The Relationship between the Children Act 1989 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005

What happens for children aged 16-18 in care proceedings who lack capacity?

The question of what is meant by capacity is dealt with in another post which looks at the MCA 2005 more generally. 

The MCA is intended to apply to adults who lack capacity – decisions about children should be resolved under the Children Act 1989.  A ‘child’ is a person aged under 18 years. However, it is clear that a number of provisions in the Children Act do not apply to children aged between 16-18 or apply only in ‘exceptional circumstances’.  A care order is one of these.

This reflects the growing autonomy of the ‘neuro-typical’ teenager who is highly likely to be ‘Gillick competent’ by the age of 16 years and thus able to make his or her own decisions about everything other than the most serious matters (refusal of life saving medical treatment for e.g.)

But what happens when you are dealing with a teenager who isn’t ‘neuro-typical’? Section 2(5) of the MCA 2005 provides that the powers of this Act apply in general only to people who are older than 16 years.  But sections 2(6) and 18(3) provide that powers under the Act could be exercised about property and financial affairs for a child whose lack of capacity would continue into adulthood.

If it is not a question of managing property or finances, section 21 of the MCA allows for transfer to and from the Court of Protection and the Family Court. Paragraph 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Transfer of Proceedings) Order 2007 allows a court having jurisdiction under the Children Act to direct all or some of the proceedings in the family court to the Court of Protection where ‘in all the circumstances it is just and convenient to transfer the proceedings’.

Paragraph 3(2) sets out what the Family Court must think about:

  • whether the proceedings should be heard together with any other proceedings that are pending in the Court of Protection
  • whether any order that may be made by the Court of Protection is likely to be a more appropriate way of dealing with proceedings
  • the extent to which any order made about a child is likely to continue to have effect when the child is 18
  • Any other relevant factors

Help in understanding what could be another a ‘relevant factor’ is found in the judgment of Hedley J in the case of B (A Local Authority) v RM, MM, and AM [2010] EWHC 3802 (Fam). He posed the following questions:

  • Is the child over 16 years old – the MCA can’t apply otherwise
  • Does the child clearly lack capacity to understand the main decisions in the Children Act proceedings
  • Is this lack of capacity due to life long or at least long term disabilities
  • Can all the decisions that need to be made about the child’s welfare be resolved during the child’s minority?
  • Are the powers of the Court of Protection more appropriate to resolve problems that the powers under the Children Act
  • Can the child’s welfare needs be fully met by the Court of Protection

Continued involvement of the Children’s Guardian

A further practical consideration is that transferring a case from the Family Court to the Court of Protection is likely to lead to the children’s guardian dropping out of proceedings, unless the Official Solicitor (who would then represent the child) agreeing to re-instruct the guardian as an independent social worker. This would clearly be a pretty cumbersome procedure. There will also be implications for continuing public funding for the parents if the matter transfers entirely to the Court of Protection; their continued ability to benefit from legal aid will be subject to a means and merits test.

A solution to this problem would be to continue the care proceedings but at the final hearing, adopt the approach set out in Re B above and ask the Judge to also sit as a Court of Protection judge in order to make the appropriate declarations about the child’s capacity and any orders under section 16 of the MCA to promote the child’s welfare.

 

Further Reading

31 thoughts on “The Relationship between the Children Act 1989 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005

  1. angelo granda

    A question:
    If a disabled( ASD) child is over sixteen , subject to a care-order,in a residential care placement and the natural parent felt it was in the child’s interests to be rehabilitated home,to which court should the parent apply?
    The child is in the twilight zone!
    Is the parent to apply for discharge of the care-order to the Family Court or to the Court of Protection under the Mental Health Acts?
    All replies welcome.

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      If they seek to discharge a care order they must apply to the family court – the Court of Protection doesn’t make care orders. Once back in court, everyone would need to think about whether it was then more suitable to transfer matters to the CoP or have two sets of proceedings carry on before a Judge who is approved to hear both care and CoP cases.

      Reply
  2. Sam

    Following on from this please when you have a millisecond of time please do an article or maybe someone else on what support should be in place for a child to return home. Also maybe you could answer this which has puzzled me for some time , why can a child who is on the ASD be classed as disabled by some measures such as they can be in receipt of DLA/PIP, have a travel pass etc , they would certainly be classified disabled under the general definition of having a condition that adversely impacts on daily life. Yet they are not classified as disabled by Children’s Services and therefore not supported by the disability team. Has this ever been challenged in a case?

    Reply
    1. angelo granda

      Sám, i don’t know if this is relevant to your query but from experience i can tell you that not every town or city has a Children’s Disability Team.Large cities like Manchester,London,Nottingham,Birmingham,Liverpool have them but not all places.
      I think it depends whether there is a large children’s teaching hospital locally.

      Reply
  3. Sam

    I didn’t think it had anything to do with hospitals, but you may be right. I thought every children’s services had a disability team due to the obligation to provide services. I am sure like so much else in a more deprived area or a rural area fewer services are actually available.

    Reply
    1. angelo granda

      Sám,The child was getting support from the CDT.
      Children’s special care is usually co-ordinated by a special needs consultant paediatrician in the community to whom they have been referred by their GP or a hospital consultant.
      The CDT includes amongst others:-
      Speech and language therapists
      Physiotherapists
      Occupational therapists
      Child psychologists
      Educational psychologists
      Continency specialists
      Dieticians
      Special care nurses
      Portage workers and Home tutors

      To the best of my knowledge,most of these specialists are all employed by the hospital trust which runs the Local Childrens Hospital.These are usually very large University establishments which usually exist in conurbations which serve huge areas.They have massive budgets and literally thousands of staff on their books some based at the hospital itself, some at various smaller outposts within the community such as health centres etc. Many call to the child’s home to supervise the special care.
      All these report back to the consultant community paediatrician who has the final say on the overall care of the child and who obviously takes into account their respective advice.
      The Children’s Hospitals i am talking about are massive places and were built when the NHS centralised its services.Lots of local children’s hospitals closed down. Children requiring acute care ( operations etc) are sent to them.
      For example, children from Preston will be taken to Manchester Royal or Alder Hey in Liverpool. However that is only for operations.The CDT won’t cover Preston. The doctors in Preston can get advice from the specialist therapists but the trust there will not finance the CDT to travel to the Preston area.
      So anyone requiring the services of the CDT would have to move to Manchester.

      Sám, Once children go into care, it is very difficult for their real parents to establish what happens. Doctors cease to involve or communicate with them!
      The first thing the LA does ( WITHOUT the consent of the parents) usually is move them well away and register them with a new GP. They will give all sorts of misinformation out to the foster carers,adoptors etc.and this will also go to the GP who takes up the child’s care without consulting the real parents as to the real family history.Because of this,any information or clinic letters the LA produces to court are not legally sound in my opinion.
      When a CS department wants reports or advice it goes to its own LAC medical team not to the Community Special Care Paediatrician if it suits them not to.Whereas, at home,the hospital provides services free ( eg portage or home visitors),when a child is in care,a lot depends on what is on the LAC budget i think.If a child requires certain things,the SW has to apply for funding and,of course,the SW forgets to do it or the paperwork gets lost.
      All sorts of malpractice and flawed methods add up to inferior care for looked after children.
      Of course, for the purposes of this forum,i have to add that is only my opinion.
      When a child deteriorates,develops nervous problems,becomes severely emotionally disturbed, self harms or hang themselves in care , the CS has a stock answer for it. It is caused by the traumatic abuse inflicted on them by their natural parents.Cloud-cuckoo land.Most children are not removed for those reasons at all. The only trauma is caused by removal from Mum.

      Reply
      1. angelo granda

        When inhumanity occurs, the perpetrators always justify it by false doctrine and beliefs which they dig out from thin air or from obscure so-called experts who no-one ever gets to challenge.
        One of these false beliefs which LA’s and the CS continually sow is that the effects of trauma don’t show themselves in children until they are removed to a place of safety.
        Totally illogical but convenient and self- catharctic for SW’s.

        Reply
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          Sounds pretty logical to me. Remove children from people who are abusing them, and they feel safe enough to talk about the abuse. What’s illogical about that?

          Reply
  4. Sam

    Thanks Angelo I wonder if there are any statistics for how many children self harm in care or put themselves at risk. I think it is blooming obvious that a child will not cope with being removed quickly from home and more than likely multiple moves. Pre teens and possibly some teenagers as well ,are most likely to blame themselves for the situation, thinking they are unlovable.

    Reply
  5. angelo granda

    It’s illogical because children develop the symptoms of trauma after they are removed from their natural parents into care when they have NOT suffered trauma at home.
    The SW’s know they haven’t.The lawyers all know they haven’t.You yourself ,Sarah , said that the great majority of children are removed for neglect and the risk of future significant harm.The Police and CPS know they haven’t.Or they would have a duty to prosecute the offenders.Most importantly the parents and the children know the truth which is why SW’s go blue in the face if the family attempt to discuss the truth together..
    We also all know that many children are removed to save the LA expense when they would be better off at home.
    I have read the Adoption Week thread and it is patently obvious that adoptors are brainwashed into the false belief that the poor children are victims of serious abuse.
    The serious abuse of children on the scale likely to cause PTSS is fairly rare.

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      So you don’t think children who have been neglected have suffered trauma? Really? Just what do you think neglect is?

      Reply
      1. angelo granda

        I know what has been found to be ‘child neglect’ in some cases and no way could it have been traumatic on a scale which would spark off post traumatic stress disorder.
        If the general public were to ever get the chance to read some of the case documents, i think it would be revealed that, despite every attempt being made by professionals to hype issues up, the neglect being talked about is often of what we might call an abstract nature.
        For example, a dysfunctional couple might have a serious shouting match in front of the children. The Police are called. It is found that nothing which has happened is criminal.No actual bodily harm or serious violence.Later the child is found by a Family Court to have suffered significant emotional harm as a result of it being likely that he or she had witnessed many violent arguments and raised voices, then removed because of risk of significant harm in the future.
        Need i go on? Neglect can be part and parcel of everyday life, as the High Court has told us,but very often it does not comprise serious ABUSE .
        We have to draw a line somewhere on this proportionality issue.

        Sarah, what do you think trauma is?

        Reply
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          I completely disagree with and reject your assertion that cases are brought as ‘abstracts’

          Your own example reveals your lack of understanding. You are critical of this as a reason to be concerned about children.
          a dysfunctional couple might have a serious shouting match in front of the children. The Police are called. It is found that nothing which has happened is criminal.No actual bodily harm or serious violence.Later the child is found by a Family Court to have suffered significant emotional harm as a result of it being likely that he or she had witnessed many violent arguments and raised voices, then removed because of risk of significant harm in the future.

          What do you mean by ‘dysfunctional’? Just because no physical harm is caused to a child by exposure to a parents’ violence does not mean they escape unharmed. Are you able to put yourself in that child’s position and understand just how frightening it must have been to have to watch your parents behave in this way, so serious that someone intervenes to call the police? Imagine further that this is a common occurrence in the life of this child. What lessons do you think this child is learning about how people behave, how they deal with conflict, how the adults who are supposed to be protecting and nurturing him do in fact precisely the opposite?

          I would have no trouble agreeing that there is a risk of significant harm to a child on that scenario and the significant harm may have already occurred. If this was frequent behaviour from the parents then I would have no trouble at all agreeing that the child should be removed and adopted.

          Examples of trauma suffered by children in cases I have dealt with
          Frozen awareness/watchfulness – young children who associate adults with violence and pain. they are constantly wary and on the alert in case they get shouted at/hit
          Children in physical pain due to shoes that don’t fit/no shoes
          Children who have had to sleep in cots with no bedding/bedding soaked in urine
          Children who have ingested methadone, either because their parents are careless with storage or who have deliberately given the chid methadone to shut them up
          Children who have been physically hit or sexually abused and told to keep it a secret
          Children who have been scapegoated in a family and their self esteem destroyed/eroded
          I could go on, but believe me it would be a very, very long list.

          Your constant refrain that there isn’t really such a thing as child abuse, or it is restricted to a tiny criminal class, is a real weakness in your contributions to this necessary debate.

          Reply
  6. angelo granda

    Sarah,Let me correct your version of my last post .
    I was not critical of those reasons i cited as being sufficient to arouse concern about children.
    Of course, we will be concerned when faced with such a scenario.
    We were discussing PTSD on a thread about the mental health of looked after children and i don’t think such treatment at home is serious abuse which would cause children to develop PTSD.
    The treatment of the children in the examples you have given is truly disgusting and i am quite prepared to accept it is commonplace, indeed down to the continual cycle of poverty.I trust the parents were dealt with and punished for criminal neglect.
    May i ask whether you ever see the children?

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      No I do not see the children. I see the photographs, I see police video interviews. It would be unfair and probably distressing for children to have to put up with visits/questions from a large number of strange adults. Therefore the only lawyer who usually sees them is the solicitor instructed by the guardian and even then only with the older children.

      Reply
      1. angelo granda

        Thank you Sarah.I understand.So,essentially ,you rely on the reports of others and quite reasonably you do so trusting that the reports are fair and impartial ,comprehensive,fact not fiction and made in a professional manner in line with the legal guidelines set down by statute.
        That is reasonable enough.
        I suppose there is some reason in your opinion that it would probably be upsetting for the children to be seen and questioned by a sensitive and suitably,well-trained respondent lawyer.
        Unfortunately, that means you can’t ask them about their experiences at home,their delight and relief at being taken away into care and how superbly they are getting on with the kind and gentle social workers .You won’t be able to judge for yourself whether they are traumatised and ask them questions.
        I think it is idealist to rely on the integrity of SW’s,

        Reply
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          I think it is entirely reasonable to put reliance on reports from the police, schools, concerned members of the public, other family members, doctors, social workers and the guardian. They can come to court and their evidence is tested in front of the judge. I think that is far better than subjecting a child to repeated questions from a variety of people – and what would you have me do with a baby or a toddler who cannot speak to me?

          I do not ‘rely’ upon the integrity of anyone. That is tested in court. But nor do I assume at the outset that anyone who raises a concern about a parent is a automatically a lying scumbag, trying to improve their adoption stats.

          Assumptions are rarely helpful. You look at the evidence and make the best decisions you can.

          Reply
  7. angelo granda

    The trouble is there is too much blessed secrecy . I cannot see what happens in your cases but don’t assume they are at all stereotypical.

    Indeed , i am unaware of any case where Police have put in signed , written statements or reports except to criminal courts in cases of criminal neglect and serious child abuse. I am unaware that signed,written,contemporaneous reports from schoolteachers have been lodged with the court but i do know of cases where they have been concealed and ‘lost’ by SW’s. I have never seen signed,written reports of concerned members of the Public produced to Court but strangely often SW’s refer to notes of supposed reports made (hearsay).No one checks the truth of their notes.
    I am unaware of cases where family members have been consulted and asked to give signed,written statements to court and would guess that it is unusual when they do unless,of course,they support the LA litigation.

    I am unaware of any case when signed,written reports from the child’s GP or hospital consultant ( who know the families concerned best) have been shown to court, If hostile to its litigation,the LA will not cite any evidence from them.It gets the children new doctors,misinforms them and keeps the child’s real doctors out of it.

    I am glad that you always insist on the production of certifiable evidence from all those people.Alas,i have concerns that not all lawyers are as dutiful and professionally correct as you are.

    If people are hostile to the LA’s case,i have found that they cannot join the proceedings and have their evidence tested in front of the Judge.Respondents and their lawyers are usually not permitted to discuss the case with them.Doctors, schoolteachers and the Police refuse to communicate with them once proceedings are initiated.

    I am glad that you insist on it.Once again,not all lawyers do.

    I am pleased that you do not assume that all social workers have integrity.They do not as thousands of parents will attest.

    Any lower court Judge or lawyer who gives any credit at all to SW’s who deliberately flout guidelines,deliberately misuse S20’s and deliberately gives false information under oath as a result, has to be a bozo professional in my view. anyone.

    As you say, assumptions are not helpful. The offending professionals should be put in the box and lawyers should test their integrity thoroughly and ensure that any evidence the social workers give is scrupulously honest and that all the correct procedures are followed meticulously.There is too much at stake for them to be abused.

    Sarah,with the deepest respect for the CPR, I do not think this sort of ‘tit for tat’ discussion is helpful and somehow we must put a stop to the endless argument and repetition.For that reason , as i have asked on another thread, can you find some method where we can arrive at a CONSENSUS of opinion? Once we all agree with each other we can make progress.Somehow,will it be possible to solicit the votes of all contributors on the issue of strict compliance with procedural safeguards to eliminate the possibility of abuse,for example.

    Do you think a simple consensus based on an on-line vote is feasible?
    If professionals were to agree and all vote YES,THE SAFEGUARDS SHOULD BE APPLIED STRICTLY then in lots and lots of cases,you could appeal to the High Court as a matter of form.When that possibility becomes apparent , the malpractices might stop as if by magic.

    I would vote YES but i am not a professional. Am i right in thinking you would vote ‘NO,WE SHOULD NOT ENFORCE THE SAFEGUARDS.THEY HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE BUT THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED?

    Sorry this comment is so long.Opinions please,all welcome.

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      The reason our exchanges are often so depressingly circular is – in my opinion – because you will not or cannot grasp the fundamental point. YES procedural propriety is very important, we must all be able to trust that legal proceedings are conducted fairly and according to known rules. BUT procedural law cannot be elevated above child protection. Even if procedural rules have been flouted a court may still need to act to protect children. That doesn’t mean the court thinks procedure is of no value.

      I don’t know how many care cases you have experienced but in my experience over many years it is commonplace to have signed statements from a variety of professionals, or they are asked to come to court to speak to their written reports.

      Reply
      1. angelo granda

        I already know, Sarah, because you have told me several times that you think that it is not in the best interests of children that procedural safeguards are followed in all cases.I understand your point completely.
        What you seem unable to accept is that many parents and children (including victims of LA abuse) are extremely concerned about the issue and disagree with you.
        It isn’t just my personal pig-headedness,i feel i will be supported by others.
        I don’t think you fully understand the exact reasons why the LA ( CS) deliberately subvert these procedures. It is to doctor the evidence the Court sees and makes decisions on. They don’t pervert the course of justice in the best interests of children,they do it dishonestly in their own interests.
        There is already a wide consensus amongst parents and children about it and lawyers have to accept the concerns are valid.
        The ECHR appears to agree with parents but you and the lower courts repeatably turn to the ‘best interests’ loophole!
        I suggest professionals,after taking into account our feelings,should organise their own consensus.
        If the vote was NO, i would either drop out of the CPR completely or amend mY thinking.
        If the vote were YES, you would.

        Whichever way the vote went, at least the debate would be ended.

        As always, sincere thanks for your advice and time. I wish more people would comment.

        Reply
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          No, I don’t think you do understand my point as you so persistently mis-state it. I have NOT said that it is in children’s best interests for procedural safeguards to be ignored. I have said that ignoring procedural safeguards does NOT mean that a court should not take action to protect children.

          So there is no point in you posing your ‘yes’ ‘no’ question, as you are asking a completely different question.

          Reply
          1. angelo granda

            Sarah,Seriously.On the subject of professional concensus,I do not propose that i put any questions or that any parent or non-professional také part in a vote.
            You would have to lead the process,cite some opinions of parents,your own opinion,an opposing professional opinion,the statute,high court precedent and common law,the ECHR convention and conduct a poll amongst all the cp professionals for whom you have an e-mail address.
            I exspect that when you arrange your conferences annually,you all come to some sort of agreement. I suggest an on-line effort at agreement and standard-setting to be followed by all professionals in the ‘industry’ would be a novel and fairly revolutionary idea .
            However, the CPR is your baby; the feasibility is for you to decide on.There will be many snags i have not thought of. I am only making a constructive suggestion.

  8. angelo granda

    On the subject of openness,honesty,transparency ,LA corruption,misleading evidence etc.
    1.How many times in your long career have the CS stated to the Court in the care-plan and placement order applications that even though they realise the law intends adoption to be the last resort when nothing else will do,that they cannot offer support and work to keep the family for budgetary reasons ( lack of finance) and that it was easier to remove the child ,overrule the objections of the parents on the grounds it WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD and have the child forcibly adopted? Never. They wouldn’t be so stupid to say that because it would be instant appeal. That may have been the reality of the position some of the time but it would not be explicitly stated
    2. How many times has the learned Judge stated the same in Judgment? Never. Because that would not be lawful.
    3.Have you ever known the CS state openly in their evidence that they have not conducted the case correctly ,give an example such as they had not took the time to interview the parents and warn the Judge that their evidence might be a tad unrealistic as a result? No. I think I have only heard a handful of people admit their evidence was poor.

    I am not being facetious ,Sarah. I would appreciate your usual direct answers to these questions.The answers might tell all of us a thing or two about professional integrity. I think they tell more about the assumptions that you make. I am sure that in some cases resources becomes the tail that wags the dog. But not all.

    4. On the subject of bias and double standards,what do you think would happen if the parents took a child away from the SW’s forcibly without a court order and without following correct procedure and claimed it was in the child’s best interests? I imagine the police would be called immediately and the parents arrested for abudction. They would have no lawful authority to remove a social worker’s child. Social workers remove children only on the lawful authority given to them by a court order.

