header-logo header-logo

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

2,500% fees hike could put children at risk

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll