header-logo header-logo

10 March 2016
Issue: 7690 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Family courts that save money

Research highlights costs-saving benefits of Family Drug and Alcohol Courts

Family Drug and Alcohol Courts (FDACs) save the public purse £2.30 for every £1 spent, new research has shown.

FDACs deal with care proceedings cases involving parental substance misuse and provide an integrated legal, social care and health response. The first FDAC launched in 2008 in London and now supports more than 40 cases per year. By the end of this month, a total of eight FDAC units will be in operation, serving 19 local authorities across 12 courts.

They have proved to be a success, leading to better outcomes when compared to normal care proceedings. A 2014 report by Brunel University, for example, found that children were less likely to go into permanent care, parents were more likely to cease their drug use and children were less likely to suffer further neglect and abuse.

Better Courts: the financial impact of the London Family Drug and Alcohol Court, published by the Centre for Justice Innovation last week, calculated that over a five-year period, FDAC keeps more children with their families, generating an average saving of £17,220 per case. Families who appear in the FDAC are less likely to return to court, which means an average saving of £2,110. More parents overcome their drug or alcohol dependency, creating savings for the NHS and the criminal justice system of about £5,300 on average.

Taken overall, the net financial saving relating to the FDAC is about £15,850. The analysis focuses on the direct costs and savings to local authorities and other state bodies, and does not take account of wider benefits such as the future wellbeing of the children involved.

The authors of the report, Neil Reeder and Stephen Whitehead, say: “Our new analysis demonstrates that FDACs save the state money.

“Across the 2014/15 caseload, the London FDAC cost £560,000 and generated gross savings of £1.29m to public sector bodies over five years. These cashable savings accrue primarily from FDAC’s better outcomes: fewer children permanently removed from their families, fewer families returning to court and less substance misuse.

“The savings generated by FDAC exceed the cost of the service within two years of the start of the case.”

Issue: 7690 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll