This chapter explores the views of family members who have been involved in child welfare FGCs. The case studies presented have been written by family members involved in FGCs. These are their own stories written in their own words. In order to safeguard the identity of other family members, names and identifying details have been changed or not included. Authors of case studies have been acknowledged at the end of the chapter (with their agreement) but not associated with individual case studies presented.

Why service user involvement?

As stated in the introductory chapter, FGCs originate in New Zealand from roots that are firmly embedded within service user rights and empowerment (Connolly, 1994). Some of the key principles of FGC practice are those of empowerment and being a family-led process. Therefore it is not surprising that FGC projects have developed strategies for involving families in developing services (Ashley (ed.), 2006). While this has been somewhat sporadic and piecemeal there have been a number of services and events that have stood out during this history. Torbay FGC service, for example has had a young people's group for many years. This group have been heavily involved in service and policy development and indeed have influenced national FGC developments with invites to several FGC conferences. Alongside Stockport FGC young people's group they met with MPs on several occasions to lobby for FGCs. In 2004 Family Rights Group hosted a family members conference in Birmingham called ‘Families Voices’ in which people who had experienced an FGC came together to share experiences and discuss how they might shape future provision (Axford, 2007).

At present there are pockets of good practice in terms of serviceuser involvement. This includes the aforementioned work in Torbay and work on family member inclusion in Camden (Camden Family Advisory board). However, it must be acknowledged that service user involvement in all areas of social care remains a pipe dream for many reasons which include scarce resources in terms of staff and financial commitments (Branfield and Beresford, 2006).