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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll