Showing posts with label Local government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local government. 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

Monday, April 18, 2011

Minister decries adoption 'age bar'
 


Tim Loughton says few children taken in care at five or older are placed with a family, due to 'informal age limit' by local authorities,  reports Ben Quinn [The Guardian] Monday April 18, 2011

    The minister responsible for fostering and adoption has registered concern that some local authorities operate "an informal age limit" whereby children were not considered for adoption if aged five or over when taken into care. Tim Loughton was commenting on analysis of previously published figures which show the proportion drops from one in three at four or younger to one in 15 at five. Among children aged 12 or older, only one in 100 is adopted after being taken into care, according to the Department for Education. Prospective adopters are sometimes thought to be reluctant to take on older children, who may have developmental or emotional problems as a result of more years of abuse or neglect. However, Loughton told the Times that older children should not be denied the possibility of adoption. "For kids who've had a pretty traumatic childhood, getting them into a safe, stable, loving family placement is of the utmost priority, and every day that we fail to achieve that puts them at even more of a disadvantage. "While many babies are being adopted, as children get to school age the chances of getting adopted fall off dramatically. We need urgently to redouble our efforts to show these children are even more needing and deserving of a long-term placement and should not be written off simply because they are not babies or toddlers. I want to make sure local authorities are not operating some sort of informal age limit." New guidelines already drawn up by the government state that older children and those from ethnic minorities should all be considered for adoption by suitable families of any background, regardless of their racial background or social status. Ministers are eager to see an increase in adoption levels after the number of children placed for adoption fell by 15% between March 2009 and 2010, while more children are also waiting longer to be adopted. Loughton is on record as saying previously that it was "disappointing" that some councils placed only two% of the children in their care for adoption, while the rate was eight times higher in other areas.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

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.”
Cafass logo
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 Banner Image
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

Related articles

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