Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Children and young people | Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

The Children's Legal Centre

Free factsheets and FAQs

All of the guides on this page are free, but we have has also produced a wide range of more detailed publications which are available to purchase from our online shop.

If you can't find the answer you're looking for, why not try our glossary or contact one of our free legal helplines. If you are a young person in need of information, check out our sister website or try our free bilingual guides or videos. Click on the topics below to read our FAQs or download our legal guides on:

Check out our free publications:

If you still haven't found the answer you're looking for, try the Migrant Children's Project, or contact one of our free helplines.

http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/Legal+Advice/Factsheets+and+FAQs.htm

Working together to safeguard Children - PDF file

Click here for Working Together to Safeguard Children.pdf

HM Government PDF document:
"Safeguard Children"
A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare
of children.

Brought by DFE [then DCSF] March 2010

Cafcass: from 'not fit for purpose' to 'beyond reform' IAC Claims

Over recent Months I have posted a variety of articles, from News, Media & independent sites, on British Social Care standards. It might not be shocking to read about the Local Authority and their failings; but may [or may not] come as a surprise to read that Cafcass, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, has been deemed “beyond reform and must be abolished"

It was only November 11, 201 that the London Evening Standard

reported PAC findings of Cafcass being “not fit for purpose“ [see the link at the end of myblog] Now, upon a further, more in depth review, the future of Cafcass is no more.

The following article has been taken from a site, for everyone in Social Care, CommunityCare.co.uk. Camila Pemberton reports on the findings of the most recent deposition, held earlier last week.

Thank you for visiting this page, Michelle “My*Angel” Anthony

* I will be reposting my articles on Cafcass from recent months that are in relation to this matter

Cafcass is ‘beyond reform’ and must be abolished

Reports Camilla Pemberton [CommunityCare.co.uk] Friday 25 March 2011 12:00

Family courts body Cafcass is now “beyond reform” and should be abolished, a committee of MPs was told this week.

Read more below or click on the link at the end of this post for direct access to the original article:

Appearing before the Justice Select Committee, Martha Cover, respresenting the Interdisciplinary Alliance for Children – a group of 18 organisations, including Nagalro and the Association of Lawyers for Children – told MPs: “We have considered the possibility of reform rather than abolition, but we have come to the conclusion that [Cafcass' inability] to change to meet the concerns of the other partners in the family justice system is such that we simply have to start again.”

From 'Unfit for Purpose' to 'Beyond Reform'

Cover blamed Cafcass’s “overly centralised service and top heavy, hierarchical managerial structure”, which she claimed does not sufficiently value the independence and autonomy of family court guardians and family court reporters”.

“It is also an extremely expensive model to deliver,” she added, before revealing an alternative model to Cafcass, put forward by the Alliance, which MPs were told could deliver a better service, at reduced costs, by “removing huge layers of management”.

She described the alternative model as high trust professionals working in consortia, of 40 or 50 people, inked to the local care centres.

“We simply do not accept that the various strata of management and indeed the ideology of Cafcass are necessary for these types of professional people.”

She claimed 46% of Cafcass staff, based in local offices, were not frontline practitioners.

MPs questioned Cover on the viability of the new model and the risk of stripping away layers of management, asking her why Cafcass could not be reformed. She replied: “We’ve thought about ‘Cafcass lite’ or ‘the organisation formally known as Cafcass’, but we fear the culture and management ethos is so damaged that [it is not possible].”

The Alliance’s recommendations come just ahead of the Family Justice Review, which is due to publish its interim report next week. There has been widespread speculation about how the Review will impact upon Cafcass’ future.

Anthony Douglas, chief executive of Cafcass, defended the organisation’s performance before the committee. “We deal with 140,000 children every year – about the largest number of children any single organisation is dealing with. This is very difficult work and often child protection work is not done that well…in local authorities or across the board.

“Our performance, compared with a year ago, has improved considerably. One year ago we had over 1,000 unallocated cases…we now have just 7. We are providing a good service to the vast majority of children…we are fit for purpose.”

A Cafcass spokesperson also refuted the Alliance’s claims. “Over 90 per cent of our staff in local offices are frontline staff, delivering a direct service to children and families. Within our existing budget we’ve absorbed a massive increase in cases, with productivity up 12%.”

Cafcass actually "cafcan't" after IAC declares them beyond repair

The spokesperson claimed Cafcass had a lean management structure but said the organisation also recognised that practitioners working on complex cases needed access to experienced managers with whom they could discuss cases and get support.

“All agencies, and not just Cafcass continue to be under pressure and we look forward to the recommendations of the Family Justice Review which will be looking at how the system as a whole, and not just the vital work Cafcass undertakes, can be improved for families and their children,” the spokesperson said.

