Author Archives: Sarah Phillimore

Personality Disorder

Personality disorders are conditions in which an individual differs significantly from an average person, in terms of how they think, perceive, feel or relate to others.

NHS Website

We agree that sadly, there remains stigma in society generally against people with mental health issues. But many people who have a diagnosed mental illness are good parents. If you are worried about how your mental health will be perceived in care proceedings, you might be interested in our post about parents with mental health difficulties.  You might also find something helpful in our links and resources page. 

Until fairly recently, there were a limited number of identified ‘mental illnesses’ which were clearly defined and considered quite extreme. There has been a shift towards recognising as mental illnesses some less extreme and more subjectively defined ‘disorders’. There has been  an increase in identified mental disorders from from 106 in 1952, to 297 in 1994.

Debate over why and how we are diagnosed with a mental illness

This causes concern to some:

Such subjective “disordering” of what some might think “normal” behaviour already results in it being possible to diagnose more than a quarter of the population with some form of personality disorder and be at risk of losing their children…

The emphasis on ‘diagnosing’ a particular problem may mean we lose sight of what is happening for the person who is the subject of the diagnosis. As Dr Lucy Johnston said:

In essence, instead of asking ‘What is wrong with you?’, we need to ask ‘What has happened to you?’,” … Once we know that, we can draw on psychological evidence to show how life events and the sense that people make of them have led to the current difficulties.

However, its important to understand the implications of being diagnosed with a personality disorder – they  are often a feature of care proceedings as they can have a serious negative impact on how people parent.

It is clear that many parents find it difficult to understand what is meant by a ‘personality disorder’ or what they can do to change the way they think and act to make their lives easier and better.

What is a personality disorder?

‘Personality’ is the word to describe what makes us who we are – how we think, feel and behave. Personalities are usually developed by the time we are in our teens, therefore if someone is going to have problems with their personality, it often becomes noticeable around this time.

You may be told you have a ‘personality disorder’ if you have ways of thinking and acting that are getting in the way of you living your life happily. This is because the way you react to negative feelings or difficult times in your life, can make it difficult for you to form healthy and happy relationships with those close to you – such as your partner or your children.

Dr George Stein, a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Priory Hospital describes it in this way:

We all have a personality and some of us are odd; for example an eccentric and obsessional barrister might be considered ‘an abnormal personality’ in a statistical sense but this is not the same as a personality disorder. Schneider defined personality disorder as ‘an abnormal personality who brings harm to themselves and to others by virtue of their personality’.

They are a common mental health condition – about 1 in 20 adults in England is estimated to have a personality disorder. They can range in seriousness from mild to moderate to severe. A mild personality disorder may only cause you problems in times of particular stress and worry, and otherwise you may find little or no impact on your day to day life.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists describes it in this way:

For whatever reason, parts of your personality can develop in ways that make it difficult for you to live with yourself and/or with other people. You don’t seem to be able to learn from the things that happen to you. You find that you can’t change the bits of your personality (traits) that cause the problems. These traits, although they are part of who you are, just go on making life difficult for you – and often for other people as well.

Other people will often have noticed these traits from your childhood and early teens. For example, you may find it difficult to:

  • make or keep close relationships
  • get on with people at work
  • get on with friends and family
  • keep out of trouble
  • control your feelings or behaviour
  • listen to other people

Why do some people develop a personality disorder?

Probably both genetics and environment have something to do with this. If you had to grow up in a stressful or abusive environment as a child this may make you more vulnerable to developing a personality disorder later in life and this vulnerability could be increased by genetic factors.

Types of personality disorder

There are a number of different personality disorders . They are grouped into three ‘clusters’ according to the different traits people demonstrate.

  • Cluster A Schizoid/paranoid – people who are often isolated and withdrawn but not psychotic;
  • Cluster B Anti-scocial/borderline – more extroverted types who may be involved in crime or are emotionally unstable;
  • Cluster C Avoidant/anxious/dependent – not often seen in care proceedings.

Those whose personality disorder falls within Cluster B, such as those with  borderline personality disorder (BPD), are at serious risk of losing their children in care proceedings.  This is because the traits that identify them as suffering a BPD, such as explosive reactions to others, often mean they lack support from family or a partner.

BPD is not a particularly helpful label – it got its name because it used to be thought that people with this disorder were on the ‘borderline’ between neurosis (mentally distressed but aware of reality) and psychosis (finds it hard to distinguish reality and delusion).

Now it is agreed that a more helpful way of understanding borderline personality disorder is to look at it as a condition that causes problems with the way people feel and how they interact with others.

What’s the impact of a personality disorder on parenting?

Parents have described having a PD as very challenging, not just for them but for anyone they live or work with. Life can seem like a ‘battle’ everyday and people can feel empty and worthless, rejecting other people before they get rejected.

Children need safe environments from an early age to learn how to handle their own emotions. If a child doesn’t get that, he or she is more likely to grow up and develop abnormal patterns of behaviour. A study of prisoners with personality disorders showed that they reported adverse childhood experiences and victimisation more frequently than those who did not have a personality disorder (see the Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology vol 19 Issue 4 Dec 2008).

Minna Daum of the Anna Freud Centre described the impact on parenting in this way:

‘Personality disorder is a disorder of social relationships…Parents have had traumatic backgrounds where they have not been held in mind. They therefore feel unsafe in all their relationships. It is therefore a HUGE challenge to become a parent and enter a relationship that they cannot duck out of, or become angry and aggressive in’

An adult’s personality is a key aspect of parenting because your personality impacts on how you regulate how you are feeling and how you handle relationships with other people. ‘Good enough’ parenting is likely to requires the following  ‘psychological capacities’ (Adshead, 2015):

  • being able to manage your own anxiety without becoming angry or frightened.
  • the ability to plan and think ahead
  • the ability to respond to another person in distress with empahty
  • the ability to work with others who are also involved with your child’s welfare – schools, other parents etc
  • the ability to ask for help
  • the ability to tolerate negative emotions without taking impulsive action or assuming the worst
  • a sense of humour and ability to find enjoyment in life.

What’s the impact of personality disorder on care proceedings?

Impact on working with professionals

The problems that parents with PD can have interacting with people can then be made worse if they have to deal with social workers who don’t know much about mental illness. If the professionals lack understanding, the parents can feel ‘put on trial’ – which is likely to make parents feel frightened, increase their defensiveness and block understanding and a good working relationship. Warmth and compassion are good traits for a professional to demonstrate when trying to build a relationship with a parent who has a PD.

One of our contributors describes it in this way:

Many people with a diagnosis of personality disorder manage well as parents. However, some parents with diagnoses of personality disorder do need some help. Most people with a diagnosis of personality disorder have a history of childhood abuse or neglect, and some may therefore need guidance in understanding how to keep their own children safe and cared for. Many people with a diagnosis of personality disorder struggle to manage relationships and emotions, and some may therefore need support in responding to the behaviour of their children. Some people with a diagnosis of personality disorder cope with stress in self-destructive ways such as by self-harm, substance abuse, eating problems or sexual risk-taking, and these people may need help in ensuring that their children are not affected by their behaviour. It is this latter category – those parents who are harming themselves, and whose children are witnessing them harming themselves or whose unborn children are affected by them harming themselves – who are most likely to attract the concern of professionals.

However, before allowing a Social Worker to remove a child from a parent with a personality disorder, the court must ensure that everything possible has been done to help and support the parent. In the past, personality disorders were regarded as ‘untreatable’ and some people with diagnoses of personality disorder may still be told they are ‘untreatable’: however, this attitude is now recognised as discriminatory and does not remove from statutory services the legal obligation to try and help. There is help and support available for people with diagnoses of personality disorder: treatments such as mentalisation-based therapy (MBT), dialectic behaviour therapy (DBT), cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) and therapeutic communities have been demonstrated as reasonably effective. Therefore, unless a person with a diagnosis of personality disorder is refusing all help, their Social Worker must do everything possible to find them the support they need before considering whether to take their children away.

These kind of cases may be ones where it is ‘necessary’ to instruct an expert to help the court understand what kind of help is available, how long it will take and how much it will cost.  See section 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014 which determines when the court can seek an expert report.

Impact on timescales – what happens in the care proceedings if I need treatment for PD?

It used to be thought that personality disorders couldn’t be treated and that most people would see an improvement in how they functioned as they got older. However, doctors now believe that personality disorders can be treated by either ‘talking therapies’ or medication.

People with personality disorders need help to change their maladaptive patterns of behaviour and to develop new ways of coping with stress. Often, acting impulsively is a problem. Dialectical Behavioural Therapy is recommended by the Department of Health; it’s a type of cognitive behavioural therapy which teaches skills to cope with stress, regulate emotions and improve relationships with others.

For further discussion about ways to treat BPD, visit the NHS website.

The big problem when personality disorders are part of care proceedings is that the treatment on offer might not be easily accessible via the NHS or it might be argued that successful treatment would take too long and your child cannot wait for you to complete the treatment. It is therefore very important to establish as soon as you can what is the nature and seriousness of your personality disorder and what treatment is available.

Funding for treatment is often  a problem. There is a helpful article here discussing funding options either through the NHS or the LA.

The Haven Project identified the necessary building blocks to engage with and help parents with PD.

  • a sense of safety and building trust
  • feeling cared for
  • a sense of belonging and community
  • learning boundaries
  • containing experiences and developing skills
  • identifying hopes, dreams and goals
  • achievements
  • transitional recovery

Anti depressants may help some people, particularly those with ‘explosive’ traits.

Further information, help and support

Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice –  members work with children, young people and adults, couples, families and individuals, enabling them to build on strengths and understandings and find ways forward in their lives.

Emergence – personality disorder website – aims to make life changing differences for everyone affected by personality disorders through education and support.

Counselling Directory- find a counsellor or psychotherapist near you.

Mind – mental health charity, providing advice and support to empower anyone experiencing a mental health problem. Campaigns to improve services, raise awareness and promote understanding.

Rethink Mental Illness – operating since 1972, helping people living with conditions like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality disorders and more to recover a better quality of life.

Parental Mental Health and Child Welfare Network [2010] A report ‘Living with Personality Disorders, Supporting Better Parenting’.

on 11th January 2018 the British Psychological Society welcomed a new consensus statement about personality disorders – ‘People with complex mental health difficulties who are diagnosed with a personality disorder

The BPS commented:

The Society is supportive of the joint professional and expert by experience call to action to stop the exclusion of people who have been diagnosed, or would be diagnosed, with personality disorder from mental health services and to reduce the associated health and social inequalities and disadvantages that lead to a much lower life expectancy.

Of equal importance is the recognition of the research that for many people it is social inequalities, discrimination and adverse childhood experiences that are the main causal factors in (cause) the difficulties they experience.

Special Guardianship Orders

This order makes someone a child’s ‘special guardian’.

The law concerning special guardians  can be found at:

What is a special guardian?

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 amended section 14 of the Children Act 1989 to create special guardianship orders (SGO). These are a ‘half way house’ between a Child Arrangements Order that provides a child should live with someone (what used to be called a ‘residence order’) and adoption, which severs all legal ties between a child and his birth family.

The aim behind a SGO is that it will give a child permanence and stability but also allow him to retain links to his birth family,  for example in situations where it might not be appropriate to get an adoption order. For example, if a child is cared for by a close relative such as a grandmother, then adoption doesn’t make much sense as his grandmother would legally become his ‘mother’.

However, special guardianship is not intended to be only used for relatives;  foster carers should also be considered as potential special guardians. See Re I (Adoption: Appeal: Special Guardianship [2012] Fam Law 1461.

The court in S (a child) [2007] EWCA Civ 54 discussed the government’s motivation behind creating SGOs at paragraph 11 of its judgment:

In December 2000, the government published a White Paper entitled Adoption: a new approach (Cm 5017) (the White Paper). This followed the fundamental review of adoption policy and practice initiated by the Prime Minister earlier in the same year. The executive summary expressed the government’s belief that “more can and should be done to promote the wider use of adoption”, a sentiment repeated in paragraph 1.13 of the White Paper itself. At the same time, the White Paper recognised that adoption was not always appropriate for children who cannot return to their birth parents. The concept of special guardianship was introduced and discussed in paragraphs 5.8 to 5.11 of the White Paper in the following terms:

–
‘Special guardianship’
5.8 Adoption is not always appropriate for children who cannot return to their birth parents. Some older children do not wish to be legally separated from their birth families. Adoption may not be best for some children being cared for on a permanent basis by members of their wider birth family. Some minority ethnic communities have religious and cultural difficulties with adoption as it is set out in law. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children may also need secure, permanent homes, but have strong attachments to their families abroad. All these children deserve the same chance as any other to enjoy the benefits of a legally secure, stable permanent placement that promotes a supportive, lifelong relationship with their carers, where the court decides that is in their best interests.
5.9 In order to meet the needs of these children where adoption is not appropriate, and to modernise the law so as to reflect the religious and cultural diversity of our country today, the Government believes there is a case to develop a new legislative option to provide permanence short of the legal separation involved in adoption. This view was strongly supported by respondents to the consultation on the PFU report.
5.10 The Government will legislate to create this new option, which could be called ‘special guardianship’. It will only be used to provide permanence for those children for whom adoption is not appropriate, and where the court decides it is in the best interests of the child or young person. It will: –

  • give the carer clear responsibility for all aspects of caring for the child or young person, and for making the decisions to do with their upbringing. The child or young person will no longer be looked after by the council;
  • provide a firm foundation on which to build a lifelong permanent relationship between the carer and the child or young person;
  • preserve the legal link between the child or young person and their birth family;
  • be accompanied by proper access to a full range of support services including, where appropriate, financial support.

There has been considerable evolution in the approach of the courts to identifying and assessing Special Guardians – particular problems have arisen when dealing with very young babies, who have no pre-existing relationship with the proposed Special Guardians, or when cases were ‘rushed’ and some SGOS were made when tragically it was not safe to do so. 

Who can be a special guardian?

When there is a question mark over parents’ ability to care for their children in the long term, best practice is that the local authority considers if there are any ‘connected people’ who could look after the child instead, i.e. family or friends. The local authority should undertake an initial family and friends care assessment, or ‘viability assessment’

This can be complicated, particularly if the parents have a wide extended family, who live in other local authority areas or even abroad. There shouldn’t be a ‘cap’ put on the number of people who put themselves forward, but equally, everyone has to be realistic. Someone who is already caring for a large number of children or has challenges of their own to meet, may not be a realistic option.

Anyone who wants to to apply to be a Special Guardian, has to be 18 or over and you can’t be the child’s parent. Some people can make an application for an SGO without the court’s permission, others will need leave from the court to make the application. 

You don’t need permission to apply if:

  • you are the guardian of the child;
  • you are named in a  a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child lives;
  • a local authority foster parent with whom the child has lived for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the application;
  • a relative with whom the child has lived for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the application.
  • if the child is in care and the local authority agrees you should make the application
 
 

How do I become a special guardian?

Your position may be very different depending on whether or not you have the backing of the local authority. You won’t get automatic legal aid to be represented in care proceedings but usually local authorities are asked by the court to pay for you to have a few hours of legal advice to explain your options.  If the local authority doesn’t support you, you will have to apply to the court for permission to make an application,

You have to give three months notice of your intention to apply to the local authority which is looking after the child or the local authority where you live if the child isn’t in care. The local authority then have to prepare a special guardianship report which will examine your suitability to be a special guardian. The court can’t make an SGO without this report.

When deciding whether or not to make an SGO the court will consider that the child’s welfare is paramount and it will look at the welfare checklist in section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. 

There is a ‘residual power’ of the court to make a SGO ‘of its own motion’ (i.e. without any application before it) under section 14A(6)(b) of the Act but the Court of Appeal in P-S (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 1407-were clear that it ‘should not be the normal or default process’. This is because someone who doesn’t have the consent of the LA needs more scrutiny. The court said at para 53:

In the absence of the local authority’s consent, the grandparents would have been able to apply for leave to make an application under section 10(9) of the 1989 Act where the factors to be considered by the court are specified.  In a case where the local authority does not consent the leave application is an important protection for the child and the child’s parents.  It is not a rubber stamp.  Where leave is granted, an appropriate balance is struck between the applicants, the child, the child’s parents and the local authority.  It is relatively common to find that local authorities who give consent to an application being made, that is who support the application on the merits, will help fund the applicant by providing representation.  That happened in this case when the matter came on appeal and after a case management indication to that effect was given by this court.  It ought to have happened earlier.

This case is also important because it looked at the issue of providing legal advice to people who might be thinking about applying to be a Special Guardian.  This case saw a successful appeal against final care orders in a case where the Judge had been worried that the child had never lived with the proposed Special Guardians. It sets out general guidance on the approach to be taken to consideration of Special Guardians and the making of SGOs within care proceedings. It is very important that proposed Special Guardians get access to proper legal advice about their options.  The Court called for more authoritative guidance to sit alongside the regulations. This has now been provided by the June 2020 report of the Public Law Working Group – see below for discussion. 

What does being a special guardian mean in practice?

Section 14C confirms that a special guardian is entitled ‘to exercise parental responsibility to the exclusion of any other person with parental repsonsibility for the child’.

But that doesn’t mean the special guardian can just do as he or she likes. Under section 14C, if any law requires the consent of more than one person with parental responsibility the special guardian can’t ignore that. Nor can the special guardian give the child a new surname or take him out of the country for more than three months if the parents don’t consent.

Becoming a child’s Special Guardian is clearly a very significant step; its going to impact you financially and possibly your relationships with other family members.

The Best Practice Guidance (see below) says it is important for Special Guardians to understand the following:

  • The order will remain in force until the child reaches 18;
  • they will have parental responsibility for the child – this means all aspects of the child’s care including decision-making about the child’s day-to-day and long-term welfare, health and education and the provision of the resources that are needed to enable this to happen; (
  • their position within the family will change as they take on the responsibility for both the day-to-day and long-term parenting of the child; this may result in strong feelings being expressed by the birth parents and other family members towards the SG particularly during any contact they have after an order is made;
  • when an order is made and the child was previously looked after, that the SG will be entitled to an assessment of their own and the child’s support needs. This right to an assessment will continue until the child reaches 18;
  • following an assessment of support needs, it is at the discretion of the local authority as to whether any services will be provided, balanced against any eligibility requirements as set in law: this includes housing and financial services;
  • if the child was not previously looked after before the order was made, the eligibility for an assessment of support needs is at the discretion of the local authority.

Should a supervision order be made at the same time?

The Best Practice Guidance from 2020 (see below) does not think this is a good idea. 

The purpose of an SGO is to provide a firm foundation on which to build a lifelong permanent relationship between the child and the carer. A supervision order should not need to be used as a vehicle by which support and services are provided by the local authority. All support and services to be provided to the SG and to the child by the local authority or other organisations should be set out in the SGSP which should be attached as an appendix to the order. The cases where it would be appropriate or necessary to make a supervision order alongside an SGO will be very small in number. The issues that are intended to be addressed in the making of a supervision order are most likely to be achieved through the process as set out above.

How can I vary or discharge a special guardianship order?

This is dealt with at section 14D of the Children Act. Parents will have to get the court’s permission before making this application and the court won’t give this permission unless there has been a ‘significant change’ in circumstances since the order was made.

However, not too much weight should be put on the use of the word ‘significant’ . In G (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 300 Wilson LJ decided when considering an application for leave to discharge a SGO, courts should take the same approach as they took in applications for leave to revoke placement orders and that the guidance in M v Warwickshire County Council [2007] should be followed.

Applications to revoke placement orders only require a ‘change’ in circumstances and various authorities have commented that the test should not be set too high; parents should not be discouraged from trying to improve their situation.

Applying for leave to discharge/vary is a two stage process; if you cannot show a change in circumstances, the court will not give you permission to make the application and the matter ends there. however, if you can show a relevant change, the court will then consider if you should go on to make the application, looking at the child’s welfare and whether your application has a real prospect of success. Therefore you will need to show a change of circumstances that is relevant to the particular facts of your case and is the kind of change that will open the door to the court considering to allow you permission to apply to discharge.

For example, if your child was removed because you were in a violent relationship, have you taken steps to understand the risks posed by such relationships, by attending the Freedom Programme or similar intervention.

 

What support do special guardians get?

Under section 14F of the Children Act, the LA must make provision for special guardian support services such as counselling, advice and information. Under the Special Guardianship Regulations, the LA must provide appropriate financial support and make an assessment of the relevant needs. It will consider the fostering allowance as a starting point and may make appropriate adjustments to that.  See R (TT) v London Borough of Merton [2012] EWCA 2055.

Concern over the increase in numbers of special guardians.

TACT, the largest charity in the UK which specialises in providing fostering and adoption services, was concerned to note the sharp increase in numbers of special guardianship orders which were revealed by statistics from the Department of Education in 2014. Concerns have also been raised by Coram/BAAF.

Those statistics show that the use of special guardianship orders rose in England from 2,770 in 2013 to 3,330 in 2014.  But in 2010 there were only 1,290 orders which is an increase by 2014 of 158%.

TACT CEO Andy Elvin said:

SGOs were introduced to allow young people stability and permanence. We are, however, worried that this dramatic rise indicates that they are being increasingly used inappropriately. TACT is aware of foster carers being asked to consider special guardianship shortly after a placement is made, or placements being made only on condition that an SGO is part of the care plan. SGOs should only be considered when the time is right for carers and the young person.

Amended Regulations 2016

Throughout 2015 these concerns about the increase of SGOs grew; see the note from CAFCASS in October 2015 below. The fear was that children were being placed at risk if subject to an SGO without proper consideration of the long term viability of that placement.

These concerns lead to amended Special Guardian Regulations in February 2016. Now assessments of capacity to be  Special Guardian include:

their understanding of, and ability to meet the child’s current and likely future needs, particularly, any needs the child may have arising from harm that the child has suffered;

their understanding of, and ability to protect the child from any current or future risk of harm posed by the child’s parents, relatives or any other person the local authority consider relevant, particularly in relation to contact between any such person and the child;

their ability and suitability to bring up the child until the child reaches the age of eighteen;”.

Concerns from CAFCASS October 2015

THE ASSESSMENT OF SPECIAL GUARDIANS AS THE PREFERRED PERMANENCE OPTION FOR CHILDREN IN CARE PROCEEDINGS APPLICATIONS
Intended audience: Local authorities, Cafcass, judiciary, HMCTS, LSCB’s
1. Since their introduction, Special Guardianship Orders have been made in a wide variety of situations – much wider than the original legislation anticipated. The rate of increase in their use has accelerated in the past year, especially for infants. Many practitioners have expressed concern about the impact on the processes used and the future outcomes for children.
2. Whilst Special Guardianship is a positive option for many children, we are writing this note out of concern about a number of cases where we believe children have been placed at risk through a Special Guardianship Order being made without sufficient consideration of the placement’s long-term viability. Many of these placements have been arranged at a late stage in care proceedings without adequate time to carry out a suitability report to safe minimum standards. Sometimes it is clear the Special Guardianship Order process and sign off has been undertaken to ensure the case is completed within the statutory 26 week timescale. Our note is borne out of concern that this type of placement is not taking into sufficient account the requisite long-term viability for the child and, as a direct result, avoidably increases the risk of placement breakdown or the risk of immediate and significant harm.
3. Our guidance is written for learning and prevention purposes. It is clear that many Special Guardianship Orders are being made positively as a result of intensive family finding within the child’s kinship care network. When Local Authorities have been able to carry out a thorough analysis of the strengths within a family prior to or in the early stages of care proceedings, a Special Guardianship Order can be a positive permanence option. However, for reasons of risk and speed, or simply as a result of an inability to engage effectively with a family network, it is not always possible to explore this option to the right depth and at the right time. It is our view that Special Guardianship remains an important permanence option that can be a creative way of resolving a wide range of needs but the basic safeguards routinely applied to other forms of permanence should be followed with every Special Guardianship assessment and court process.
4. Where an SGO is being considered at a late stage in proceedings, care must be taken to ensure that minimum standards are complied with and that the suitability report covers the issues sufficiently. This is just as crucial if professional concerns relate to the long term capacity of the proposed special guardians to parent well, as it is if the child has neither lived with the proposed special guardian/s nor has a relationship with or attachment to the proposed special guardian.
5. If such a late assessment means that the 26 week limit cannot be complied with, this should be clearly presented to the court as a legitimate reason for assigning the case to the non-standard track.
6. All assessments/suitability reports, whether started and finished pre-proceedings or whether started and finished during proceedings, should comply with the Schedule set out in Regulation 21 of the Special Guardianship Regulations 2005 (2005 No.1109). The threshold for a Special Guardianship Order in social work terms is that there is an evidence base that neither a co-parenting agreement, nor a s8 Order under the Child Arrangements Programme, will guarantee the child sufficient security and stability throughout their childhood. Conversely, the social work assessment and the children’s guardian’s analysis must demonstrate that the special guardian can meet the needs of the child in question including, where appropriate, recovery from the trauma associated with severe abuse or neglect if that has been the child’s prior lived experience.
7. It is important not to regard a Special Guardianship Order as a default option because of the higher hurdle of an adoption recommendation – ‘the nothing else will do’ test, or ‘last resort’ concept. Care must be taken to provide a balanced assessment of the special guardian, rather than over-emphasising untested positives.
8. In short, Special Guardianship Orders should neither be recommended nor endorsed nor determined expediently where the test and bar for a carer to pass is lower than that for a permanent placement outside the family, whatever the proposed legal framework for that placement. A Special Guardianship Order is a valid and compelling permanence option for many children but fundamentally the principles underpinning a Special Guardianship assessment and care plan should be no less than the test and standards for other forms of permanence outside the child’s immediate family. If practitioners are unable to complete assessment to the standard demanded by both the regulations and the complexity of the case within the timescale proposed by the courts, this point should be clearly made. Social workers, children’s guardians and lawyers must assert themselves before the court if they believe that extra time is needed to complete an assessment so the child in question can be properly safeguarded.
9. No child should be placed in the care of a Special Guardian without DBS and other necessary checks being carried out.
10. Our note applies to all practitioners in the case. We are not singling any profession or agency out for criticism over and above any other but this has become a real problem and a real risk for the children concerned.
Andrew Webb (ADCS) Anthony Douglas (Cafcass)

Reform Proposals

A review of the law around SGOs was commissioned by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory in response to the Court of Appeal’s call for authoritative, evidence-based guidance for the use of SGOs.  It was led by Dr John Simmonds from CoramBAAF and Professor Judith Harwin from Lancaster University.  The review was published in August 2019 and called for significant changes:

  • Increase focus on working with family members who might become the child’s special guardian before care proceedings commence.
  • A statutory minimum amount of preparation and training for prospective special guardians.
  • Ensuring that prospective special guardians have direct experience of caring for the child before making a Special Guardianship Order, evidenced by a thorough assessment of suitability.
  • Ensure that support services are available locally and align with entitlements for adopters and foster carers such as parental leave, housing priority and financial support.
  • Address the glaring gap in research on children and young people’s views and experiences of special guardianship.
  • Undertake research to address the challenge of how best to ensure safe and positive contact with birth parents and the wider family.

Final report of the Public Law Working Group

This was delivered in June 2020 and made four recommendations for immediate change at page 12:

  • more robust and more comprehensive special guardianship assessments and special guardianship support plans, including a renewed emphasis on (1) the child-special guardian relationship, (2) special guardians caring for children on an interim basis pre-final decision and (3) the provision of support services;
  • better preparation and training for special guardians;
  • reduction in the use of supervision orders with special guardianship orders;
  • renewed emphasis on parental contact

There were also four recommendations for longer term change

  • on-going review of the statutory framework;
  • further analysis and enquiry into (1) review of the fostering regulations, (2) the possibility of interim special guardianship orders, (3) further duties on local authorities to identify potential carers, (4) the need for greater support for special guardians;
  • a review of public funding for proposed special guardians;
  • effective pre-proceedings work and the use of the FRG’s Initial Family and Friends Care Assessment: A good practice guide (2017)

Appendix E sets out Best Practice Guidance, which the report recommends is implemented immediately.  This was endorsed by the President of the Family Division.

This incorporates interim guidance specifically to address the lawful extension of care proceedings beyond 26 weeks when special guardianship is being considered as an option. 

 

Further Reading

  • See what Coram BAAF say about special guardians.
  • There is a blog for special guardians which provides advice and support.
  • For a discussion of the merits of adoption versus special guardianship orders, see this post by suesspiciousminds.
  • In December 2015 the Department of Education proposed a major review of SGO assessments after concerns were raised about the large increase in the number of SGOs.
  • Report of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.  March 2019. This is the first largescale study of supervision orders and is the most recent national report on special guardianship. It provides crucial new evidence regarding stability and disruption for children who return to their birth parents on a supervision order or are placed within their extended families on an SGO. Powerful messages come from focus groups with special guardians and family justice professionals. They resonate with the issues raised in the recent Re P-S court of Appeal case. The report calls for better access to justice and a more transparent court process for special guardians. It also calls for a major overhaul of the process of selecting special guardians and significantly more support for this kind of placement. It has been the Cinderella for too long and needs to have parity with other types of care.
  • Special Guardians – impact of local court guidance CPR October 2016
  • Special Guardian orders and Supervision orders – is it right these ever go together? CPR October 2016 

When will the court agree adoption is necessary?

And what do we mean by ‘nothing else will do’?

Introduction and summary

Adoption proceedings are dealt with by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. I agree that adoptions can be ‘forced’ in that the court can make an adoption order without getting the parents’ consent. But I don’t agree that this equates to a deliberate plot to target ‘adoptable’ children to get them into the system.

I believe that parents’  rights to be heard and produce evidence about what they think is the best outcome for their child are real and usually respected in the system. Judges have warned against the dangers of ‘social engineering’ for many years now.

In this post I consider the relevant case law which the court must have in mind when considering making a final care order which has a plan for adoption. The case of Re B-S in 2013 caused a stir amongst lawyers and social workers and was interpreted by some as changing the law by making it more difficult to convince a court to make an adoption order. The President of the Family Division clarified in the case of Re R in 2014 that his judgment in Re B-S had not intended to change the law and did NOT change the law. Re W in 2016 provided further refinement of the ‘nothing else will test’ and confirmed it is not the right test when the court has to decide between two appropriate placements.

I discuss these cases in more detail below.

Remember that Care proceedings are NOT adoption proceedings

The relevance of the 26 week timetable.

The first and very important point to make is that care proceedings are not adoption proceedings.  Before a child can be adopted, The LA has to obtain a placement order. This is often applied for at the same time as a final care order.

BUT note section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA) below; the LA can apply for a placement order if a child is accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act. This does raise some legitimate concerns about ‘adoption by stealth’ which I discuss further here.

Section 21 of the ACA says the court cannot make a placement order unless:

  • the child is subject to a care order OR
  • the court is satisfied that the conditions in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 are met OR
  • the child has no parent or guardian

The conditions set out in section 31(2) are those required to exist before a court can make a care or supervision order:

  • that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
  • that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—
    • the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or
    • the child’s being beyond parental control.

Section 22 of the ACA sets out that a local authority must apply to the court for a placement order in respect of a child if:

  • the child is placed for adoption by them or is being provided with accommodation by them,
  • no adoption agency is authorised to place the child for adoption,
  • the child has no parent or guardian or the authority consider that the conditions in section 31(2) of the 1989 Act are met, and
  • the authority are satisfied that the child ought to be placed for adoption.

This a high threshold – for obvious reasons. Taking children away from their families is recognised as the most serious interference with people’s family and private lives; it has life long consequences for all concerned.

So if anyone tells you simply that a social worker will take your child and have him adopted, this is not an accurate description of the necessary process.

In fact the government became so concerned by how long care proceedings were taking that section 14 of the Children and Families Act 2014 now provides that care proceedings must finish as soon as possible or in any event, take no longer than 26 weeks to conclude.

Care Proceedings may go beyond 26 weeks when this is necessary to resolve the proceedings justly. The Children And Families Act further provides at section 14(5).

A court in which an application under this Part is proceeding may extend the period that is for the time being allowed under subsection (1)(a)(ii) in the case of the application, but may do so only if the court considers that the extension is necessary to enable the court to resolve the proceedings justly.

See further para 49 of Re B-S:

where the proposal before the court is for non-consensual adoption, the issues are too grave, the stakes for all are too high, for the outcome to be determined by rigorous adherence to an inflexible timetable and justice thereby potentially denied.

This was approved and re-stated by the President in Re S (A Child) on 16th April 2014.

Justice may not be sacrificed on the altar of speed. See further para 40 of Re NL (A Child) (Appeal: Interim Care Order: Facts and Reasons) [2014] EWHC 270 (Fam). We have considered this case here.

It will be interesting to see how further court decisions refine this principle in the light of worries over the misinterpretion of Re B-S.

But even if the court does not give permission for care proceedings to exceed 26 weeks, that does not mean that at the end of 26 weeks, the child will be adopted.  A court must made a final care order, then a placement order. This will give the LA the power to look for an adoptive placement and then the prospective adoptive parents will apply for an adoption order. The whole process is likely to take at least a year, if not more.

The link between care proceedings and adoption proceedings.

However, I believe it is clear there is a link between care and adoption proceedings; the LA must set out their plans for the children’s future in the care plans to be considered at the final hearing. So if the LA think adoption is the best option, they need to have made that decision before the final hearing so it can be confirmed by their Agency Decision Maker.

However, not everyone agrees with that position; see below for our discussion of the Adoption Leadership Board’s ‘myth busting’ guidance about the law on adoption.

Case law – what have the judges said about the need for adoption?

Lord Templeman in Re KD 1988:

The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child’s moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature” 

Mr Justice Hedley in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) (Family Division 26 October 2006)

Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, whilst others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done. …It would be unwise to a degree to attempt an all embracing definition of significant harm. One never ceases to be surprised at the extent of complication and difficulty that human beings manage to introduce into family life.

 Baroness Hale in B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35:

20. Taking a child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her, but for her whole family, and for the local authority which does so. In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued. Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights (art 8), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art 23) and throughout the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Justice McReynolds famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925), at 535, “The child is not the mere creature of the State”.

21. That is why the Review of Child Care Law (Department of Health and Social Security, 1985)) and the white paper, The Law on Child Care and Family Services (Cm 62, 1987), which led up to the Children Act 1989, rejected the suggestion that a child could be taken from her family whenever it would be better for her than not doing so. As the Review put it, “Only where their children are put at unacceptable risk should it be possible compulsorily to intervene. Once such a risk of harm has been shown, however, [the child’s] interests must clearly predominate” (para 2.13).

 

In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33

See paragraphs 74,76,77,82,104,130,135,145,198,215. Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption are a ‘very extreme thing, a last resort, only to be made where nothing else will do, where no other course is possible in the child’s interests, they are the most extreme option, a last resort – when all else fails, to be made only in exceptional circumstances and motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child’s welfare, in short where nothing else will do.’

G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965

  • The crossing of the s.31 threshold does not of itself engage Art 8, but consideration of the question of what if any order should be made as a result does.
  • There is a presumption that the children’s best interests are served by being with their parents wherever possible.
  • Decisions that involve long term separation of a child from the family, or adoption will require a high degree of justification, be “necessary”, “nothing else will do” especially where intervention is extreme (such as adoption).
  • The task of a trial judge making the ultimate determination of whether to make a care order is more than to exercise a discretion – there is an obligation to determine the application in a way that is compatible with Article 8 – and to apply the yardstick of proportionality.
  • A linear approach to deciding the outcome is not appropriate – this means that it is not appropriate to evaluate and eliminate an individual option, to be left with the alternative (for example, M cannot care for the child, so a care order is the alternative). This approach leads to a bias towards the most draconian option. A global, holistic evaluation of each of the options available must be conducted.
  • A global evaluation requires a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to a degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh the positives and negatives of each option side by side (the risks and positives of returning to M, against the risks and positives of long term foster-care). An express choice should then be made by applying the child’s welfare as a paramount consideration.
  • The court should also contemplate why any conclusion that renders permanent separation is “necessary”, on the basis that it is the “last resort” and “nothing else will do.”
  • The court should also be satisfied that there is no practical way that the Local Authority (or others) can provide the requisite assistance and support required for the child to be able to remain within the family

re B-S Children [2013] EWCA Civ 1146

The Court of Appeal considered this clear path of jurisprudence and issued stern warnings about the essential requirement in every case involving issues of non-consensual adoption, of clear analysis about all the realistic options.

The key points of the judgment can be summarised as:

  • Adoption is the ‘last resort’ [para 22]
  • The starting point must be consideration of the law around Article 8 of the European Convention and the fact that this imposes a positive obligation upon States to try to keep families together [paras 18]
  • The least interventionist approach is to be preferred [para 23]
  • The child’s interests are paramount, but the court must never lost sight of the fact that these interests include being brought up by his/her natural family [para 26]
  • There must be proper evidence from the LA and the Guardian that addresses all options which are realistically possible and must contain an analysis of the arguments for and against each option [para 34]
  • The court then ‘must’ consider all available realistic options when coming to a decision; [para 27, 44]
  • The court’s assessment of the parents’ capacity to care for the child should include consideration of what support was available to help them do so [para 28]
  • The LA cannot press for a more drastic form of order because it is unable or unwilling to support a less interventionist form of order; it is their obligation to make the court order work [para 29]

The Court of Appeal made it clear that it was ‘essential’ that a decision was made after a proper and thorough analysis of all relevant evidence. There was a real danger of not making the right decision if the court took a ‘linear’ approach to the options, i.e. rejecting option A, then moving on to option B etc. See para 44 of the judgment.

We emphasise the words “global, holistic evaluation”. This point is crucial. The judicial task is to evaluate all the options, undertaking a global, holistic and (see Re G para 51) multi-faceted evaluation of the child’s welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option.”

Proportionality is the key factor

The Supreme Court In the matter of H-W (Children) In the matter of H-W (Children) (No 2) [2022] UKSC 17 approved the judgment of McFarlane LJ (as he then was) in In re G (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965; [2013] 3 FCR 293:

The judicial task is to evaluate all the options, undertaking a global, holistic and … multi-faceted evaluation of the child’s welfare which takes into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each option … ‘What is required is a balancing exercise in which each option is evaluated to the degree of detail necessary to analyse and weigh its own internal positives and negatives and each option is then compared, side by side, against the competing option or options.

And at paras 59 and 60 said this:

Unfortunately, whilst the judge deals with the welfare checklist from (a)-(f) he does not specifically deal with (g) which is the range of options. Also, he does not fully recognise the impact of the section 31A plan for permanence in relation to each child. Unfortunately, paras 142-145 of the judgment cannot cure the problem as these paragraphs simply raise the issues rather than analyse them.

The judge’s treatment of the facts and the evidence was thorough. He undoubtedly directed himself that his orders were required to be proportionate. However that is not the end of the matter. The difficulty is that one looks in vain for the critical side-by-side analysis of the available options by way of disposal, and for the evaluative, holistic assessment which the law requires of a judge at this stage. Whilst the judge has identified the risk of sexual harm as satisfying the threshold criteria for intervention, there is no evaluation of the extent of the risk of significant harm by way of sexual harm, nor of any available means by which the risk might be reduced for each child. Nor is there any comparison of the harm which might befall the children if left at home with the harm which would be occasioned to them if removed, and separated not only from the parents but from each other

Rowing back from ‘adoption as the last resort’?

The impact of Re B-S and how it has been interpreted caused serious concern for many. Since Re B-S there have been a number of  Court of Appeal decisions that appear to want to ‘row back’ from the approach that adoption is the only permissible option when ‘nothing else will do’. See for example the case of M (A Child: Long-Term Foster Care) [2014] EWCA Civ 1406.

Suesspiciousminds discusses these cases in his blog post and comments:

We are continuing to refine / retreat from “nothing else will do” and our soundbite test is really ending up to be quite a nuanced and long test, rather more like –

“The Court must look at each of the options for the child, consider which are remote and which are possible, and of the possible options consider whether they are contrary to the interests of the child to pursue them. If there is an option that remains that is a less interventionist order than adoption, that should be preferred.”

In CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2014] EWCA 1479 the mother appealed against the making of a placement order as the LA had proposed a time limited search for adoptive parents over six months, after which time, if none were found the plan would revert to long term foster care. The mother complained that this could not pass the test of adoption being ‘the last resort’ if in fact the LA were prepared to consider ‘another resort’ after only six months.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. At para 33 the court commented:

Neither the decision of the Supreme Court nor that of this court in Re B-S has created a new test or a new presumption. What the decisions do is to explain the existing law, the decision making process that the court must adopt to give effect to Strasbourg jurisprudence and domestic legislation and the evidential requirements of the same. A court making a placement order decision must conduct a five part exercise. It must undertake a welfare analysis of each of the realistic options for the child having regard among any other relevant issues to the matters set out in section 1(4) of the 2002 Act (the ‘welfare checklist’). That involves looking at a balance sheet of benefits and detriments in relation to each option. It must then compare the analysis of each option against the others. It must decide whether an option and if so which option safeguards the child’s welfare throughout her life: that is the court’s welfare evaluation or value judgment that is mandated by section 1(2) of the Act. It will usually be a choice between one or more long term placement options.

That decision then feeds into the statutory test in sections 21(3)(b) and 52 of the 2002 Act, namely whether in the context of what is in the best interests of the child throughout his life the consent of the parent or guardian should be dispensed with. The statutory test as set out above has to be based in the court’s welfare analysis which leads to its value judgment. In considering whether the welfare of the child requires consent to be dispensed with, the court must look at its welfare evaluation and ask itself the question whether that is a proportionate interference in the family life of the child. That is the proportionality evaluation that is an inherent component of the domestic statutory test and a requirement of Strasbourg jurisprudence.

That is what ‘nothing else will do’ means. It involves a process of deductive reasoning. It does not require there to be no other realistic option on the table, even less so no other option or that there is only one possible course for the child. It is not a standard of proof. It is a description of the conclusion of a process of deductive reasoning within which there has been a careful consideration of each of the realistic options that are available on the facts so that there is no other comparable option that will meet the best interests of the child.

For further consideration of what the law actually is in other European countries relating to adoption see the study of Dr Claire Fenton-Glynn, to the European Parliament in June 2015 Every European country permits adoption without a parental consent.

Re R [2014] ‘Re B-S was not intended to change and has not changed the law’

The President of the Family Division confirmed on 16th December 2014 that nothing in Re B-S had been intended to change the law. He stated at para 44 of the judgment:

I wish to emphasise, with as much force as possible, that Re B-S was not intended to change and has not changed the law. Where adoption is in the child’s best interests, local authorities must not shy away from seeking, nor courts from making, care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders. The fact is that there are occasions when nothing but adoption will do, and it is essential in such cases that a child’s welfare should not be compromised by keeping them within their family at all costs.

The fact that the law in this country permits adoption in circumstances where it would not be permitted in many European countries is neither here nor there. I do not resile from anything I said either in In reE (A Child) (Care Proceedings: European Dimension) [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam), [2014] 1 WLR 2670, [2014] 2 FLR 151, or in Re M (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 152, but for present purposes they are largely beside the point. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 permits, in the circumstances there specified, what can conveniently be referred to as non-consensual adoption. And so long as that remains the law as laid down by Parliament, local authorities and courts, like everyone else, must loyally follow and apply it. Parliamentary democracy, indeed the very rule of law itself, demands no less….

The law and practice are to be found definitively stated in two cases: the decision of the Supreme Court in In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, [2013] 1 WLR 1911, [2013] 2 FLR 1075, and the decision of this court in In re B-S (Children) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, [2014] 1 WLR 563, [2014] 1 FLR 1035….

…The fundamental principle, as explained in Re B, is, and remains, that, where there is opposition from the parent(s), the making of a care order with a plan for adoption, or of a placement order, is permissible only where, in the context of the child’s welfare, “nothing else will do”.

For further comment on this case and how it has been misreported in the media, see Pink Tape. See the statement by the British Association of Adoption and Fosterting. 

Further refinement of the ‘nothing else will do’ test – not appropriate when court needs to chose between two good placements.

Following Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, the court decided that the question of ‘nothing else will do’ is not apt as the starting point in cases where the court had to decide between two different households – in this case the potential adopters and grandparents who wanted an SGO. The question to be answered is what outcome will best promote F’s welfare for the rest of her life.

The court said this at para 68 about the phrase ‘nothing else will do’:

The phrase is meaningless, and potentially dangerous, if it is applied as some freestanding, shortcut test divorced from, or even in place of, an overall evaluation of the child’s welfare. Used properly, as Baroness Hale explained, the phrase “nothing else will do” is no more, nor no less, than a useful distillation of the proportionality and necessity test as embodied in the ECHR and reflected in the need to afford paramount consideration to the welfare of the child throughout her lifetime (ACA 2002 s 1). The phrase “nothing else will do” is not some sort of hyperlink providing a direct route to the outcome of a case so as to bypass the need to undertake a full, comprehensive welfare evaluation of all of the relevant pros and cons (see Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, Re R [2014] EWCA Civ 715 and other cases).

69. Once the comprehensive, full welfare analysis has been undertaken of the pros and cons it is then, and only then, that the overall proportionality of any plan for adoption falls to be evaluated and the phrase “nothing else will do” can properly be deployed. If the ultimate outcome of the case is to favour placement for adoption or the making of an adoption order it is that outcome that falls to be evaluated against the yardstick of necessity, proportionality and “nothing else will do”.

Rare example of court refusing to make an adoption order – reliance on presumption of ‘right’ to placement with birth family that is no longer good law?

It seems that the case of A and B v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council [2014] may be the first since the 2002 Adoption Act, where the court refused to make an adoption order and removed the child from the home of the potential adoptive parents – where he was settled – to live with his paternal aunt. It is clear that the court must consider the child’s welfare throughout his life – as the Judge commented here, this could mean 80 years or more.

For further discussion of this case, see suesspiciousminds.

The Judge commented at paragraph 95:

This case clearly requires taking both a short term and a long term view. C is currently very well placed with “perfect adopters”. They are a well trained couple with whom he is very well attached. He is of mixed race. They are both white and share with him that half of his ethnicity. A and B are “tried and tested” as has been said. His aunt and the principal members of the paternal family are black and share with him that half of his ethnicity. The aunt is a single person. She has not been “tried and tested” as a carer for C, but she has been observed as a carer of her own child, G, and thoroughly assessed as entirely suitable to care long term for C. There would be likely to be short, and possibly long term harm if he now moves from A and B to the aunt, but that is mitigated by his embedded security and attachments with A and B, and can be further mitigated by specialist training and support for the aunt, which she will gladly accept. The unquantifiable but potentially considerable advantage of a move to the aunt is the bridge to the paternal original family.
It is my firm judgment and view that it is positively better for C not to be adopted but to move to the aunt. In any event, I certainly do not consider that making an adoption order would be better for C than not doing so. Accordingly I must, as I do, determine not to make an adoption order and must dismiss the adoption application. Pursuant to section 24(4) of the Act, I exercise a discretion to revoke the placement order made in respect of the child on 2 August 2013.

BUT – would this case have survived the analysis of the Court of Appeal in Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 793, which rejected the presumption in favour of placement with birth family?

The court said at paragraph 71 of the judgment

The repeated reference to a ‘right’ for a child to be brought up by his or her natural family, or the assumption that there is a presumption to that effect, needs to be firmly and clearly laid to rest. No such ‘right’ or presumption exists. The only ‘right’ is for the arrangements for the child to be determined by affording paramount consideration to her welfare throughout her life (in an adoption case) in a manner which is proportionate and compatible with the need to respect any ECHR Art 8 rights which are engaged.

Judges must not pay ‘lip service’ to the necessary analysis

A useful case is In the matter of P (a child) [2016] EWCA Civ 3 where the Judge was criticised for not conducting the necessary analysis required of the ‘realistic’ options. At paragraph 56 the Court of Appeal commented:

While ostensibly aware of the need to adopt a ‘holistic’ approach to the evaluation of the options for P (and the guidance offered by Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, [2014] 1 FLR 1935 at [36] and at [46]), we are not convinced that Judge Ansell delivered on his intentions. It is, as this Court has emphasised in Re B-S and in Re R (A Child) (Adoption: Judicial Approach) [2014] (above)) “essential” that a judge provides an adequately reasoned judgment at the conclusion of a case such as this. We very much regret that after the extensive, perhaps overly discursive, review of the evidence this judgment is light on analysis of at least one of the two realistic options (i.e. adoption) to the degree of detail necessary, nor does the judgment contain a comparison of each option or options (see McFarlane LJ in Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, [2014] 1 FLR 670 at [54]), or a proportionality evaluation. In this respect, Mr. Horrocks makes good his submission.

There is no specially prescribed form for a judge undertaking the exercise outlined above; the judge is doing little more than performing an ‘old-fashioned welfare balancing exercise’ (Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 882 at [48]); the term ‘holistic’ does not have any special meaning. Neither the parties, nor this Court, will readily conclude that a judge has performed the necessary welfare balancing exercise just because he or she acknowledges the need to do so. The debate about whether the analysis of the realistic options is a ‘balance sheet’ of the pros and cons or an aide memoire of the key welfare factors and how they match up against each other is sterile. What is expected is that the benefits and detriments of each option are considered and there is an evaluation of each option as against the other based on that analysis.

There is a useful case here, setting out the need for Judges to give clear reasons for their decisions C, D AND E (CARE PROCEEDINGS: ADEQUACY OF REASONS)[2023] EWCA Civ 334. It is a good idea for the lawyers to agree a note of the relevant law to assist the Judge.

Useful case of E (A Child) (Care and (Placement Orders)[2023] EWCA Civ 721 where a mother successfully appealed the decision of the Judge not to order psychological assessment.

No duty to assess wider family members – but it may be desirable

The case of RE H (Care and Adoption : Assessment of wider family) 2019 confirms that there is no ‘absolute duty’ to seek out wider family members and assess them. The court commented:

First, repeating a point made earlier (see [22]), none of the provisions of statute, regulations or rules to which I have referred, impose any absolute duty on either the local authority or the Children’s Guardian, or indeed the court, to inform or consult members of the extended family about the existence of a child or the plans for the child’s adoption in circumstances such as arise here. However, the ethos of the CA 1989 is plainly supportive of wider family involvement in the child’s life, save where that outcome is not consistent with their welfare .

Further reading

  • Read an article here by a family lawyer who is worried about the implications of the 26 week timetable introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014.
  • For another view, see this research from the Ministry of Justice in 2014 which suggests practitioners welcome the new approach to care proceedings.
  • The President of the Family Division has recognised there is a ‘tension’ between what the courts are expecting about the way care and adoption proceedings are dealt with and government proposals relating to adoption. 
  • Read Sir Martin Narey’s guidance about what the law does and does not say about adoption.
  • October 2020 – discussion of some recent cases by The Transparency Project. 
  • ‘Relinquished baby adoptions’ – what to do if the father doesn’t know about the child? 
  • Useful discussion about the intersection between the powers of the court and the local authority – what happens when the local authority does not accept the court’s welfare evaluation? T (A Child), Re [2018] EWCA Civ 650 (28 March 2018)
  • Successful appeal against the making of a placement order due to inadequate risk assessment Re T (Risk assessment)  [2025] EWCA Civ 93, 2025 WL 00419848 Court of Appeal Judgment Template
  • European Court refused to find breach of article 8 when one sibling was returned to a mother and the other adopted. The child had been in placement for about 3 years and had no contact with his mother all that time; she had not applied for any contact. NS v United Kingdom [2025] Application No.38134/20

The misinterpretation of Re B-S? ‘Myth busting guidance’

Sir Martin Narey has noted with concern that the impact of what he asserts is the ‘misinterpretation’ of Re B-S which has reduced the numbers of children put forward for adoption by LAs by 46%. In an attempt to dispel the ‘myths’  that have arisen about when the court may make an adoption order, the Adoption Leadership Board has published  ‘myth-busting guidance’ after advice from Janet Bazley QC and consulting with the President of the Family Division.

Sir Martin Narey said:

Before commissioning the guidance, I discussed the serious drop in adoptions with Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court who made the Re BS judgement, and I have been extremely grateful for his advice. The myth buster has been shared with him, and he supports its aim of dispelling misconceptions about the recent case law on adoption. [EDIT BUT – note the final paragraph of Re R [2014] discussed below, where the President is very clear that this ‘myth busting’ guidance is NOT endorsed by the judiciary.]

The main myths are that:

• The legal test for adoption has changed: It hasn’t.

• To satisfy the Courts all alternative options to adoption must be considered: Not so. The evidence must address all options which are realistically possible.

• Adoption is only appropriate where nothing else will do: ‘Nothing else will do’ does not mean settling for an alternative which will not meet the child’s physical and emotional needs.

• Because it is a ‘last resort’ planning for adoption must wait until other options have been categorically ruled out. Not true. Local Authorities should plan at the earliest possible stage for the alternative of adoption where it seems possible that the child’s reunification with the family or care by other members of the family might not prove to be possible.

• The 26 week rule applies to placement orders. Since April any application for a care order or supervision order must be completed within 26 weeks but placement orders are not subject to the 26 week time limit.

The myth buster is being distributed to staff at all levels and across various disciplines in local authorities, Cafcass and the family justice system.

I urge all those involved in the adoption system to read it and reflect on how they as professionals, and their organisations, can make sure their practice and decision-making accurately reflects the judgments.

Our most vulnerable children deserve nothing less.

A number of commentators have replied to say they don’t accept  that Sir Martin Narey is right to dismissal the relevance of the 26 week timetable; LA final care plans for adoption must be made before the end of the 26 weeks timetable in care proceedings,  so speeding up those proceedings will inevitably impact on adoption proceedings and the type and quality of analysis that goes into the decision that adoption is the right outcome for particular child.

Pink Tape comments:

So. On to my real bugbear. It is disingenuous in my view to send out a message to social workers that nothing has changed, the law is the same (and implicitly you can all stop getting your knickers in a twist and go back to how things were). Because everything has changed. Not the law. Anon QC is right about that. It’s not changed. And Re B and Re B-S don’t actually set out new law, or anything we haven’t been told before. But I think that things have changed pretty radically. And generally for the better.

It is our understanding of the law that has changed – and with it our practice. The authorities that emerged like machine gun fire from the Court of Appeal in the summer and autumn of 2013 were a wake up call, a reminder that sloppy practice and poor analysis are not “good enough”. A reminder that nothing less than our best practice – as lawyers, as social workers or as judges – will do. Yes, rigour is de rigeur.

Because you know what? Before Re B and what flowed from it there was a tendency to give up on parents a little too quickly, to rule them out early on and to autopilot to a plan for adoption as the best opportunity. If we are honest the analysis of this was often poor, the challenge from lawyers and from guardians too was sometimes less robust than it should have been, and the judiciary did not always proactively probe or highlight evidential deficiencies. After all, that’s why the Court of Appeal threw their toys out of the pram in Re B-S in the first place, wasn’t it?

Image is from AdoptHelp






Financial and Housing Advice

Financial help/advice

Section 17(6) of the Children Act 1989:

ADT Fourth World -a human rights-based, anti-poverty organisation with more than 40 years experience of engaging with individuals and institutions to find solutions to eradicate extreme poverty in the UK. Runs a family support programme.

Benefits Guide 2017 – In the United Kingdom, millions of pounds in benefits is left unclaimed every year. A staggering amount of people could greatly benefit from this help, yet many are simply unaware of their entitlement.

Benefits Guide.co.uk – a free to use resource which provides clear and comprehensive information on all available UK welfare benefits as well as guidance on benefit applications, appeals, emergency assistance & legal help.

Buttle UK – to give children and young people living in poverty a fighting chance. Operates grant programmes to buy basic items.

The Royal National Children’s Foundation – a charity which helps vulnerable children and young people in Britain whose circumstances are seriously prejudicial to their normal development and where no other care is available. It can provide grants and boarding school placements for children aged 7 – to give children and young people living in poverty a fighting chance; offers grants to buy essential and basic items.

Citizens Advice Bureau – free and independent advice, help with managing debt.

Christians Against Poverty – free help with managing debt, a national charity that wants to lift people out of debt and poverty.

Family Action – a leading provider of services to disadvantaged and socially isolated families since its foundation in 1869. They work with over 45,000 children and families a year by providing practical, emotional and financial support through over 100 services based in communities across England. It runs a small grants programme, dealing with welfare and education issues.

Local Welfare Assistance Scheme – use this map from the Children’s Society to find assistance local to you following the abolition of the crisis loan and community care grant schemes.

National Debt Line – Use the on line advice service or call 0800 808 4000 for help.

Money Advice Service – a free service set up by the Government to help people manage their money.

Step Change Debt Charity – offers expert advice and practical solutions to problem debt.

Turn to Us – a free service that helps people in financial need to access welfare benefits, charitable grants and other financial help – online, by phone and face to face through partner organisations. 

Guide to Universal Credit by Lisa Manners

Housing

Action Homeless – charity based in Leicestershire dedicated to tackling the causes and consequences of homelessness. Undertakes preventative work in the community to stop homelessness from occurring, especially amongst groups of people who are particularly at risk.

Crisis – national charity for single homeless people.

Gov.uk site – emergency housing if homeless.

Shelter – gives practical housing advice and support online, in person and by phone. Expert advisers give free, confidential advice 365 days a year, helping with everything from mortgage arrears to finding a place to sleep. Call 0808 800 4444.






What the internet can teach us about communication – and being better professionals

The two words ‘information’ and ‘communication’ are often used interchangeably, but they signify quite different things. Information is giving out; communication is getting through.

Sydney J. Harris

This is an article by Sarah Phillimore of St Johns Chambers in Bristol who has been a family law barrister since 1999 and worked in courts all over London and the South West.

In this article Sarah discusses the impact of the Internet on professional debate and the new drive for openness and transparency in the family law system and how it is hoped this can have positive outcomes for all involved in the area of child protection law.

I write from the perspective of a family law barrister who has been in practice for nearly 15 years. The bulk of my work is in care proceedings and most of the time I represent parents, although I am also instructed to represent Local Authorities and Guardians.

I am also someone who spends a lot of the time on the Internet, discussing things that interest me. I now have an ipad and often many hours in the day spent travelling or sitting and waiting outside court, so I have been able to indulge this hobby pretty regularly.

What I have found depressing over the years is the increasing number of those commentating on issues of child protection who firmly believe that the entire system is corrupt and broken. They argue, inter alia, that children are taken from loving homes, for no good or for ‘silly’ reasons in order for Local Authorities to fulfill their government sanctioned ‘adoption targets’. Given that their belief is of a malign State which deliberately sets out to ruin families for some obscure and unexplained financial benefit arising from each ‘forced adoption’, it is not difficult to understand why their views of family lawyers are equally stark and unflattering.

I am variously told that I am ‘a legal aid loser’, that I am ‘in the pockets of the LA’ and do what I am told or I won’t get paid. I am told that my clients don’t get to see the evidence against them and/or are not allowed to challenge it and if I haven’t noticed that I am swimming in a sea of corruption, it is because I am too stupid.

I consider myself a relatively robust individual and can weather the insults directed at me on line. But it isn’t the impact on my psyche that is the issue here. It is what these Internet debates have more widely revealed as the general corrosion of general public trust in the entire system of child protection. I think there is now an urgent need for more professionals not only to recognize this but also to engage with it. The protection of children is far too important an issue to be hijacked by just one agenda.

 

Lack of public trust and confidence in the system.

One of the reasons I am so concerned is that in the last few years, I have noticed an increasing and worrying trend for the Internet debate to spill out into my practice. I have had a number of clients who tell me that they understand why their child is being removed – because it will make the LA money. I have been quoted £30,000 per child, never mind that this is more likely a figure to represent the cost of keeping a child in foster care for a year. When I ask them to tell me WHY a cash strapped LA will spend large amounts of money on expensive care proceedings, of course, they cannot explain. I really do doubt there is an international conspiracy to steal children, headed by the United Nations – as some have asserted to me in all seriousness.

All this represents is a sad waste and diversion of some parents’ energies away from what really matters – dealing with their issues with drugs, with alcohol, with violence, which are standing in the way of their ability to translate the love they undoubtedly feel for their children into action which will ensure their children are reliably fed, clothed and taken to school.

The saddest example of this for me to date was the client who had made some dramatic and impressive changes to a life previously blighted by alcohol misuse and denial of the same. She had achieved the previously unprecedented stability of her own accommodation and had stopped drinking for a number of months. But on her application to discharge a placement order, she stood up to address the Judge on the basis that her child had been ‘stolen’ to make money for the LA. There was little I could do in closing submissions to repair the damage that had done to her credibility in the court’s eyes and an application which that morning had seemed promising, by lunch time had collapsed.

The point I am trying to make is that these Internet debates and the constant round of conspiracy theorizing have real and serious consequences when people take them out into the real world. In addition, whilst our energies are focusing on either maintaining or detracting from these theories, they are not focusing on what really matters – how do we improve the child protection system, how do we ensure that Victoria Climbie, Peter Connolley, Daniel Pelka and many other children did not die in vain, while at the same time not being too quick to remove children on an imperfect understanding of their family or medicial history?

The case of Allessandra Pacchieri  and the ‘forced caesarean’ in December 2013 was a stark example of all that worried the conspiracy theorists about the reach and malign motives of the State: the narrative of John Hemming MP together with Christopher Booker in the Telegraph being the targeting of a vulnerable foreign national who suffered a ‘panic attack’ and then found herself detained in a psychiatric hospital and forced to have a C section so that her baby could be ‘taken’ for adoption.

It was also a clear example of how frustrating it is for energies to be so misdirected. I agree there are interesting questions to be asked about the degree to which Alessandra Pacchieri was or could have been consulted prior to the court deciding that medical intervention was in her best interests. And I share the concerns of some commentators about why the original application was made on an urgent basis, when by that time she had been sectioned for a number of weeks and her advancing pregnancy was hardly a mystery.

However, a case involving a woman who was seriously mentally ill at the time of the application, to the extent that she lacked capacity to engage in legal proceedings and was represented by the Official Solicitor, whose two elder children did not live with her due to her inability to care for them, and who had both been delivered by C-section leading to doctors to have legitimate concerns about a subsequent attempt at a natural birth, made this a rather more complicated scenario than some would wish and certainly much less of a clear cut example of a ‘corrupt’ or ‘evil’ system.

However, reasonable and sensible debate about what could have been done better in this case quickly became buried under a mass of assertion and counter assertion about the systemic corruption of the family law system as a whole.

 

Positive changes to the way we debate

The first good thing

However, not all was lost. Some good has come out of what at first glance seemed to be yet another rehash of the same wild and unsupported allegations about ‘baby snatching’, lies and collusion.

The first good thing is a move towards greater transparency in the reporting of court judgments. If we have confidence in the decisions our judges make – as I do – we should not be afraid to let as much sunlight in as possible.

In the court ruling concerning reporting restrictions relating to Ms. Pacchieri’s baby, the President of the Family Division himself noted that:  [2013] EWCH 4048

This case must surely stand as final, stark and irrefutable demonstration of the pressing need for radical changes in the way in which both the family courts and the Court of Protection approach what for shorthand I will refer to as transparency. We simply cannot go on as hitherto. Many more judgments must be published. And, as this case so very clearly demonstrates, that applies not merely to the judgments of High Court Judges; it applies also to the judgments of Circuit Judges.

The President was true to his word and on January 14th 2014 issued a Practice Direction relating to Transparency in the Family Courts and the Publication of Judgments that hopefully will lead to judgments routinely being transcribed and widely published. The cost of such endeavor must surely be worth it when balanced against the harm and damage done by loss of confidence in an entire system.

As the President also said in his 2013 judgment

… How can the family justice system blame the media for inaccuracy in the reporting of family cases if for whatever reason none of the relevant information has been put before the public?

I am glad that the debate is moving forward with regard to transparency but hope also that proper regard is going to be given to the need for maintaining privacy in some cases – particularly when the children don’t want details of their family lives exposed to greater scrutiny. There is a good blog post by Pink Tape on this very point.

You may also be interested in The Transparency Project -the aim of the project is to shed some light on the workings of the Family Courts, to make the process and the cases understandable for people without law degrees. 

The second good thing

Along with this judicial recognition of the need for greater transparency which has been explicitly recognized goes hand in hand with increased pubic discussion of such cases, came the possibly belated recognition that those of us who did have faith in the family justice system needed to also use the power of the internet to share information and hopefully encourage more positive debate.

A number of contributors to the various Internet discussion threads pointed out that there did not currently seem to be any clearly signposted resource offering advice and information without an agenda to all the people who might be involved in care proceedings. There were many excellent sources of information on the Internet but they appeared to be directed to particular groups of people only and it was not always easy to find unless you knew what you were looking for.

So a number of us from a variety of backgrounds and experiences decided to get together and create a resource that would help to inform all of those who might be involved in child protection issues be they, parents, lawyers, social workers or doctors. You will find us at www.childprotectionresource.org.uk

We hope that this site will be useful and interesting to a wide range of people. We always welcome contributions or comments, as long as they are reasonably polite and you don’t make serious assertions about corruption or conspiracies without some kind of proof in support.

 

How the internet can make us better professionals

I also expect and hope to learn from the site. The emotional perspectives from parents and children who have experienced the system are invaluable and sadly can sometimes get overlooked by a busy practitioner who is focusing on the forensic task of ‘winning’ a case.

I ask my clients to trust me; to trust that I am going to do the best job I can for them, that I am not a ‘legal aid loser’, here to appease the LA or simply worrying about paying my mortgage but that I chose to be a family lawyer because this area of law deals in vital and necessary issues about the very foundations of our society, our treatment of the vulnerable and our respect for difference.

But quite apart from my commitment to family law, equally my clients need to trust me to always recognize their humanity – that I won’t be blasé or cynical about their case, one of many to me but the only case that will ever matter to them. We all need to remember and understand that sometimes the conspiracy theories are promoted by many who have suffered real pain from the removal of their children and who sadly met along the way professionals who were rude, hostile or dismissive.

I do accept that mistakes have been made and miscarriages of justice have occurred. Mistakes in this field are particularly regrettable given their often profound and life long consequences for the children and families concerned – both for those children removed too soon and those removed too late, or sadly not at all.

What I don’t accept it that such mistakes represent a deliberate and planned attempt to ruin families and ‘snatch’ children. The more time we waste on that debate, the less time and energy we have to devote to ways to improve the system. For example, see the excellent Kids Company campaign ‘See the Child’.

 

Conclusion

We need to remove as many of the barriers that stand between trust and good working relationships as possible.  While professionals must remain ‘professional’, there is a danger this can slip into aloofness, imposition of unnecessary barriers to communication, and/or unwillingness to enter a legitimate arena of debate. This area of law and of life is too important to be dominated by those with narrow and possibly dangerous agendas, be they professional or parent.

The time is long overdue for greater transparency, co-operation and debate. We all want the same thing. To protect children, the most vulnerable members of society, and to do the least harm possible in the pursuit of that essential aim.






The Independent Reviewing Officer

Following the case of Re S in 2002 the House of Lords raised concerns that children were ‘getting lost’ in the care system after the court had made final orders and that this could be a breach of the children’s and parents’ Article 8 rights. For further discussion of this case see our post about Article 8 rights and proportionality.

The Government responded with Section 118 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which amended the Children Act 1989 and established the role of Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO).

The IRO Handbook  from March 2010 sets out statutory guidance regarding care planning and reviewing arrangements for looked after children.

The key role for the IRO is to improve outcomes for looked after children by reviewing each child’s care plan, making sure it is effective and to ensure that the child’s wishes and feelings are taken into account.

Section 25B of the Children Act 1989 defines the IRO’s role in this way.  They must:

  • monitor the performance by the local authority of their functions in relation to the child’s case;
  • participate, in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate national authority, in any review of the child’s case;
  • ensure that any ascertained wishes and feelings of the child concerning the case are given due consideration by the local authority;
  • perform any other function which is prescribed in regulations made by the appropriate national authority.

Under section 25B(3), the IRO can refer the child’s case to Cafcass.

The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010/959 give further details of the IRO’s responsibilities, including making sure that the child knows about his/her rights under the Children Act 1989 to apply for section 8 orders or make a complaint about the LA>

The Good Practice Protocol for Public Law Work sets out guidance for a clear understanding of the statutory roles of Cafcass and the IRO and how they work together.

 

Research about the role of the Independent Reviewing Officer.

