header-logo header-logo

20 November 2008
Issue: 7346 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

The cost of child protection

Case of Baby P highlights fl aws in the care system

Large increases to application fees could discourage some local authorities making applications to court in child protection cases, hindering attempts to protect vulnerable children like Baby P, lawyers claim.

From 1 May this year, the fee paid by a local authority to go to court to protect a child at risk from abuse rose from £150 to £5,225 for a fully contested court case.

In the Old Bailey last week, two men and a woman were convicted of causing or allowing the death of 17- month-old Baby P, who died after a sustained period of abuse. An inquiry into the circumstances leading to P’s death has been launched.

Noel Arnold, deputy head of the children law department at Fisher Meredith LLP, says that recent changes to how children’s services operate may also put the safety of some children at risk. “Children’s services must make robust decisions and, where safeguarding concerns are significant or grave, the relevant application to court should be made. That might be to share parental responsibility of the child with those who already hold it or to be able to remove the child from the home,” he says.

Arnold continues: “There is widespread concern that changes in procedure and guidance as well as the massive increase in the court application fee payable by children’s services may be discouraging some local authorities from making applications to court.”

However, Arnold believes that despite the tragic circumstances of Baby P’s case, the urge to routinely remove children from their families at an earlier stage should be resisted: “Any steps in this direction should be made with caution as children in the care system fare worse on nearly every indicator used to measure outcomes for children.”

Issue: 7346 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll