Showing posts with label Social Work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Work. Show all posts

Monday, August 22, 2011

CAFCASS: The Law About Children - CARE

Care: The Starting Point

When a local authority makes an application for an order to safeguard the welfare of a child the cases are usually referred to as public law cases. There are a number of different orders that a local authority can apply for but the most common are care orders, supervision orders, emergency protection orders and secure accommodation orders.

In these proceedings, the child is automatically a party and is represented by a Children's Guardian appointed by Cafcass. The Children's Guardian is an independent person who is there to promote the child's welfare and ensure that the arrangements made for the child are in his or her best interests. The guardian appoints a solicitor to act for the child. Occasionally the child and guardian will not agree on what is in the child's interests and if the solicitor decides that the child is of sufficient age and understanding they will be able to instruct the solicitor.

Public funding (legal aid) is usually available for the parents to be represented in these proceedings.

The Welfare Checklist - section 1 Children Act 1989
When a court is considering making any of these orders it must have regard in particular to:
a) The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in light of his age and understanding);
b) His physical, emotional and / or educational needs;
c) The likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
d) His age, sex, background and any characteristics of his, which the court considers relevant;
e) Any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
f) How capable each of his parents and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;
g) The range of powers available to the court under the Children Act 1989 in the proceedings in question.
For all proceedings under the Children Act 1989 when the court considers a question of the child's upbringing the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration.

These orders are obtained from the court to ensure the short term safety of a child. Any person can make an application including a local authority or other authorised body. The court will only make the order if they are satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if:
1) he is not removed to accommodation provided by the local authority or
2) he does not remain in the place where he is currently being accommodated e.g. in hospital.
A local authority has to show that their enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 are being frustrated and access to the child is required urgently. An authorised person, which includes an officer of the NSPCC, will have to show the same urgency in a situation where their enquiries are being frustrated.
In exceptional circumstances a local authority can apply for an EPO without notice to the parents.
In circumstances where the applicant believes that the child will be safe in the interim period, an application for an EPO will be made on notice to the parents. This gives them an opportunity to come to the court and advise the court of their views and plans to safeguard the child. When the court makes an EPO, the court can also make an exclusion requirement under s44 A where:
a) there is reasonable cause to believe that if a person is excluded from the home, the child will cease to suffer or cease to be likely to suffer significant harm and
b) another person living in the home is able and willing to give the child the care which it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him and consents to the exclusion.
The exclusion order may require a person to leave the home where he is living with the child, prevent him from entering the home or exclude him from a defined area. A power of arrest may be added to the order.
An emergency protection order is only a short order granted for up to a maximum of 8 days but can be extended for a further seven days. The order grants the applicant parental responsibility but only permits him to take such action as is reasonably required to safeguard the welfare of the child.
The court can give directions it considers appropriate with respect to the contact the child is to have with any named person or any medical or psychiatric examination or assessment of the child under S44 (6). If the child is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision he may refuse to submit to the examination or other assessments.

Care Orders - section 31 Children Act 1989
These orders are usually sought by a local authority (although the NSPCC can bring proceedings it is extremely rare for them to do so) in respect of children who they believe are suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm and:
a) the harm is attributable to the care being given to the child not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him or
b) that the child is beyond parental control.
No care or supervision order may be made with respect to a child who has reached the age of 17 (or 16 if the child is married).
Care orders continue until the child is 18 years, unless discharged earlier. Once a local authority has made an application for a care order the court can make a series of interim orders under s38 which gives the local authority parental responsibility and the power to remove the child from home. Further investigations and assessments are carried out before any final orders are made by the court.
While a care order is in force with respect to a child, the local authority designated by the order shall:
a) have parental responsibility for the child;
b) have the power to determine the extent to which a parent or guardian of the child may meet his parental responsibility for him.
The local authority can make decisions as to where the child will live and with whom, and how the child will have contact with named people.
There is a positive duty on the local authority to allow reasonable contact between a child in care and their parents. What is reasonable is sometimes in dispute and in those circumstances, the court can be asked to make specific directions about how and when contact should occur.
If the local authority want to suspend or stop contact for a period longer than seven days they need to obtain a court order to do so. If there is a dispute between the local authority and parents about contact, either party can seek a court order to define contact. If the local authority believe that there should be no contact between the child and his parent / guardian the court can make an order authorising the local authority to refuse to allow any contact.
Sometimes children who are the subject of care orders will remain at home being cared for by their parents, however it is more usual for children who are the subject of care orders to live with foster carers or in residential establishments.
Although the local authority has parental responsibility there are some decisions which require everyone with parental responsibility to agree including:
1) agreeing for the child to be adopted;
2) causing the child to be brought up in any religious persuasion other than that which they would have been brought up if the care order had not been made;
3) allowing the child to live outside the UK for more than 28 days
If agreement cannot be reached then the court can make an order.
Where the plans for the child are for adoption or to live outside England or Wales, further court orders specifically permitting this are required. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 and supporting regulations require local authorities to give early consideration to applying for a placement order or obtaining the consent of birth parents to placement.
Children who are the subject of care orders are the subject of regular reviews by the local authority. Each child will have an individual care plan that sets out how all their needs will be met. These reviews will consider amongst other things the arrangements for contact with the family and others, as well as the child's health and educational needs. All local authorities must appoint Independent Reviewing Officers who must work to ensure compliance with care plans. The local authority has responsibilities to ensure that plans are made and preparations in place before the child is 18, to enable the child to make the transition to independence, and the local authority continues to have duties towards the child until they are 23 years old.

Supervision Orders - section 31 Children Act 1989
These orders are made on the same basis as care orders i.e. that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.
These orders do not confer parental responsibility on the local authority, but when there is a supervision order in force it is the duty of the supervisor to:
1) advise, assist and befriend the supervised child
2) take steps that are reasonably necessary to give effect to the order and
3) where the order is not wholly complied with or the supervisor considers that the order is no longer necessary, to consider whether or not to apply to the court to vary or discharge the order.
A supervision order may require the supervised child to comply with directions given by the supervisor to do things such as:
1) live at a place specified by the supervisor;
2) present themselves to specific people at specific places or times e.g. to meet with the social worker;
3) to participate in activities specified on certain days.
A supervision order can also require the child to submit to medical or psychiatric examination as directed by the supervisor. This requirement will only be included where the court has been satisfied on evidence as to its need.
Initially a supervision order lasts for one year. The supervisor can apply to the court to extend supervision order, but the supervision order can only be in place for a maximum of three years.

Secure Accommodation Orders - section 25 Children Act 1989
These orders permit a local authority to place a child in secure accommodation.
The court can make a secure accommodation order where:
a) A young person has a history of running away, is likely to run away from any other kind of accommodation and if he runs away is likely to suffer significant harm; or
b) If the young person is not kept in secure accommodation he is likely to injure himself or other people.
A secure accommodation order can only be made with respect to a looked after child: if they are not subject to a care order an order can only be made for a child who is under 16 years, if the child is subject to a care order they can be placed in secure accommodation until the age of 18 years. Children under 13 can only be kept in secure accommodation with the consent of the Secretary of State.
The court's authority is not required for the first 72 hours that a child is placed in secure accommodation. However if the local authority believes that the child needs to be in secure accommodation for longer, an application must be made to the court. The court cannot make the order unless the child is legally represented in court.
The court can make a secure accommodation order for up to three months on the first application, and then for periods of up to six months on subsequent application. However, where the child is on remand to the local authority from a criminal court having been charged with a criminal offence, different rules apply.
Regardless of the length of the court order, if during the course of the order the child no longer meets the criteria for an order, the local authority must remove the child from secure accommodation.
The local authority must make arrangements for contact between the child and their parents, or seek a court order to suspend or stop contact if they believe that it is not in the child's interest for contact to take place.
There will be regular reviews of the care plan for the child and to monitor the child's progress whilst in the secure setting. These reviews should also consider the future plans for the child, once they have left the secure setting. Whilst in the accommodation the child must receive education.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

PAC reports Cafcass 'not fit for purpose'

[London Evening Standard November 11, 2010]

The body responsible for looking after the interests of vulnerable children in the family courts was exposed as "not fit for purpose" in the wake of a large rise in cases following the Baby P tragedy, MPs said today.
Tragic: Baby P - Abused & Torchured until death




Children suffered as the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) "failed to get to grips with fundamental weaknesses in its culture, management and performance" following a 34% increase in its caseload, leading to "chaos across the family justice system".
"These problems have been to the detriment of children", the report by the Commons' Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found.
Margaret Hodge, the committee's chairwoman, said: "Cafcass was ill-prepared for the very large increase in care cases in 2009-10 which followed the Baby Peter tragedy and caused chaos in the family justice system.
"This lack of readiness was a direct result of the organisation's continued failure to get to grips with the fundamental weaknesses in its culture, management and performance.
"It is still dealing with a legacy of low morale, unacceptably high levels of sickness absence and under-performance by some staff."
Baby P, now named as Peter Connelly, was 17 months old when he died in Tottenham, north London, at the hands of his mother Tracey Connelly, her violent partner Steven Barker and his brother, Jason Owen, in August 2007.
He suffered more than 50 injuries despite receiving 60 visits from social workers, doctors and police over an eight-month period.
Children and Family Court Advisory Support Services
The case prompted a 34% rise in cases for Cafcass in 2009/10, the MPs found, and the body was only able to respond to the demand through the use of measures "which allowed it to do less work or to delay work on cases".
"Cafcass, as an organisation, is not fit for purpose", the committee said.
While the specific impact of the Baby Peter tragedy was "hard to predict", the possibility of a sustained increase in cases "was a scenario that Cafcass should have planned for".
But "Cafcass did not see the crisis coming, nor did it have a contingency plan in the event of a significant increase in demand", the committee said.
Cafcass has also taken "too long to secure essential changes, and much of the responsibility lies with top management".
"It is shocking that Cafcass has not previously collected all the information it needs to manage its workload more effectively," the committee said.
Low compliance by staff with important requirements was "a persistent problem" which undermined the body's efforts to improve, the MPs added.
There was also a risk that the number of unallocated cases could return to the "unacceptable levels seen in summer 2009".
Cafcass was still not providing a timely service, eight out of 10 Cafcass areas failed Ofsted inspections, and the committee "does not share the Department for Education's confidence that all will be well by 2011", Mrs Hodge said.
"The failure to provide an effective service cannot be blamed solely on the rise in public care cases since 2008," she said.
"Top management must demonstrate and exercise strong and vigorous leadership if Cafcass is to meet the challenges it faces."
The report added: "Cafcass also faces the challenge of dealing with the relentless rise in open cases that is putting pressure on all organisations working in the family justice system.
"Renewed energy and vigour are needed to sort this situation out if Cafcass is to become the world-class organisation it aspires to be."
Cafcass took an average of 27 days to fully allocate a care case to a family court adviser, down from up to 40 days between September 2009 and June 2010, but "still well above what it should be", the report found.
It added that data which Cafcass holds on cases centrally "contains inaccuracies".
And sickness absence was "unacceptably high", with an average of 11.6 days per staff member in 2009-10 and 16.1 days for family court advisers, compared with the public sector average of 8.3 days in 2009.
Cafcass said it had taken "robust action" to improve the service.
Chief executive Anthony Douglas said: "We will take heed of the PAC findings, and we will continue to defend the interests of the 140,000 children who we work with each year, each of whose cases is unique and many of whose lives we improve as a direct result of our involvement."
He went on: "Cafcass is fit for purpose because we have absorbed a massive number of new cases in the last 12 months and have improved our productivity by 17%, which is a performance any organisation would be proud of.
"We have improved on every measure considered by the PAC and the National Audit Office, including falling staff sickness, faster filing times of court reports and quicker allocation of cases."

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Social Workers " ARROGANT REMOVERS OF CHILDREN"

Joseph StalinImage via WikipediaSocial workers were 'enthusiastic removers of children'

By Richard Garner, Education Editor

Tuesday, 13 April  2010


A leading judge accused social workers of appearing 'arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children' for the way they went about permanently removing children from their mothers.
Lord Justice Wall, who will be sworn in today as president of the Family Division of the High Court in London, was referring to two specific cases. One involved Devon County Council, which did not give a mother a last chance to prove her baby was safe with her. The other was in the London borough of Greenwich, whose social workers did not support a woman in her fight to regain custody of her two children, who were in care.
Sitting with him in the Devon case, Lord Justice Aikens said the way Devon County Council acted gave an impression "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the west of England". And Lord Justice Hall said the Greenwich case would do little to correct the perception that social workers were "arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children into an unsatisfactory care system – trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process".
However, he accepted that social workers were "damned if they do and damned if they don't" following the case of baby Peter Connelly, in which staff at Haringey Council in north London were condemned for failing to act on signs that the 17-month-old was being abused. Peter, who was on the child protection register, died in 2007 from injuries including a broken back.
Lord Justice Wall said the legal duty of social workers involved in care proceedings was plain and "their aim should be to unite families rather than separate them". He said that when he heard the Devon and Greenwich cases at the appeal court, he granted each mother more time to show they could parent their children safely. In the Devon case, the council said the mother had a propensity to form relationships with potentially dangerous individuals extremely quickly, putting herself and her baby at risk – an argument that the judge called "pretty unattractive".
The Greenwich woman's son, aged five, and daughter, two, were taken into care after the girl's arm was broken in three places. Lord Justice Wall noted that the mother had since separated from her partner despite being denied help from the authority "to break free from an abusive relationship
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, January 16, 2011

MOTHER FALLS & LOSES CHILD - Reports Christopher Booker TELEGRAPH

Christopher Booker Writes:
A mother's fall causes her to lose her child     By Christopher Booker 7:12PM GMT 15 Jan 2011
A woman who was temporarily paralysed in a fall had her baby taken into care while she lay in hospital, writes Christopher Booker
Anne Gedde




In recent months, I have reported on many disturbing examples of how our system of “family protection” has gone horribly off the rails, but none is more bizarre than this week’s. As usual, I am legally barred from identifying the mother at the centre of this case or giving many other details, but she is in her mid-thirties, has various academic qualifications and some time back returned to England after 10 years working in America. There, among other things, she had worked as a counsellor in Guantanamo Bay, but what she saw there led her to start a new career as a financial adviser.

In September 2009, after a difficult pregnancy, she gave birth to a daughter, by an old friend with whom marriage was not possible. Two months later, she was sitting on her mother’s windowsill, dressed in a coat and hat ready to go out, when she fell, snatching at a curtain in a vain attempt to save herself.

She woke up in hospital, paralysed from the neck down. Soon afterwards, a nurse handed her a phone. It was a social worker from the local council, to tell her that her daughter – who was being looked after by her sister – was to be placed in care and put up for adoption within six weeks. “I was so paralysed,” she says, “that I couldn’t wipe the tears from my eyes.”

Because she was very fit (having been something of a star athlete), she made a miraculously quick recovery, and was discharged from hospital – after a psychological evaluation which confirmed that her fall was accidental and that she posed no risk to herself or anyone else. Still, in January last year the social workers applied for an interim care order. She was told that this was because her baby was at “potential risk of harm” due to her “suicide attempt”, and that she was in a “violent relationship” – whereas there had been no man in her life for over a year.

The interim order was issued, as is routine, but the social workers were told to produce evidence for their case, and the baby was allowed to remain with the mother’s sister’s family. The mother was given a hair-strand test which, she was startled to be told, showed “traces of cocaine” and “chronic excessive drinking”, though she rarely drinks, and a re-test for cocaine was negative.

In March, another hearing was cancelled because the council’s documentation was not yet available. In April, a case management conference was cancelled because the local authority was “not prepared”. Another hearing was adjourned in May because the council’s paperwork was incomplete, and in June it was cancelled, for the same reason.

The baby was still in the care of her aunt and the mother was allowed regular visits, in the presence of a “contact supervisor”, who was impressed by the happy bonding of mother and daughter. This supervisor was invited by the mother to attend a Family Group Conference, which looked at a pile of her reports provided by the social workers. When the mother queried some of the documents’ dates, particularly one or two which were critical of her, the supervisor insisted, to general surprise, that they weren’t written by her. The social workers were asked to look into how the notes had been “edited” – but the supervisor was suspended from the case and has subsequently been given little work by the council.

In August, an order was made that the baby should be put into foster care, and that no family members other than the mother should see her. (The aunt’s young daughter, who had come to look on the baby as her own little sister, was heartbroken.) In September, the baby was placed in a foster home 35 miles away (making regular visits extremely taxing). A new contact supervisor, however, remained positive about the mother-baby relationship.

In October, an Issue Resolution Hearing was cancelled at short notice when the council’s legal team said it had not been supplied with necessary documents. In December another hearing was cancelled for the same reason. The magistrates then said they wanted the case sent to a county court.

It now seems the next hearing will be in May, 18 months after mother and child were parted. Fortunately, the mother is a bright, determined and organised woman, whose child is the centre of her life. Otherwise, subjected to such treatment, like many parents before her she might long since have cracked.

Lenght of stay in U.S. foster careImage via Wikipedia
Average time in Care USA
 
Link To Article Directly:


 Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

De-Licious

Popular Posts

Bringing Home Baby... RSS Recent Posts

Shared Items via Google Reader

I am Multiplying