Posted on December 15th, 2014
Posted on October 15th, 2014
Posted on August 5th, 2014
Court must be informed “immediately” in the event of any non-compliance.
In Re W (Children) EWFC 22, the President has reminded practitioners that parties in cases in the Family Court are not permitted to amend a timetable fixed by the court without the prior approval of the court.
In that case, in breach of a case management order, Bristol City Council failed to file and serve its final evidence and care plan until two weeks after the specified date. The failure caused consequential delays so that it was impossible for the advocates to comply with the requirements of paragraph 6.4 of PD27A (the ‘Bundles’ Practice Direction). In a letter sent to the President by the local authority, it was explained that at an advocates meeting it had been agreed that the local authority would defer the filing of its evidence beyond the date ordered. However, it did not inform the court or seek the court’s approval of the non-compliance.
The President cited several recent cases in which parties have failed to comply with directions given by the court in care proceedings.
“I emphasise the obligation on every party, spelt out (as in this case) in the standard form of case management order, to inform the Court “immediately” in the event of any non-compliance. That obligation is imposed for good reason, though too often, as in the present case, it also is not complied with.”
Posted on April 5th, 2014
Cartoon by Fran as published in Community Care e-bulletin this week.
Posted on March 31st, 2014
Current child neglect laws have been criticised for focusing on the physical effects of abuse only.
The government is “seriously” considering introducing a new offence of emotional cruelty to children, the BBC understands.
The proposed change to neglect laws in England and Wales would see parents who starve their children of affection face prosecution for the first time.
It follows a campaign for a “Cinderella Law” from charity Action for Children.
Government sources said the measure was “being looked at very seriously”, and that it was “more likely than not”.
Ministers are looking to introduce the measure ahead of the next election, the BBC understands, but sources stressed it was not yet a done deal.
The Daily Telegraph reported it would be introduced in the Queen’s Speech in June but it is understood this might not be the case as it would not require a separate piece of legislation – it could instead be added on to an existing bill.
Action for Children’s chief executive, Sir Tony Hawkhead, said the change would be a “monumental step forward for thousands of children”.
‘Terrorising a child’
Robert Buckland, a Conservative MP who has backed the charity’s campaign, said the current law was outdated, having been based largely on legislation first introduced 150 years ago,
“This proposal is not about widening the net, it’s about making the net stronger so that we catch those parents and carers who are quite clearly inflicting significant harm”. Robert BucklandConservative MP
He said non-physical abuse could cause “significant harm” to children.
“You can look at a range of behaviours, from ignoring a child’s presence, failing to stimulate a child, right through to acts of in fact terrorising a child where the child is frightened to disclose what is happening to them,” Mr Buckland told BBC Radio 5 live.
“Isolating them, belittling them, rejecting them, corrupting them, as well, into criminal or anti-social behaviour.”
He said the new law would not criminalise parents for being nasty, but for their criminal behaviour.
“This proposal is not about widening the net, it’s about making the net stronger so that we catch those parents and carers who are quite clearly inflicting significant harm on their children, whereas they should be nurturing them and loving them,” Mr Buckland said.
He added that it would also give police a “clearer way” in which to work, he said.
The campaign was also backed by Liberal Democrat MP Mark Williams, who introduced a private member’s bill on the issue last year, the late Labour MP Paul Goggins and Baroness Butler-Sloss, a former judge who was president of the family division of the High Court.
The Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 provides for the punishment of a person who treats a child “in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement)”.
Mr Williams’s bill would add a further category of harm for which the perpetrator could be punished: impairment of “physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”.
Child neglect was made a punishable offence by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1868.
The Ministry of Justice said it was “considering ways the law can support” protecting children from harm.
A spokesman said protecting children from harm was “fundamental” and that child cruelty was an “abhorrent crime which should be punished”.
Posted on March 31st, 2014
The current climate of offering experienced locum Social Workers higher hourly rates with Local Authorities automatically allocating increasingly unmanageable case loads in order to get their money’s worth is once again going to lead safe guarding into another crisis.
Offering higher rates of pay will attract the more qualified and experienced Social Workers but they do have their limits; whilst it may be the case that they can take on the more complex cases and work them with less hands on supervisory and management oversight this does not mean they can work any faster or that they have any more working hours in the day than everyone else. Increasing the numbers of allocated complex and challenging cases just overwhelms the experienced Social Workers who then decide it is time to move on because it is no longer safe for the children or themselves to stay.
Currently this cycle shows no signs of breaking and it is just a matter of time before safe guarding lurches into its next crisis.
Posted on March 10th, 2014
Posted on February 26th, 2014