header-logo header-logo

2,500% fees hike could put children at risk

06 March 2008
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Family
printer mail-detail

News

Vulnerable children could be exposed to serious risk by government plans to hike court fees for care proceedings, family law experts warn. The government proposes raising the fees for care proceedings by 2,500%, from £150 to £4,000, in its December consultation, Public Law Family Fees. Local authorities will be allocated an extra £40m to account for this.

However, the funding will not be ring-fenced. The NSPCC and the Law Society say this means financial considerations could deter local authorities from issuing care proceedings in favour of lower-cost strategies where the child is not represented. This could involve giving parents a second chance in cases of neglect, or encouraging them to agree to the child being voluntarily accommodated temporarily instead of issuing proceedings.

Andrew Holroyd, president of the Law Society, expresses his concern: “This rise could effectively price children involved in care disputes out of court, and deny them the right to justice they need.

“Rather than court proceedings being issued, it is likely that compromises will be reached that are influenced more by financial considerations than what is best for these vulnerable children, leaving them at risk and without a voice.” He says the interests of children are in danger of being made a secondary factor under these plans when they should be central. “The Law Society will be working with the NSPCC to ensure that these concerns are expressed in the consultation process,” he says. NSPCC director and chief executive Dame Mary Marsh comments: “There is a real and serious risk that vulnerable children and their families will be prevented from having full access to justice if these proposals are implemented because some decisions about taking proceedings in relation to vulnerable children could be finance led.”

The Public Law Family Fees consultation period continues until 11 March.

Issue: 7311 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll