Skip to main content

Debate moves up a couple of notches

I have been pleased with two stories about
experts in The Times and the S31 (2) threshold in The Telegraph.

These go to the nub of why so many odd decisions are made by the Family Courts. They are written without reference to some of the really odd cases. The issue about parents not being allowed a second opinion is being looked at by the European Court at the moment. That of the vagueness of "risk of significant harm" and the almost random way in which it is being interpreted is key within the Telegraph editorial.

I am pleased that the Sunday Telegraph recognise that this is in part why England is so bad at protecting children.
There is no doubt that those two bad practices are connected. The resources of social work departments are, as directors of those departments frequently point out, strictly limited. Time spent investigating parents who do not threaten or endanger the children in their care is time not spent investigating, visiting or intervening in the cases where there is a threat. If genuinely at-risk children are to be protected, resources have to be targeted at cases where parents pose a clear and present danger.

Comments

moira said…
Quote

They are written without reference to some of the really odd cases. The issue about parents not being allowed a second opinion is being looked at by the European Court at the moment.""

Then there is the opposite scenario when people who get multiple positive expert witness reports are pressurised into having more assessments until Social Services or the Guardian get the negative report they want. So they can use that to stop children coming home etc.

One woman was criticised by a judge for refusing a 4th assessment. It's a form of bullying and another abuse in the family court.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.