Over the past years, there have been calls for child friendly justice in a range of social policy fields including family law, immigration and education. According to the Council of Europe (2011), child friendly justice is: accessible; age appropriate; speedy; diligent; adapted to and focussed on the needs of the child; respecting the right to participate in and to understand the proceedings; respecting the right to private and family life; respecting the right to integrity and dignity. The move towards a children’s rights approach has been supported by international treaties and by domestic legislation in England (The Children and Families Act 2014) and Scotland (The Education (Scotland) Act 2016). There is a general assumption, reflected in the SEN/ASN Codes of Practice for England and Scotland, that educational decision-making will result in better outcomes if informed by the views, wishes and feelings of CYP. However, little is known about CYP involvement in and experiences of SEN/ASN tribunals. The England/Scotland comparison is important because of historical differences in approaches to administrative justice in education, which are amplified in the recent extension of rights. In Scotland, children with capacity aged 12-15 are now able to make references to the First-tier Tribunal independently of their parents, whereas this right has only been extended to young people aged 16 and over in England. Despite the radical nature of the new rights, which the Scottish Government claims are the most progressive in Europe, little is known about the extent. This research addresses these gaps in knowledge, providing a timely assessment of the extent to which the principles of child friendly justice are reflected in practice on the ground. Data are drawn from ESRC project ES/P002641/1, and include analysis of tribunal and mediation data and case studies of CYP and their families. The main conclusions are that while the legislation is radical in substance and progressive in intent, results on the ground have been limited to date. Very few CYP have been the party in a dispute, although progress has been made in ensuring that the voices of CYP are heard at tribunals. The vast majority of cases are brought by parents, who continue to act as the principal advocates. Parents from poorer backgrounds are under-represented as tribunal appellants and existing support for families is increasingly limited.

Council of Europe (2011) Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Child-friendly Justice Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Cullen, M., Lindsay, G., Totsika, V., Bakopoulou, I., Gray, G., Cullen, S., Thomas, R., Caton, S., & Miller A. (2017). Review of Arrangement for Disagreement Resolution (SEND). Research Report. London: DfE/Ministry of Justice. Doyle, M. (2019), ‘A Place at the Table: young people’s participation in resolving disputes about special educational needs and disabilities’, forthcoming, UK Administrative Justice Institute. Harris, N. & Riddell, S. (eds.) (2011) Resolving Disputes about Educational Provision Farnham: Ashgate. McKeever, G. (2013) A ladder of legal participation for tribunal users Public Law, July, 575-598. Stalford, H., Hollingsworth, K. & Gilmore, S. (2017) Rewriting Children’s Rights Judgements: From Academic Vision to New Practice Oxford: Hart Publishing.