* click on the link below for the original article by Pemberton

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/03/25/116540/mps-told-cafcass-is-beyond-reform-and-must-be-abolished.htm

Related articles

Family justice findings will accompany Munro report

Family justice review chair David Norgrove: ‘we can’t go on like this’

Social services took my children (telegraph.co.uk)
Safeguarding (alisonsgypt.wordpress.com)
MPs: Child welfare body not fit for purpose after Baby P (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)

http://michellelanthony.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/cafcass-from-not-fit-for-purpose-to-beyond-reform-must-be-abolished/

Children and young people | Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Link

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."

Friday, March 25, 2011

A mother's fall causes her to lose her child - Telegraph

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Mother speaks out against Injustice

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

BBC News - Ofsted concern as 10 councils' child safety inadequate

Ofsted concern as 10 councils' child safety inadequate

Pressure on child protection services has risen in recent years

Ofsted has said there is "real cause for concern" as 10 local authorities have been found to be inadequate in safeguarding children this year.

The education watchdog in England said in too many cases action to protect young people at risk was not "timely".

It said children's social care services remain under pressure as demand rises.

The authorities deemed inadequate were Cornwall, Warrington, Leeds, Sandwell, Calderdale, Salford, Peterborough, Nottinghamshire, Birmingham and Essex.

The 10 authorities were identified out of a total of 29 that were inspected this year, although inspectors focused particularly on areas they were already concerned about.

Rising demand for child protection services has been boosted by a surge in referrals since the high profile death of baby Peter Connelly in 2007.

Problems 'deep'

In its annual report, published on Tuesday, Ofsted said referrals to children's social care services had risen 11% from March 2009 to March 2010, and councils were reporting a "marked increase" in the complexity of cases.

But chief inspector Christine Gilbert said there was a "huge difference" between local authorities in how they handled that pressure.

LAs 'INADEQUATE' ON CHILD SAFEGUARDING

Cornwall
Warrington
Leeds
Sandwell
Calderdale
Peterborough
Nottinghamshire
Salford
Birmingham
Essex

The report said that in many of the local authorities labelled inadequate, rising demand, poor planning and management led to "high caseloads, overuse of agency staff, turbulence in front-line teams, and the exposure of new and inexperienced staff to a volume and complexity of work that they struggled to deal with".

"The problems are deep," said Ms Gilbert, but noted that local authorities coulcd not "wave a magic wand" and the work needed to improve operations would take time.

A high proportion of these authorities also showed weaknesses in their secondary schools and provision for young people aged over 16, the report said.

However, Ofsted also found that the number of local authorities rated "excellent" across all their children's services has doubled, from 10 last year to 21 in 2010.

It also reported that there are now more outstanding children's homes, and fewer inadequate ones, than at any time since Ofsted began inspecting them in 2007.

20 Things You Need to Know - Parentalrights.org - Protecting Children by Empowering Parents

Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC:

It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.^1.

Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.^2.

Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.^3.

The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.^4.

The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.^5.

The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.^6.

Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.^7.

A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.^8.

Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.^9.

Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.^10.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.^13.

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.^14.

A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.^15.

According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.^16.

Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.^17.

Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.^18.

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.^19.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.^20.

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.^11.

A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.^12.

NOTES:

-Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26 “Pacta sunt servanda”:
“Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”

United States Constitution, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

UNICEF “Convention on the Rights of the Child” says: “the Convention is a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations.” Available at http://www.unicef.org/crc/ on 12/2/2008.

-Vienna Convention Article 26 (supra);

United States Supreme Court, Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888): “By the Constitution of the United States, a treaty and a statute are placed on the same footing, and if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control, provided the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing.”

-Vienna Convention (supra) and Article 2 (g): “‘party’ means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force”

-United States Constitution, Article VI (supra, Note 1)

-Arlene Bowers Andrews, Implementing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 171 (Greenwood Publishing Group 1999): “The Convention is generally regarded as having two classes of rights for the purposes of self-execution, one class that is self-executing and one that is not self-executing."

-United States Supreme Court, Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. ___ (2008), at 170 L.Ed. 2d 190, 219, “And whether the treaties underlying a judgment are self-executing so that the judgment is directly enforceable as domestic law in our courts is, of course, a matter for this Court to decide.”

-Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights, Frequently Asked Questions on International Humanitarian, Human Rights, and Refugee Law, (2002), available at http://www.icva.ch/doc00001023.html#24:
“Human rights law also contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or progressively. States must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in the various treaties. This includes providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and ensuring that the remedy is effective. The fact that a state has a federal or devolved system of government does not affect a state's obligation to implement human rights law.”

United States Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957): “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.”

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 43 (amended) and 44. Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art43.

-Vienna Convention, Article 27: “ A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”

-Vienna Convention, Article 19, available at available at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.law.of.treaties.convention.1969/19.html; also

Louis Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, The American Journal of International Law, Vol 89 No 2, 343-344 (Apr. 1995):
“Reservations designed to reject any obligation to rise above existing law and practice are of dubious propriety: if states generally entered such reservations, the convention would be futile. The object and purpose of the human rights conventions, it would seem, are to promote respect for human rights by having countries—mutually—assume legal obligations to respect and ensure recognized rights in accordance with international standards. Even friends of the United States have objected that its reservations are incompatible with that object and purpose and are therefore invalid.
…By adhering to human rights conventions subject to these reservations, the United States, it is charged, is pretending to assume international obligations but in fact is undertaking nothing.”

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(a):
“No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age”

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8 (2006): The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia), CRC/C/GC/8, (2006):
“The Committee is issuing this general comment to highlight the obligation of all State parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment…. Addressing the widespread acceptance or tolerance of corporal punishment of children and eliminating it, in the family, schools and other settings, is … an obligation of State parties under the Convention.”

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(a), (supra)

-The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide for Children and Young People (April 2008), available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/01081649/1: “You have the right to choose your own religion and beliefs. Your parents should help you think about this.”

Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section B, University of London, 29-30 (2006):
“Unlike earlier treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not include a provision providing for parents to have their children educated in conformity with their parents’ beliefs. In addition, the child’s right to freedom of expression and the right of the parents to initially give direction and later only guidance, strengthens the argument that children are entitled to participate in decisions so that their education conforms to their own convictions.... The second question is whether a child has the right to choose a religion.
Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, parents do have the right to provide direction to the child. Such parental power, however, is subject to two restraints:
• First, such direction should take into account the evolving capacities of the child, as expressly required by the Convention.
• Second, the direction should not be so unyielding that it equals coercion.
It can also be argued that the right to freedom of religion in the Convention on the Rights of the Child ought to be read together with article 12 which gives the child the right to express his own views in the matter of choice of religion."

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3(1): “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section D, University of London, 46 (2006):
“Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child's or the parents', providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child. Thus, the Convention challenges the concept that family life is always in the best interests of children and that parents are always capable of deciding what is best for children.”

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12(1): “State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group: “Human rights law also contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or progressively. States must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in the various treaties. This includes providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and ensuring that the remedy is effective.”

Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section D, 137: “State parties are obliged to ‘assure’ to children who are capable of forming views the rights to express those views ‘in all matter affecting the child’ and to give those views’ due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’. By incorporating a reference to ‘all matters affecting the child’ there is no longer a traditional area of exclusive parental or family decision making.”

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 31(1): “States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.”

-American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law: Children's Rights in America: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared with United States Law, p. 182.

-Paragraph 52, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Ireland, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 43rd sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/IRL/CO/2 (2006):
“While noting that social, personal and health education is incorporated into the curricula of secondary schools, the Committee is concerned that adolescents have insufficient access to necessary information on reproductive health. The education is optional and parents can exempt their children.”

Paragraph 14, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 8th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.34 (1995).

-Katie Hatziavramidis, Parental Involvement Laws for Abortion in the United States and the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child: Can International Law Secure the Right to Choose for Minors?, 16 Tex. J. Women & L. 185, 202-203 (Spring 2007):
“The unmistakable trend in the United States is to consistently increase anti-choice legislation, particularly with respect to minors. Ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child by the United States holds a strong possibility of assisting minors who seek abortions without parental interference. [*203] The Convention may offer the best hope for securing adolescent reproductive freedoms on a global level. If enough diplomatic pressure were exerted on the United States to compel it to ratify the treaty, the CRC could provide significant improvements in the outlook for reproductive freedom for minors.”

Paragraph 3, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Columbia, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 42nd sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/COL/CO/3 (2006): “The Committee notes with appreciation…decisions of the Constitutional Court on…the partial decriminalization of abortion.”

Paragraph 55, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Chile, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 44th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/CHL/CO/3 (2007): “The Committee…is concerned over the high rate of teenage pregnancies, the criminalization of the termination of pregnancies in all circumstances….”

Pages

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Related articles

Cafcass is ‘beyond reform’ and must be abolished

Family courts body Cafcass is now “beyond reform” and should be abolished, a committee of MPs was told this week.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Related articles

Friday, March 25, 2011

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Ofsted concern as 10 councils' child safety inadequate

Related stories

LAs 'INADEQUATE' ON CHILD SAFEGUARDING

More on This Story

Related stories

Related Internet links

Saturday, March 05, 2011

De-Licious

Popular Posts

Bringing Home Baby... RSS Recent Posts

Shared Items via Google Reader

I am Multiplying

Contact us

Related information

Related external links

PDF Help

Followers

ShareThis

Yahoo! Share Count

FeedBurner FeedCount

OneTrueFan

FriendFeed badge

Apture