The case of Baby P and the death of two children in Manchester last week have highlighted a growing crisis in child welfare in England and Wales.
The Government stands behind slogans such as ‘every child matters’ and claims to have child protection at the top of its list of priorities. However, as one prominent child care solicitor points out, despite the familiar list of initiatives rolled out by politicians, the truth is depressingly different.
Mike Devlin is managing partner of the family department at leading North West law firm, Stephensons Solicitors LLP. The firm’s 35-strong family team has a very busy practice representing parents, children, local authorities and other interested parties in care proceedings, adoption cases, residence and contact disputes and applications in wardship and the exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court.
He said: “Red tape is putting the most vulnerable children in society at greater risk. Take care proceedings as an example. The legal framework provides that a local authority has certain statutory duties which include:
- ‘To safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need’, and
- ‘So far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families’.
“There is an immediate and obvious tension between those two statements. What does the local authority do if remaining with the family is no longer consistent with its duty to safeguard a child?
“The act provides guidance not only in setting out the legal criteria justifying the removal of a child into local authority care but further guidance in telling the courts and the parties how to apply those criteria in practice. A major problem exists at the moment because these decisions are not being taken by Courts. For political reasons the decisions are made in house by social workers.”
So what went wrong?
“As in most cases where there is a conflict between the needs of individuals and political decisions, the problem is in the politics.
“Care proceedings are expensive. The parties’ costs are funded by the state. The Government wanted to reduce the number and complexity of cases and set about doing so through a number of initiatives.
“The Government introduced fees which meant that cash strapped local authorities now have to pay up to £4,800 to bring proceedings to protect a vulnerable child. In addition before the proceedings can start, local authorities and social workers have to generate a mountain of paperwork to support every application in order to comply with the legal protocols. These two initiatives are a serious disincentive.
“The Government has reviewed local authorities against set criteria, one of which is the number of Looked After Children ie: children in care. Authorities with too many Looked After Children per capita are penalised financially. As a result local authorities have changed behaviour and children on care orders are being discharged from care.
“Children who are vulnerable and who in the past would have been removed from their parents under care proceedings are dealt with under ‘child protection plans’ and ‘children in need conferences’ – in fact anything short of being taken into care. This pattern is taking place across the country and represents a scandalous disregard of the welfare of children and a flagrant contempt of the principles established in the Children Act 1989.
“The Act provides safeguards and a right of representation for all parties including the children concerned.
“In a case like Baby P, if the local authority had presented the facts before the court, the mother (an inadequate 27-year-old) and the child would have had their own independent legal representation. The child and the mother would have benefited from independent social work, medical and in the mother’s case probably psychological assessments upon which a court would have reached an informed decision. Baby P is one tragic case which must have social workers and local authority solicitors up and down the country terrified that today or tomorrow it could be one of their cases dominating the newsrooms.
“Politicians and pundits are calling for enquiries and initiatives. Social workers, lawyers and other professionals working in this field know that there will always be occasional unavoidable tragedies. Equally they know that because of politically influenced ‘initiatives’ there are many more children avoidably at risk. The fact of the matter is that politicians say one thing and do another. Orwell called it doublespeak. Think of that when you next read a Government slogan like ‘Every Child Matters’.
“Cases like Baby P can and should be brought before a court. Life and death decisions should not depend on satisfying Government targets. Child welfare should be given its true priority in our society and social welfare professionals allowed the time and resources to work directly with families as opposed to filling out forms back in the office. If it is the right thing to do, local authorities should be able to apply for a child to be removed into care without fear of the cost of so doing either in the form of extortionate court fees or financial penalties.”