header-logo header-logo

The cost of child protection

20 November 2008
Issue: 7346 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll