Text size: a | a | a

Our findings - the experience of private guardians

A total of 38 private guardians were interviewed by telephone. The following outlines what they told us about their experiences:

Reasons for making a private guardianship application

  • Nearly a fifth of respondents stated that they sought guardianship as they did not have confidence in social work decisions having had a negative experience of social work previously.
  • The overwhelming majority told us they had sought welfare guardianship powers as they wanted more of a say in decisions about their child's future care. They felt as the parent that they knew the person best and were better placed than anyone else to make decisions in relation to the person's welfare.
  • The decision to apply was often made at a time when significant changes were taking place in the person's life e.g. they were moving to their own tenancy or they were transferring from child to adult services.
  • Private guardians stated that by having the power and authority of guardianship, they felt their profile in meetings would be higher and that they would be listened to more.
  • 45% of those interviewed indicated that during discussion with their lawyer about financial guardianship they were advised to seek welfare guardianship at the same time.
  • Other reasons included having to make medical decisions when the individual reached the age of sixteen and having legal authority to raise an action against a local authority on behalf of their child due to the lack of provision of appropriate services
  • In 8% of cases parents felt that they had no choice but to apply for guardianship having been informed that specific decisions could not be made without it e.g. medical decisions.

Experiences of transition to adult services

We asked guardians about their experience of their child moving from child to adult health and social services. They expressed a predominantly negative view with regard to social work input in this process. They cited a lack of suitable, accessible resources for the young person as one of the main reasons for their dissatisfaction. Over two-thirds of respondents indicated that the involvement by the social worker in the process of their child moving from children to adult services was unhelpful, while a third indicated that the involvement by the social worker was a positive one.

One guardian stated that, "the last ten months of the transition period have been terrible with having to fight all the time with social work to get the necessary services."

One reported that it was a "nightmare situation from start to finish" due to having no allocated worker and feeling alone in planning for the adult's future. Another guardian commented "It was a drastic situation. There were always waiting lists for services that were needed. Looking back it was a long struggle." Other views were that it took too long to identify a suitable residential resource, that the process was too rushed after a protracted period of time waiting for services and there was a lack of co ordination.

As one guardian pointed out "There wasn't a key person pulling it all together. And everything was so slow in being set up. For us (as guardians) it felt like a black hole."

Of those who commented on the value of social work involvement at that time, identifying suitable resources and facilitating the guardian's participation in choosing them, was seen as crucial in reducing the anxiety felt by guardians. Guardians also felt supported when the social worker argued for funding of services that were appropriate on occasions when the social work department was unwilling to fund them due to budgetary constraints.

Sources information about welfare guardianship for private guardians

Over half of those interviewed stated they received information from their lawyer about the guardian's role when the application was being processed. The information was provided during meetings with the lawyer and was considered to be helpful in assisting guardians to understand what was involved.

One respondent received a list from Enable of lawyers specialising in processing guardianship applications. She was very positive about the lawyer's communication with her about the responsibilities of a guardian.

Over a third reported that information about their role had been sent from the Office of the Public Guardian. It was unclear from the responses whether this included, for those where the application was a joint financial and welfare one, information on their duties as welfare guardians. A small number stated that the information they received was too vague and others that it was complicated to read.

Nearly a quarter of the private guardians did not find the lawyer involved helpful due to inexperience or lack of knowledge of the legislation. One respondent reported that she had difficulty in finding a lawyer who was prepared to become involved as the applicant would be funded through Legal Aid.

Three guardians received information from seminars that they attended. Three respondents said they had used the internet to access information about guardianship.

Two guardians cited the source of information about their remit was their social worker and three guardians were given information about their responsibilities when their MHO visited to complete the report as part of the application.

Information provided to private guardians about supervision arrangements

Half of the private guardians interviewed had been informed of supervisory arrangements at the point of the application and most had been informed during the MHO's visit to complete the report. Care manager, lawyers and literature were other sources mentioned

However, fewer than half those interviewed understood 'mostly' the role of the supervising officer: Over a fifth had 'no understanding' of the role of the supervisory officer.

Most guardians said they were aware of who their supervising officer was and how to contact them, however, this included those who had to be informed by the interviewer who the supervising officer was. Almost a quarter were not sure when asked, but thought it might be the social worker.

Six guardians did not know who the supervising officer was, or were unfamiliar with the person named by the interviewer as their supervising officer. Two people did not know how to contact the supervising officer, even when advised by the interviewer of their name.

Private guardians' contact with the supervising officer and social work involvement

A third of private guardians had met with the supervisor in 'the last month'. However over a quarter had not met with their supervisor within the last six months - as required by the regulations. Of this group the length of time since last contact varied from '6 -9 months ago' to 'three years ago'.

Most private guardians were satisfied with the level of contact they had with their supervisor. For the small number of guardians who felt that the level of contact was not at a satisfactory level, one stated that they had no contact for nearly a year. Another guardian complained that they had to contact the officer to arrange visits.

The others were unhappy with the services the adult was receiving and felt that social work should have more contact. Of those who felt that the contacts were excessive, guardians did not value visits when the situation was settled and, in their view, they were undertaking their duties in a responsible manner.

