Skip to main content

"In effect a last resort"

It is interesting to note in Peter Jackson's judgment here the following:
(2) In this Court there is no disagreement in relation to legal matters. With the advantage of the decision of the Supreme Court published only yesterday in the matter of Re B (A child) [2013] UKSC 33 it is clearly understood that an order of the kind that was made in this case can only be made where it is necessary and proportionate and in effect as a last resort in meeting the needs of the child concerned. Further, when considering arguments about the manner in which the trial judge approached matters, the question that the appeal court must ask itself is whether the judge was wrong. What is interesting about the Supreme Court decision is that it lowers the threshold for challenging adoptions through appeal from "plainly wrong" to "wrong". Although anyone who has studied any substantial number of care proceedings knows that adoption is not "a last resort", but the preferred option for local authorities for children who are of an age that can result in an adoption. I have the 2012 figures (that is to 31st March 2012) for Infants (children under 5).
Of the 5,800 children who left care 2,300 were adopted, 500 were subject to a residency order and 870 a special guardianship order. Only 1,100 returned home. 380 left care for "another reason". (10 died and 60 transferred to another LA).
What do we learn from this. We learn that less than a fifth of children that leave care under 5 go home. It is important to note that an interim care order is granted only on "reasonable grounds" not actually proof. Care is defined on the narrow ground of children compulsorily in care rather than including children on S20.

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

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…