2014 Research from the National Children’s Bureau

See this report from March 2014 on the role of IROs in England for the National Children’s Bureau, carried out by the Centre for Child and Family Research at Loughborough University.[Edit 17th July 2018 – this link no longer works}  The research concluded that more could be done to make sure the IRO was fulfilling his or her crucial role of ensuring good planning for the child.

As Mr Justice Peter Jackson commented in the foreword:

It is 10 years since IROs were created in response to widespread concern about children in care being lost to sight. Yet the key conclusion of this study is that the IRO role in ensuring high-quality care planning is still to be fully realised. The report is full of examples of what can be achieved by a well-organised service, but it also uncovers the widespread problems that still exist. Here is how one child describes a review meeting:

“It’s like you’re sitting there like a ghost and there was like normal people in the room just speaking about you and you can’t say anything because you’re just like this ghost person.”

Identification of Important elements to the role of the IRO

  • Professional status and respect, demonstrated both by resourcing the service properly and by openly giving IROs ‘permission’ to challenge.
  • IROs with the right skills, particularly the ability to communicate with children and young people, and to know how and when to challenge.
  • Access to expert advice, including independent legal advice and opportunities for reflective practice.
  • Dispute resolution protocols that work, from informal conversations to the escalation of cases to senior management.
  • Child-centred IROs, who demonstrate their commitment to each child and work out the best way to seek their views.
  • Having a focus on outcomes, and holding agencies to account for their contribution towards these, rather than ‘box-ticking’.

 

Conclusions

Making sure that a child’s care plan is reviewed in a timely fashion was perhaps seen as the area where IROs had the greatest impact. This was one of the reasons why the IRO service was created in the first place, and just because timely reviews could now be taken for granted in most cases, their role in ensuring this happens should not be underestimated.

IROs were also seen as having had an influence on cases on an ongoing basis, particularly on ensuring that the care planning process focused on permanency, was child-centred and evidence based. However, respondents’ accounts reflected the variations in practice and performance reported in previous chapters, and the barriers IROs were facing in operating as intended by the national guidance.

IROs were seen as contributing to improved support and services for looked after children mainly through their involvement in individual cases. And again participants’ accounts showed what difference IROs could make when they operated as intended, but also, their limited ability to make a difference when the service was not implemented effectively. We found examples of IROs having an influence at the more strategic level to improve a local authority’s functioning as a corporate parent. However, this is an area of IROs’ work that seems rather under-developed, and where greater clarity is required about expectations, as well as the creation of structures and processes to enable them to have an input at the strategic level.

Finally, when looking at the difference IROs made to children’s lives, respondents had some understandable difficulties attributing any improvements in child outcomes specifically to IROs, given the range of services involved in supporting children. A difficulty that was compounded by the fact that the IRO service has only recently been subject to strengthened guidance and therefore it is probably too soon to establish if they have made a difference to children’s outcomes. Assessing their contribution is important and some thought should be given, both nationally and locally, to how one can assess if and how IROs do make a difference to children’s lives, using the theory of change model outlined at the start of this chapter.

2015 Research from the University of East Anglia

This report, Care Planning and the Role of the IRO looked at how 122 children’s cases had been managed. They concluded that for the most part care planning had gone well but that there was no room for complacency as problems and challenges continued to arise. The repot noted that it was very important to understand the surrounding circumstances which influenced the way the IRO was able to work as opposed to how the IRO ideally should work according to guidance.

The report noted that it would be unfair to blame the IRO or the LA for some of the persistent difficulties and identified a number of factors that were detracting from good care planning for children:

  • delays in court decision making
  • slow or negative responses from other agencies
  • placement shortages
  • staff turnover
  • high workloads
  • the unpredictability of young people and their families.

 

#CPConf2016

It is worrying to note that discussions with the audience at CPConf2016 in Birmingham showed those present had very similar and negative views about the efficacy of the IRO system, many saying that it was simply impossible to get hold of the IRO to talk to them.  I will raise similar questions at #CPConf18 to see if this is a persistent criticism.

Further Reading

For a case where an IRO was criticised for failing to intervene when a LA was not acting properly, see X (Discharge of care order (1)) [2014].

Another case where the IRO came in for heavy criticism involved the LA’s ‘serious and serial’ failures over the separation of twins. in a judgment from November 2018. The court found the IRO had failed to take any step to challenge the LA’s mismanagement of this case. 

National IRO Manager Partnership – the national leadership body in England for statutory Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) and IRO Managers. The partnership works with stakeholders, and crucially with IROs and the Local Authorities they are engaged with, to champion the issues that are affecting children in care and care leavers.

The Role of the independent Reviewing Officer – from the National IRO Managers Partnership (NIROMP) August 2018

 






Answering birth parents’ questions about adoption

Answering questions about adoption (by an adoptive parent)

A bit of background about me first – I’m a single mum, with three children, all of whom are adopted. Two of my children are now adults; the third is still in primary school. I spend a lot of time online nowadays, and I’ve been really privileged in the last few years to be able to talk with several birth mums about their experiences, and answer some of their questions about adoption and adoptive parents.

I could never truly know what it’s like to lose your child to adoption. But talking to mothers whose children have been adopted, has shown me that it’s often really confusing. They had a huge number of questions about adoption and adoptive parents, and no answers. They didn’t know any adoptive parents themselves, or at least none they felt comfortable asking their questions to.

I think these mothers were incredibly brave to ask me to answer their questions – they didn’t know me, I was just a random adoptive mum. They must have been worried that I would be judgemental or unkind. However it doesn’t matter to me whether someone is an adoptive parent or a birth parent or an adoptee. I hope I can find a way to support everyone who asks me to.

But I strongly feel that these mothers should have had an opportunity somewhere in the process to have all these questions answered, without having to reach out to a stranger on the internet. I am also sure that if these mums I talked to had questions, then there must be a lot more parents/grandparents (and other family) who also have the same questions about adoptive parents and adoption. So I’ve made a list of the questions I’ve been asked the most often by birth parents, and here are my answers. I’ve also included questions I’ve seen online which I haven’t been personally asked.

If you are a mother or father (or grandparent, sibling etc.) whose child (or grandchild, or sibling) is being adopted, then firstly I am sorry you are going through this. I hope you find these answers helpful. If you have any more questions you want to know about adoption that you think I could answer, please comment on this post, and I’ll try my best to answer for you.

And finally, from the bottom of my heart, thank you to the mums who asked me these questions first, who opened my eyes to how the process worked for them and who will remain in my thoughts always, as very courageous people who wanted the best for their children.

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Why do adoptive parents want to adopt?

Adoptive parents have very different reasons for adopting. Many come to adoption following infertility, but quite a few of us don’t. For me, adoption was my first choice because above all, I wanted to become a mum and love a child with all my heart. I was a single lesbian woman and no other method of becoming a mother felt like the right thing for me to do. I felt that there were so many older children in care that I wasn’t comfortable creating a new life instead of becoming a mum to a child who was already here.

One thing all adoptive parents have in common is that we ALL adopt because we want to experience parenthood, in the same way that people who give birth to their children want to experience parenthood. I’ve seen a couple of people suggest that we want children as “accessories”, but nothing could be further from the truth. I want to reassure families of children in care, that with every adoptive family I’ve ever met, we love our children in exactly the same way as we would love a child born to us, and we would never treat a child any differently because they were adopted.

How does being approved as an adoptive parent work? Is it hard? Do they check up on you thoroughly?

It’s a long process, and it is definitely very thorough. It’s changed now from when I was approved to adopt, but the basics of it are the same. There are several key parts of it. Firstly, there are the basic checks – every adoptive parent will have a criminal records check (certain criminal offences bar you from ever adopting, including any offence against a child) and a medical check to make sure they are well enough to parent a child into adulthood. Social services will also check on prospective parent’s finances, inspect their home and make sure it’s safe for a child, and also get references from family, friends and others. For instance, my employer had to give a reference for me when I adopted the first time.

Secondly, there is a “preparation group”, which all prospective parents will attend at some point during the process. The point of this is to educate, and prospective parents will be taught about the legal process of adoption, why children are available for adoption, about parenting adopted children, and so on.

Thirdly, there are the homestudy visits. This is where a social worker visits the parent/s in their home and talks to them in huge depth about their life and about adoption. For instance, in my homestudies, we talked about my childhood, my family, what support I have around me, my beliefs, my previous relationships (including my sex life), how I would support and parent my adopted child, and about what kind of a child I would be adopting. We basically give social services our life story! A social worker even interviewed one of my ex-partners as part of my assessment.

The social worker who is assessing us will write all this information into a big report. Lastly, the report goes to an Adoption Panel, who review it all, and then recommend whether a parent should be approved to adopt or not.

So it is definitely a thorough process, and whoever adopts your child, will have been checked, questioned and scrutinised as far as possible to make sure they are up to the task.

Do you pay social services to adopt a child?

If we are adopting a child in the UK care system, no we don’t, absolutely not. Not even one pence! You might see people at some point claiming that we pay social services for a child, but this is not true at all. I think some of this confusion is because people see American adoption sites online, and over there, they also have a private adoption system for babies where money is paid by adoptive parents to the adoption agencies. This just doesn’t exist in the UK, so don’t let those sites worry you.

Do you pay any money to anyone else to adopt?

All adoptive parents have to have a (thorough) medical check. Doctor’s surgeries will usually charge for this, in the same way as they might charge for holiday vaccinations or some medical letters.

At the final part of the process, when you apply to the court to legally adopt your child, the court charges a fee. Some adoptive parents have to pay the fee themselves, but sometimes social services pay it for them. I have never paid for the court application for instance; the council have always paid it for me.

There is no other money paid to anyone in the adoption process.

Do you get paid to adopt?

No. Adoption is very different from foster care. Foster carers get paid a weekly allowance to foster. But when you adopt a child, they become your child (legally the same as if you gave birth to them) and so you are entitled to the same as birth parents get for their children (child benefit for instance).

What information do you get given about a child by social services, and what makes you “make your mind up” to adopt that child?

We get a lot of information. The very first thing we see is usually a short profile with just a little bit about the child, and if we are interested, we would get a lot more, in a report which is now called a CPR (Child Permanence Report). The information would include – about the child’s background, their birth family, why the child is in care and being adopted, the child’s personality, interests, behaviours, their health and medical information, their development, if they have any ongoing difficulties or need to be parented a bit differently to other children, about school and friends. It will also say what the plan is for contact after adoption with birth family.

After that, if you are still interested in adopting that child, the child’s social worker reviews your homestudy report and interviews you. Then they (and other members of their adoption team) come to a decision about whether they want to take things further. So it’s not just about you, as a parent, picking out a child. We adoptive parents do not just select a child to adopt like how it was decades ago. Social services have to choose you, based on whether they think you are the best possible parent for this child, and whether you can give this child everything they need.

If social services choose you, you then get even more information. You will meet the foster carer/s, and a medical advisor/paediatrician to get as much information as possible about the child and get all your questions answered. Finally after this, another ‘panel’ approve the match. This whole process of ‘matching’ lasts several months.

Making up your mind that you would like social services to choose you for a certain child, is really different for different people. Some parents ‘just know’ as soon as they read the CPR report, but others don’t and need more time.

When I read my eldest daughter’s information, I felt a strong connection to her, and I felt once I’d read her reports that she was most likely my daughter. I can’t tell you why I felt such a strong connection, it just happened! But we always use the huge amount of information we have to make up our minds as well. We have to be certain we can be the parent this child needs, and that we are comfortable with the child’s behaviour and their needs.

Whoever your child/relatives adoptive parents are, they will have put a huge amount of thought into whether or not to adopt your child/relative, and considered really carefully whether they are the right parents for this child.