    Reply
    1. angelo granda

      Readers should bear aware that in my comments above,the parts in heavy font are actually Sarah’s response to the questions.
      I hope that is clear to you all
      Thank you.

      Reply
  9. angelo granda

    Can we examine the question of LA budgeting for a moment.Sám,you have been looking at the support available to families and you might be able to contribute.
    I think we all agree that the fiinancial interests of the Local Authorities have an influence on the CS whose Social Workers create care-plans.This,sadly,is unavoidable as the CS department is intrinsically linked with the LA’s; they pay the wages!
    On another thread i have asked questions of Kate Wells on this issue but she has not responded.
    However,I think that the financial advantage of the LA’s is a major consideration in child-protection.Alas, the best interests of children are not always paramount which is regrettable but inevitable in reality.
    So what is to the best advantage of the council tax -payer? What is to the best advantage of the Council? What is to the best advantage of the Councillors? Is there any difference?

    I may be wrong, but my common-sense tells me that:-
    A) By far the cheapest option for the council tax-payer would be to arrange for support to be put in place and keep families together following the spirit of the Children’s Act.
    B) The second cheapest option is forced adoption and the Government try to encourage it in line with a reasonable belief that it is ,when removal from parents is unavoidable best for children.Not only that,of course.When children must be removed,it is the cheapest option when choosing between adoption and foster-care and the residential homes.
    C) By far the most expensive option is foster-care and residential homes ( especially privately run ones.
    D) The option which is most commonly taken is the most expensive to the council tax-payer.That is foster-care.So how is that to the financial advantage of the Local Authorities.
    E) Also,how could the choice of long-term foster-care possibly be of benefit to councillors?

    I have estimated that the adoption/foster-care ratio is approximately 1/ 9.
    All comments welcome particularly from SW’s or Councillors.

    Reply
    1. angelo granda

      Perhaps the most powerful weapon of LA’s,Councllors and the CS , as many readers will know,is SILENCE! NO COMMENT!
      Like politicians, they avoid. answering questions like the plague.Unless they are forced to speak truthfully under some sort of court order, no councillor will ever answer my question at E) above.

      There are some undeniable threads of truth which run right through society; they are commonly known and accepted by the General Public and truisms which even lawyers are accustomed to.They are:-

      A) politicians are dishonest.
      B) local politicians direct the work of LA’s.
      C) it is a universal fact of life that local government policies and aims are influenced by councillors whose own financial and business interests are paramount to them.Graft and corruption in the form of kickbacks,cash-backhanders,nepotism and illegal arrangements for financial gain of EVERY description are rife in Local Authorities not only here in our home country but worldwide.Businessman’s interests were the very reason why they united together and formed town councils and merchants guilds in the first place.This is FACT which no one can deny,not even Family Lawyers.It is not fiction or conspiracy theory and the public recognise that the institutions affected( such as child-protection are not necessarily all corrupt by design in themselves.Because they are managed by LA’s, they can’t help it.
      D)Where corruption occurs,it depends absolutely on the SILENCE of the criminals.
      There is an unwritten code amongst them, some might call it ‘honour amongst thieves or,others,’omerta’.

      I hope we on the CPR will not be afraid of hitting out at LA’s which make seemingly illogical decisions against the best interests of children. As Sarah has said the SW’s ,the Local Authority lawyers,the Guardian and lawyers nor the Judge will ‘come out’ and state the truth to court because the decisions would be unlawful and instantly appealable when taken for financial reasons above and beyond the best interests of children.
      All contributors should be fearless in broaching the subject of corruption,fair trials etc.
      Lawyers appear to know decisions to remove are made purely for reasons of finance and that the LA will not be honest about it in court.They accept it may not be in the best interests of children but ‘turn a blind eye’.

      I think it is curious that the most expensive care option ,foster care, is taken when the children would be cared for adequately at home with support.
      I am concerned that these decisions are likely,on the balance of probabilities,to be influenced by councillors for personal gain.Just as happens with town-planning decisions ,public works contracts and so on!
      It will be interesting to see whether this post meets with silence.Or If someone shouts me down , from which direction they come and if they have much experience of the reality of LA policy making.
      If anyone supports my views,please moderate your comments and your posts will not be deleted.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *