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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
back-to-top-scroll