header-logo header-logo

09 October 2008
Issue: 7340 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Families at risk in full cost recovery

Family lawyers cite financial disincentives for issuing child protection orders

The government’s implementation of full cost recovery in the family courts has put care proceedings at risk by providing local authorities with a financial disincentive to issue child protection orders.

In May 2008 the government introduced increases in the cost of issuing care proceedings (that proceed to a final hearing) by more than 2,500%, from £150 to £4,825. The sharp increase in the cost of issuing proceedings has in turn led to a decrease in the number of applications for child protection orders by local authorities.

Lucy Theis QC, chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, says that because funds made available to local authorities in the form of central government grants have not been ring-fenced, the welfare of children is at risk.

“The purpose of care proceedings is to ensure the welfare of children suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm is safeguarded and promoted by the state. These safeguards are put at risk as the changes provide a direct financial disincentive to local authorities to issue proceedings and remove the structure of protection that are provided within court proceedings,” she says.

Theis says the government’s proposed cuts of £12m from the budget that pays for representation by barrister in family cases will add additional suffering to those involved. “It is the parents and children with no voice who will be left with either no representation or no experienced representation, when the state wants to take their children into care. It is that stark,” she says.

She continues: “In targeting vulnerable children and families with these latest planned cuts at a time when robust legal representation is most needed, the government will deny justice to those who otherwise have no effective voice in the system.”

Issue: 7340 / 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

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll