header-logo header-logo

09 October 2008
Issue: 7340 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Families at risk in full cost recovery

Family lawyers cite financial disincentives for issuing child protection orders

The government’s implementation of full cost recovery in the family courts has put care proceedings at risk by providing local authorities with a financial disincentive to issue child protection orders.

In May 2008 the government introduced increases in the cost of issuing care proceedings (that proceed to a final hearing) by more than 2,500%, from £150 to £4,825. The sharp increase in the cost of issuing proceedings has in turn led to a decrease in the number of applications for child protection orders by local authorities.

Lucy Theis QC, chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, says that because funds made available to local authorities in the form of central government grants have not been ring-fenced, the welfare of children is at risk.

“The purpose of care proceedings is to ensure the welfare of children suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm is safeguarded and promoted by the state. These safeguards are put at risk as the changes provide a direct financial disincentive to local authorities to issue proceedings and remove the structure of protection that are provided within court proceedings,” she says.

Theis says the government’s proposed cuts of £12m from the budget that pays for representation by barrister in family cases will add additional suffering to those involved. “It is the parents and children with no voice who will be left with either no representation or no experienced representation, when the state wants to take their children into care. It is that stark,” she says.

She continues: “In targeting vulnerable children and families with these latest planned cuts at a time when robust legal representation is most needed, the government will deny justice to those who otherwise have no effective voice in the system.”

Issue: 7340 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll