By Amy Eyers
A social worker sits across from a family while chairing an initial child protection conference. The mother leans towards her partner and murmurs that this is the same practitioner who met them at home and wrote the initial section 47 report that led to the conference being convened.For the family, the connection is impossible to ignore. The person now chairing the meeting is the same professional whose assessment triggered the process in the first place.
While the conference's purpose is to decide whether the child should be placed on a child protection plan, the parents cannot shake the feeling that the outcome has already been shaped before they walked into the room.
Scenes like this are likely to be taking place in councils across the country, based on my conversations with practitioners in authorities that have piloted the government’s child protection reforms.
Having lead practitioners chair conferences
Under its Families First Partnership programme, the Department for Education (DfE) has said that the role of independent child protection chair, historically a professional based outside of operational casework, should be carried out by lead child protection practitioners (LCPPs).The LCPP is a new social work role within multi-agency child protection teams (MACPTs), which bring together social workers, police, health and other key professionals to carry out child protection investigations and functions in a more joined-up way. The LCPP's remit is to take responsibility for child protection decision making.
The DfE's view is that this arrangement maintains the independence of the child protection conference chair role because the case-holder in these circumstances would be another social worker: the family help lead practitioner.
However, if the same person ends up both investigating and chairing, that blurs the line between investigation and oversight.
The purpose of independent chairs
The principle of independent chairs has evolved over time, particularly following serious case reviews highlighting how poor decisions can arise when professionals fail to challenge each other’s assumptions. This problem, often called groupthink, can happen when everyone accepts the same version of events without question, when information that contradicts the prevailing view is ignored, or when organisational culture shapes decisions more than evidence.Independent chairs offered reflective challenge: the ability to stand back and ask, “Have we truly considered this from the child’s perspective?” They brought professional curiosity, meaning a willingness to look beyond first impressions and probe further where something doesn’t feel right. They also used triangulation, cross-checking information from multiple sources before drawing conclusions.
Importantly, the principle of independence remains embedded in statutory guidance, through Working Together to Safeguard Children (2023), where the role of the child protection chair is still described as providing objective oversight of the conference process.
Without the checks provided by independent chairs, decisions risk becoming quicker but less thorough, and potentially less fair.
Removing a fresh perspective
Child protection work is rarely clear-cut. Families may be facing poverty, mental health difficulties, domestic abuse, or a complex combination of all three. In these situations, space to ask, "What might we have missed?", is not a luxury, it is essential.When the same team that investigated a family also chairs the conference deciding whether the child should be on a plan, the opportunity for a fresh perspective is limited.
Even if the chair is not the case-holder, their involvement in the investigation can influence how they interpret evidence, assess risk and respond to disagreement.
Challenges and risks of doing without independent chairs
While early feedback from some sites includes that the reforms generally have led to more joined-up working and improved parental representation in the child protection process, the risks to independence and reflective practice remain serious. These include:
- Conflicts of interest where LCPPs have chaired cases their team has investigated.
- Reduced scrutiny: without an independent chair, challenge can become internal, shaped by the same culture and pressures as the investigation.
- Risk of bias: the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has warned that bias and cultural assumptions can influence decision-making, particularly for Black and minoritised families.
- Increased pressure on staff: limited preparation time and workforce shortages adding strain to practitioners being asked to take on dual roles.
Pausing the reforms
The changes to the child protection conference chair role mean frontline professionals are being asked to act as both the challenger and the decision maker, the independent arbiter and the operational lead. For many, this is not only difficult, but also an impossible balance to maintain.
The next step should be a pause on further rollout beyond current commitments until there is strong evidence of the reforms' impact, not only on timeliness but on the fairness and quality of decision making. This is not about rejecting change; it is about protecting the safeguards that make decisions safer and more accountable.
Independent chairs and reflective practice are not unnecessary extras. They are central to preventing mistakes, bias and injustice. Without them, processes may move faster, but outcomes could suffer.
Actions social workers can take
If you believe child protection decisions should remain independent and transparent, you can:- Write to your MP asking for a full national evaluation of the broader Families First Partnership reforms before further rollout.
- Take part in public consultations on safeguarding reforms in your area.
- Share your experiences with organisations monitoring, or involved with, these changes, such as the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), Association of Directors of Children’s Services and Foundations, the sector’s evidence centre.
Amy Eyers is an independent safeguarding consultant and former child protection chair with over a decade's experience in children's social care. She has worked across frontline, management, and quality assurance roles, and now advises organisations on safeguarding practice, policy, and training.
