Children's Hearings Redesign Board minutes: February 2026

Attendees and apologies

• Barnardos
• British Association of Social Workers
• CAPS Independent Advocacy
• Centre for Excellence for Children's Care and Protection
• Children and Young People's Centre for Justice
• Children First
• Children's Hearings Scotland
• Children's Hearings Scotland - volunteer community
• Children's Social Work at Shetland Islands Council
• Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
• Dundee City Children's Services
• Education Scotland
• Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership
• Glasgow Council Children's Services
• Independent Advocacy Perth and Kinross
• Inspiring Scotland
• Lecturer in Scots Private Law at University of Strathclyde
• Our Hearings Our Voice
• Partners in Advocacy
• Quarriers
• Renfrewshire Children's Services
• Scottish Children's Reporters Administration
• Scottish Government
• Scottish Legal Aid Board
• Social Work Scotland
• South Lanarkshire Children's Services
• The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children 
• The Promise Scotland
• Victim Support Scotland
• Who Cares Scotland

Items and actions

Summary 

The Children’s Hearings Redesign Stakeholder Engagement session took place on 25 February 2026 and brought together fifty stakeholders with an interest in the Children’s Hearings Redesign Board programme of work. 

The session opened with introductions from Brian Taylor, Deputy Director for Children’s Rights, Protection and Justice who is the Co-Chair of the Board, followed by the GIRFEC 20th anniversary message from the First Minister, which reinforced the programme’s grounding in child centred approaches. Brian Taylor and COSLA’s Laura Caven outlined the purpose, ambition and governance of the Redesign Board, emphasising the central role stakeholders have in shaping the next phase of work.

Workstream leads provided focused updates on their work on culture, preparing for hearings and referrals, all highlighting early progress and key challenges. An open Q&A with the Redesign Board members enabled direct discussion of priority issues, before participants joined facilitated table sessions exploring three core themes: the voice of babies and infants, language and grounds, and the path to 2030. These discussions surfaced shared concerns, opportunities and areas requiring further clarity across the system. This paper highlights the views expressed in the discussions and what actions the Redesign Board could consider going forward. 

Summary of feedback from table discussions 

Babies and Infants 

There was a sense among many participants that the experiences of babies and infants should be more fully considered, given they are central to an effective hearings system. Some groups suggested that each redesign workstream could undertake a babies and infants impact assessment to support this aim.

Stakeholders shared views on the importance of strengthening education for social workers around best practice in presenting babies’ and infants’ views in reports. It was felt that this could support clearer recommendations to hearings and empower good decision making. 

Participants also noted that there is considerable specialist knowledge about communicating the needs and perspectives of very young children, and some felt that the hearings system could draw more effectively on this expertise. Increasing engagement with professionals who work closely with babies and infants was seen by some as one way to support this.

Across many groups, there was a view that a rights based approach is essential, with some participants suggesting that non instructed advocacy could play a role in safeguarding the rights of infants and babies.

Participants expressed differing perspectives on the role of contact. Some felt that contact is not always well understood and highlighted that it can function both as an assessment space and a family space. Others questioned whether observing a baby during contact can reliably provide the insights needed to understand their needs and views. Several suggested that a more holistic approach may be necessary, as relying on a single method may not offer a complete basis for decision making.

Concerns were raised by many about the level of resource required to deliver this work, alongside the need to strike the right balance in relation to time. Participants emphasised both the importance of allowing sufficient time for high quality decisions and the risks associated with delay, given the rapid developmental changes in infancy. Some stakeholders observed that delays often arise within the court system rather than the hearings process itself.

 

Language and Grounds

 Participants expressed the view that everyone involved in the children’s hearings system has a role in making language more accessible. Many felt that children and families benefit from clear explanations of why they are at a hearing and what powers the hearing holds.

It was suggested that reports and communications should be framed in a child friendly and accessible way to support understanding.

There was a strong sense that pre hearing work plays an essential role, particularly when carried out by people who already have trusted relationships with the child or family.

Several groups reflected that, as we move towards 2030, children and families may increasingly turn to AI tools to help them understand the hearings system. Participants saw both opportunities and risks in this trend. Some noted that AI tools can generate inaccurate or assumption based responses and felt that more work is needed to understand the types of questions children and families ask and how they phrase them. One idea put forward was the development of closed Copilot style tools offering curated, reliable information about the hearings system.

Participants identified specific areas where they felt children and families require clearer information, for example, explanations of Compulsory Supervision Orders, grounds, and what these mean in practice.

Some stakeholders observed that certain terms (e.g. control) can feel uncomfortable but may still be necessary to accurately describe what is happening. There was a view that clarity and honesty about what is at stake in hearings, particularly when risks of harm are involved, are essential.

Questions were raised about whether current resources are informed by enough direct feedback from children on how understandable the information is. Many felt that hearing from children on this point is important to ensure materials genuinely meet their needs.

Participants highlighted several barriers to effective communication, including varying literacy levels and the overall complexity and volume of information.
Acronyms and jargon were frequently mentioned as sources of confusion for children and families.

Some felt that inconsistencies and duplication across reports from different agencies make the system harder to navigate.

Time pressures particularly for social workers explaining grounds or preparing families was raised repeatedly as a challenge.

Participants noted difficulties in building strong, effective relationships with children and families due to limited capacity and workload pressures.

There was uncertainty expressed about how best to prepare a child for a hearing, especially in balancing the explanation of recommendations with the fact that panel members may not always follow them.

Several groups noted that information is spread across multiple places, which can be difficult for children and families to navigate.

Concerns were also raised that “one size fits all” resources often fail to meet the different needs of diverse audiences.

Some highlighted that the need for legal precision, for example, in grounds that reflect legislative wording can make simplification difficult.

It was noted that Independent Advocacy does not routinely receive reports or plans, which some felt places a heavy burden on social work to explain complex information.

 

Path to 2030

Stakeholders acknowledged that uncertainty is likely to continue around the path to 2030 and specifically the role of the Redesign Board until legislation is finalised. At the same time, many participants emphasised that the redesign extends far beyond what legislation alone can deliver. Several groups suggested that 2030 should not be seen as a cliff edge, as work across the Children’s Hearings System will continue well beyond that date.

Some expressed concern about whether completing all necessary redesign activity by 2030 is achievable.

There was a shared view that clear planning and sequencing of milestones will be important to avoid a bottleneck of rushed activity toward the end of the period.

Multiple groups highlighted the importance of early help for families. The value of a child’s plan was also noted, with some stakeholders reflecting that the hearing itself is not the appropriate forum for negotiating this. Suggestions were made about greater investment in face to face support to help parents feel empowered and confident in their role.

A need for greater consistency across local areas was raised. However, participants stressed that consistency does not necessarily mean uniformity, and that some variation is appropriate. Several felt there should be clarity about where and why variation is acceptable. Concerns were also expressed that the Learning Leads approach could inadvertently contribute to further fragmentation.

Questions were raised about how the Redesign Board will monitor and evaluate its own progress, including what measures or frameworks might be used. Stakeholders also queried how accountability for delivering support to children and young people will be shared and upheld across agencies.

Participants asked for greater clarity on what an inquisitorial rather than adversarial approach means in practice and highlighted the need for a clear operational framework to underpin this shift.

Ensuring that the voice of the child is genuinely centred emerged repeatedly across groups. Stakeholders asked how this can be realised in practical, consistent ways and highlighted the key role of independent advocacy and children’s rights officers in supporting meaningful participation.

Some groups noted ongoing tensions between certain actors within the system. Others emphasised the importance of aligning boundaries and responsibilities across organisations (e.g. police, health and local authorities), while cautioning against unnecessary structural change.

One group suggested refreshing the membership of the Children’s Hearings Improvement Partnership to ensure it remains representative and effective.

The sequencing of change was highlighted as critical to achieving The Promise. Concerns were raised about system capacity particularly for social workers and panel members given challenges around retention, data sharing and the need to sustain day to day operations alongside redesign activity. Many stressed the importance of being realistic about what can be delivered with existing resources. The introduction of new workstreams to support delivery was broadly welcomed.

Stakeholders emphasised the importance of clear data and information flows, while also noting that current legislative boundaries make data sharing complex. Some groups suggested exploring whether AI could support improvements, while emphasising the need for caution.

Two groups highlighted the value of returning to the original Kilbrandon and GIRFEC principles as they were intended.

Participants reflected on the importance of improving public awareness and understanding of the Children’s Hearings System, including roles, responsibilities and how the system fits within wider public perceptions of care.

Next Steps 

The Children’s Hearings Redesign Board will: 

Review the feedback and take the necessary actions to ensure it is fully considered within the Board’s future workplan and associated workstreams.

Establish a regular and structured approach to stakeholder engagement, identifying the most effective methods for ongoing communication and collaboration.

Ensure that voices currently underrepresented are identified, engaged, and meaningfully included in the process, this includes the voices mentioned within the question and answer panel.