Skip to main content

Written Parliamentary Questions: 21st February 2007

Foster Care: Safety

Q:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will review the guidance on how many babies each foster (a) carer and (b) household is permitted to look after with a view to making an assessment of whether the safety of such infants is at increased risk in foster households caring for multiple infants and babies.

A:The Children Act 1989 does not allow a carer to foster more than three children unless the children concerned are siblings or an exemption has been made by the local authority in whose area the carer lives. This "usual fostering limit" applies regardless of the child's age. Volume 3 of the statutory guidance which accompanies the Act highlights the number of children who may be placed as an important factor in placement decisions. The guidance stresses the importance of considering the interests of each child, in cases where more than one child is to be placed, as well as the needs of the carer's own children.

The Government are committed to reviewing the statutory guidance and this review will need to take account of issues arising from the recent Care Matters Green Paper. However, detailed decisions about the content of the revised guidance have not yet been taken.
(Parmjit Dhanda, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills)

Child Protection

Q:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will ask local authorities to take steps to identify child protection cases to which they have been party since 1997 where requests for medical records were made by any party to the case of Gene Morrison, and to report to him any such cases.


A:Child protection cases are the responsibility of local authorities and the Government would not usually intervene in these matters. (Parmjit Dhanda, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…