The link is to a story from Australia where the Child Protection team got upset that a foster carer took a child to the doctor without their permission.
Generally it is accepted that the interests of the child are "paramount". What that means is that the child comes first.
The big question is what that means in practise. The various professionals argue the case that they are acting in the interests of the child and hence it means that people should do what they say.
What the evidence is quite clear about is that they have conflicts of interests in certain circumstances. Departmental and personal interests reign supreme in comparison to the children concerned.
The evidence in terms of "looked after" children (the new term for children in care) - sometimes converted to the acronym LACs - is that being "cared for" by the system on average damages life chances.
That is not to criticise individuals generally within the process. It is the system that is dehumanising and results in situations like that in Australia. The absence of scrutiny makes the institutional interest stronger. It is important to remember that when people argue for the continuation of secrecy in public family law that this is not to protect the children. Children who are "released" for adoption are advertised publicly on websites. The secrecy of the family courts acts primarily to protect the professionals involved from scrutiny.
Generally it is accepted that the interests of the child are "paramount". What that means is that the child comes first.
The big question is what that means in practise. The various professionals argue the case that they are acting in the interests of the child and hence it means that people should do what they say.
What the evidence is quite clear about is that they have conflicts of interests in certain circumstances. Departmental and personal interests reign supreme in comparison to the children concerned.
The evidence in terms of "looked after" children (the new term for children in care) - sometimes converted to the acronym LACs - is that being "cared for" by the system on average damages life chances.
That is not to criticise individuals generally within the process. It is the system that is dehumanising and results in situations like that in Australia. The absence of scrutiny makes the institutional interest stronger. It is important to remember that when people argue for the continuation of secrecy in public family law that this is not to protect the children. Children who are "released" for adoption are advertised publicly on websites. The secrecy of the family courts acts primarily to protect the professionals involved from scrutiny.
Comments
If you know of any of my constituents (or even ex-constituents) who wishes me to look at issues on their behalf please do encourage them to contact me. If I am appointed as a lay advisor then I can be provided with all the information about the case.