The majority of respondents were satisfied with the general level of social work input. Guardians who commented positively on the input highlighted practical assistance and support as being particularly valuable to them and focused primarily on the care management tasks of the local authority supervising officer. This included providing assistance in identifying appropriate resources e.g. residential, respite and day care and applying for relevant benefits.

Of those who commented specifically on the input of the supervisor in reviewing guardianship arrangements, they found it helpful to receive confirmation that they were exercising their powers appropriately. In one case where the supervisor was not the care manager, the guardian was of the view that the supervisor was better placed to monitor her than the care manager. The supervising officer was considered to be more detached than the care manager and could therefore be more objective in reviewing guardianship arrangements. In another case the guardian felt that the worker having a dual role "causes confusion and they can't be objective as they work for social work"

Guardians who did not find their input helpful cited a variety of reasons for this. They complained that when they asked for specific services, social work refused to provide them due to budgetary constraints. Others did not agree with the need to be monitored, with one arguing that "it depersonalises the relationship we have with our daughter".

Inaccurate information being given, failure to communicate with guardians about tasks the supervisors had agreed to carry out and different workers attending reviews with no knowledge of the person were other reasons given for finding the supervisor's input unhelpful.

Delegation of private guardianship powers

In our experience, guardians often are not aware that they can delegate powers to others such as care staff. When we asked about this:

• 66% said they had not delegated any powers;

• 26% said they had delegated powers;

• 7% said they were not sure.

Where delegated powers were in place, these were given to care staff in residential, respite, day care resources and staff providing care in the person's home.

Decisions around diet, what to wear and medication were given as examples of the kind of decisions being made by others. Of those who delegated powers, only three guardians reported formally delegating these powers to others. Examples were given of how this was recorded. These included mention in review minutes, medical notes and the social work file.

Recording the use of powers

Only one of the private guardians interviewed was aware of their statutory duty to keep records of what powers they were exercising. Guardians who saw guardianship as an extension of the parental one viewed this requirement as too formal. Copies of minutes of reviews and care planning meetings were retained and considered by them to be sufficient evidence of record keeping.

Two thirds of those interviewed said that they did not keep a record of what actions they take as guardians. Of the remainder, all but one kept a record but were not aware of the statutory requirement to do so.

Of those who did keep their own records, a variety of responses were given to the question of how they recorded their actions. These included keeping a diary/ communications book in which staff supporting the person daily at home would write in alongside the recording of the guardian. Some kept a notebook of hospital appointments and phone calls that related to the exercising of powers.

Others saw the retention of minutes of meetings as a form of recording. Recording by this group was not undertaken in order to meet statutory requirements but organised by either the guardian or support staff for other reasons. This group was unaware of the need to keep records.

The value of guardianship

We asked private guardians for their views on the value of guardianship:

  • 60% were of the view that it had been useful.
  • 32% expressed the view that it had made little or no difference.
  • 8% indicated that its value had yet to be tested as they had not had to exercise any of the powers.

Of the larger group who believed guardianship had been useful, they indicated that it gave them the authority to make day to day decisions about the person's care. It made them more confident to challenge decisions they disagreed with and they felt that they were listened to more by professionals.

One guardian said that they were now more involved in decision making and not just consulted. 'We have a proper say now that we are guardians.' Others spoke about specific services that having the powers had allowed them to obtain, e.g. day services, support staff, and leisure activities to enhance the persons quality of life.

Lack of influence in choice of services was one of the reasons cited for welfare guardianship orders having no particular value. One guardian stated, 'Having welfare guardianship has been nothing but hassle and we (joint guardians) have found that there have been no real benefits'. In this case the guardians thought that having the authority to decide a place of residence would allow them to choose the accommodation which did not happen due to a lack of suitable places.

Similarly, one guardian commented that she was having difficulty in recruiting suitable support staff to provide day care and said guardianship was not helping with this problem. Others felt that they continued to care for their relative in the same way that they had before and guardianship had made no difference to that. However, everyone was clear that they had taken the right steps in applying for welfare guardianship and felt more secure knowing it was in place and that it might be needed in the future.

Private guardians' contact with the Mental Welfare Commission

In 2007/08 the Commission scrutinised nearly 1300 guardianship cases and visited over 400 people on guardianship. We asked private guardians about their contact with the Commission.

Visits by the Commission to adults on guardianship orders were valued more than telephone conversations by those whom we contacted. Guardians appreciated the role the Commission played in overseeing that they were exercising their powers appropriately and receiving confirmation of this on the visit.

  • 57% said that they have had contact with Mental Welfare Commission
  • 30% reported that they had had no contact from the Commission
  • 13% said that they were not sure whether they had had contact

Four of the private guardians who had telephone contact from the Commission did not find the Commission helpful. In two of these cases the guardians were in disagreement with the social work department regarding provision of services to the adult and felt that the Commission's intervention had not resolved their issues. Of the other two, one rang for advice regarding a custody/ access dispute and another complained that the Commission refused to provide to the guardian information about an investigation the Commission was involved in concerning the adult.

A very small number commented on the written information received from the Commission, although were vague about the detail of it. Some found it helpful to know from the written information they received, that the Commission could be contacted if they had particular queries or concerns.