by the sheriff],” she added.

“For some children, they might say they don’t want to see a parent, but then end up with court ordered contact being agreed – maybe every second weekend. We typically have contact with families where there has been – or is a risk of – domestic abuse. For children who may have found previous contact scary or distressing, it can be really difficult.

“One of the changes that we would want is that anyone who is gathering the views for court has training in working with children. Many of the professionals that do that just now have a legal background but perhaps not having as much experience of working with children.

“Potentially we are looking at child advocates and that is where this becomes quite radical in terms of how you enact this.”

The stakes in many family court cases – which can involve children who have witnessed or been a victim of domestic abuse in the family home – can be incredibly high.

One mother told the Sunday National that the current system had robbed her three children of their childhoods and said urgent change was needed. The family worked with charity Children 1st but said that despite their interventions, the children’s views were not listened to until they were over 12 and allowed to instruct their own lawyers.

“The whole process has been awful,” she said. When she first went to the family courts – following domestic abuse – her then five-year-old son drew pictures, which were accompanied by a short statement by from his support worker expressing his fear of spending time with a father. However, the evidence was not accepted by the Sheriff and weekend contact was granted.

When he was eight, police asked if he would testify against his father in the criminal courts to corroborate claims of domestic abuse. “But the civil court had put in place an order that said he had to see his father at the weekends,” said his mother. “I asked them if they could intervene to get the civil court order lifted and they said they could not.”

He did not testify. Her children were put on the children’s register for two years and no longer see their father.

“There are lots of fantastic projects that are out there and I can’t praise the individuals working within the system enough,” she added. “But the problems are with the system itself. If the agencies working with children are not recognised by the courts – if the legal system disregards them – then what is the point?”

Tracy Kirk, a lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University, said she was frustrated that the Bill was not more clearly written to indicate the importance of gathering views from children of all ages. It continues to state: “A child 12 years of age or more is presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to form a view for the purposes of subsection”.

She said: “Across disciplines the age 12 is presumed to be when a child can give views – this is an error in law and a breach of the UNCRC [United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child]. For this reason, I have no idea why this is in the draft Bill.”

However Marsha Scott, chief executive of Scottish Women’s Aid, said: “I would say that the Bill – and the direction of travel – is really positive. I would attribute that first to the First Minister and then to the various minsters who have committed to engage with children and young people about their experience of the family courts.

“We would be cautious about saying this will make things better for children, because it’s not yet been implemented. But it has the potential to do so.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “As outlined in the Financial Memorandum, the Scottish Government recognises that there will be resource implications inrelation to the Bill.

“If the Bill is enacted by Parliament, the Scottish Government will work closely with key bodies on how best to implement it.”