Does eye and hair colour come into it?

No! I’ve seen birth parents being told that adoptive parents want children with blonde hair and blue eyes. Actually, we generally couldn’t care less what our child will look like! I’ve certainly never met any adoptive parent who cared whether their child was a blonde, or a brunette, or whatever. We view our children the same as we would a birth child. We wouldn’t care what our birth child looked like, and we don’t care what our adoptive child looks like. We just love them for who they are on the inside.

Personally, I thought it might be helpful for my children, if they looked like I could have given birth to them, because then my children could have privacy – they’d never have nosy strangers thinking ‘ooh, she/he must be adopted!’ based on their appearance. So for me, it was all about the child, and what I thought would be good for my child. It was not about me. As it happens, all my children look quite different, even the two who are birth half siblings!

Do you meet the child before you’ve decided 100% [if you want to adopt them]?

No. Being introduced to the child you are adopting is the very last stage. It’s called “introductions” and it’s where you and the child get to know each other before the child moves in. Before that happens, you’ve had all the information, made up your mind 100%, and been to the panel that’ve approve the match (and of course you’ve bought furniture and decorated etc.!) At this stage, everything is set. Once you’ve read the CPR and been to panel etc., you can’t meet the child and then decide if you want to adopt them. That would be very unfair and wrong for the child. As far as I was concerned, as soon as my children were told about me for the first time (by their foster carers and social worker) then I was absolutely 100% committed to them.

Do you “have” to tell the child that they are adopted? Could it happen that an adoptive family wouldn’t tell the child?

You don’t “have” to tell, because there is no law about it. We have the same freedom as birth parents to tell or not to tell our children about their early lives.

However, it is very rare nowadays for a child not be told they are adopted. Right from day one, we are told how important it is for children to know their story. Social workers and other adoptive parents, we are all very clear to prospective parents about how important it is for children to know about their adoption in an age appropriate way. Parents can access a lot of advice and tips about how best to do this. So whilst it could be that a child wouldn’t be told, it’s very unlikely. I’ve only come across a couple of people in about 18 years who haven’t told their children (and this includes online as well), as opposed to hundreds and hundreds who have.

At what age do you ‘tell’? And how?

Obviously with an older child, they know what’s happening. With a baby or toddler who is too young to understand, the way most adoptive parents try and ‘tell’, is in a way which means the child ‘always knows’. When they are older, they shouldn’t be able to remember a time when they didn’t know they were adopted. This means that for most children adopted as babies, they’ll be having little conversations about adoption by the age of 4 at the latest, but most usually a bit younger than that.

I told my youngest child the story of “the day we met” from when he was 2 years old (and he was 23 months old when we met), and I was also mentioning the word ‘adoption’ from that age. I didn’t bombard him with information; I just dropped in little things here and there. For instance, I remember when at age 3, a neighbour of ours was pregnant, and he pointed at her because she was getting so big. I said that yes, babies grow in the womb which is down in your tummy area, and you grew in X’s womb before you came to live with me. And he repeated that back to me.

All children who are adopted now are supposed to have life story books. These books, which as the name suggests, tell the child’s life story, might help parents to explain to the child the basics.

What are the options for any contact with birth mum? What’s the “norm”?

The norm in my experience is letterbox contact, which means letters going between you and the adoptive parents. This is normally either once or twice a year. It isn’t so common for there to be visits, but if there are, it will most likely be either once or twice a year. I’ve personally done both letters and visits.

For other adult family members, there might also be letterbox or, less commonly, visits.

The plan for contact should be mostly decided on before the child moves into their adoptive home, although it isn’t always. There may be a letterbox agreement which you sign and the adoptive parents sign. This agreement would say when the letters are being sent, to whom, how they are signed, and so on.

As the child gets older, they can have their own say in contact. For instance, my youngest child has asked for all letters to be stopped, so I stopped them. On the other hand, if my child had wanted the opposite and wanted more letters, I would have tried my best to add in another couple of letters a year. For adoptive parents, it’s about supporting our kids and helping them process everything.

What are the options for any contact with siblings? What’s the “norm”?

It definitely depends on where the siblings are living, whether they’ve lived together before and how close their bond is. But in my experience, visits with siblings are much more common than visits with any other members of the child’s birth family, especially if the siblings are also adopted or in long term foster care. I’ve supported my kids through a whole lot of sibling visits over the years. However, if there are no visits, letterbox contact is very often in place for the siblings, usually 1-3 times a year.

Will my child be told that I love them?

I realise how desperately you want your child to know that you love them. Every adoptive parent speaks to their children differently about their past, but most parents, when talking about their (young) child’s birth family, choose to say something along the lines of “your birth mum loves you very much, but can’t look after you”. As our children get older, we add in more about the ‘why’. I certainly have told my children that they are loved, and all the other adoptive parents I’ve met, tell their children the same. I want my children to know that they are loveable people, were the most loveable babies in the world, and that nothing that happened is their fault. I certainly want them to feel loved, and that’s something that all adoptive parents want for their children.

Will my child’s name be changed?

This is something I can’t give an answer to, because every situation is different. I can only say that in nearly all situations, the surname will be changed. Some children have their first names changed, but others don’t. Some of the things that may go into the decision are – whether there is a security risk (whether the child is likely to be recognised), how unusual the name is, its meaning and how old the child is.

I can give you my situation as an example – two of my children were older children when they came to live with me, hence it was entirely up to them what they did with their names. My eldest literally waltzed downstairs one morning and informed me that she was dropping both of her middle names, and had picked two new middle names for herself instead, which were x and y! And that was that, as far as she was concerned. My middle child on the other hand, only ever changed surname, and has kept all her other names as they always have been.

However my youngest child has been entirely named by me (and themselves!). I changed my child’s first name for many reasons, chief among them a security risk from a few people. I kept the old first name as a middle name, because I couldn’t take that away from my child. However, recently my child asked for that (original first) name to go entirely, and to pick a new middle name instead. So I went with my child’s choice, and we picked a new name together, which we are in the process of making legal now.

We are just one family, and every adoptive family will have a different story. So I can’t say whether or not your child will be given a new first or a new middle name. However I can say that if your child’s name is changed, they will at some point be told about it. My youngest always knew which name was originally the first name.

Again, if you have any more questions you want to know about adoptive parents/adoption that you think an adoptive parent could answer, please comment on this post, and I’ll try my best to answer for you.






Bringing public bodies to account

What are my remedies if a public body doesn’t do its job properly?

What happens if you suffer harm because a professional involved in your family life hasn’t done his or her job properly? This can be a very thorny issue because such professionals often have very significant powers to interfer in your private and family life. If they fail to do their job properly – either by failing to act when they should have done, or acting carelessly or irresponsibly – this can result in a lot of emotional distress or harm.

This is clearly relevant in the child protection system – the statutes and accompanying guidance and regulations give individuals who work in the system significant powers and duties to act in certain ways that would be unlawful if attempted by a private individual; for example getting information about your child or removing your child from home.

These laws which give professionals such power, have been passed for the benefit of society as a whole and therefore it is not considered in the public good to curtail or limit their operations in individual cases unless really necessary.  People are expected to carry out their statutory duties ‘in good faith’, i.e not doing anything deliberately malicious or harmful.

However, even if you are not the victim of deliberate malice, the consequences of carelessness from public officials can be very serious. For example, take a botched investigation into abuse of a child; if an innocent parent is wrongly labelled an abuser this can cause enormous harm both emotionally and through loss of reputation or even the ability to look after your child whilst investigations are carried out or the matter comes to court. Equally, if guilty abusive parents aren’t detected, their children remain unprotected and at continuing risk.

If professionals cause harm to parents or children because of the way they have carried out or failed to carry out their statutory responsibilities, what are the legal remedies?

We will look at what are the current options to bring public bodies to account for their actions in the child protection system which  have caused harm to parents or children.

 

Making a formal complaint.

You can complain about the activities of public bodies. For example, see section 26(3) of the Children Act and our post about making a complaint about a professional.

This may be an appropriate remedy if you want acknowledgement that mistakes have been made which could be put right,  or at least procedures could change so the same mistakes are less likely to occur in the future. However, you are highly unlikely to be entitled to claim for any compensation under a statutory complaints scheme.

 

Other remedies

If you are not satisfied with the response under the formal complaints procedure or you need a more urgent remedy and/or compensation for loss you have suffered you will need to consider other remedies. We will consider these remedies in more detail in other posts.

The remedies are:

For information on how to obtain information from public bodies, either generally or about yourself, please see our post on data protection and freedom of information requests.

 






Legal Advice and information

Adoption Legal Centre – legal team advising adopters and potential adopters

Association of Child Abuse Lawyers – an association set up for the benefit of victims, lawyers, experts and other professionals involved in the field of obtaining compensation for the physical, sexual or emotional abuse of children and adults abused in childhood.

Bar Council Legal Hub – an on line directory of barristers and expert witnesses

The Bar Pro Bono Unit is a charity which helps to find pro bono (free) legal assistance from volunteer barristers. If you have cannot afford to pay and have no public funding, it can help with:

  • advice, representation and help at mediation
  • cases in all legal areas
  • cases where proceedings have not yet been started
  • cases in all tribunals and courts in England and Wales

BUT you cannot self refer, applications will only be accepted if they come via a referrer, such as your MP, a lawyer or an advice agency.

The British Institute of Human Rights. – charity that aims to provide people with authoritative and accessible information about human rights.

Citizen’s Advice Bureau – provides free and independent advice to all about their rights and responsibilities.

Child Law Advice  – operated by Coram Children’s Legal Centre, provides specialist advice and information on child, family and education law. If you are calling about family law the number is 0300 330 5480.

Child protection project –  part of Coram Children’s legal centre;  website is no longer being updated, but note useful ‘map’ of child protection proceedings.

Children’s social care law in Wales -to assist social workers, social care practitioners, foster carers and advisers find the current law relating to social care for children and young people in Wales.

Community Care – offers a free down load of a guide for social workers to make their court evidence compliant with Re B-S.

Court of Protection Hub – news, cases and resources about the Court of Protection

The Custody Minefield – provides guides to law and good practice in many areas of family law.

Family Rights Group – good source of help and advice for people involved with children’s services. Call their advice line on 0808 801 0366 or email ad****@*****rg.uk.

Family Court Info – family court information for families in the Bristol area, but contains useful general information about the court process, applicable in any area.

No Family Lawyer – help about what to do if you don’t have a family lawyer.

Family Law Questions – website of family law barrister Clive Barker offering information and advice about a number of family law issues.

Families Need Fathers -charity chiefly concerned with the problems of maintaining a child’s relationship with both parents during and after family breakdown. Offers information, advice and support services to help parents to achieve a positive outcome for their children. A Forum and network of over 50 UK Branches also offer the pro-bono guidance of solicitors and others familiar with the family courts.

Just for Kids Law – delivers holistic, client-led support to children and young people from crisis to stability and onwards into independence. They offer community-based legal representation, advocacy and opportunities programme. They aim to be the UK’s leading experts in youth justice law, sharing our knowledge, expertise and model across the UK and the world.

Law Centres Network – Law Centres help those who cannot afford a lawyer. Find a law centre near you.

Law Works for Community Groups – brokers free legal advice to small charities, not-for-profit, voluntary and community organisations and social enterprises in England and Wales. This is done via their network of lawyers in member law firms and in-house legal teams.

Law for Life – a charity working to equip ordinary people with the knowledge, confidence and skills that they need to deal effectively with everyday law-related issues. Runs AdviceNow, a public legal information website.

Legal Beagles -a free consumer law forum offering help, support and debate in many areas of day-to-day life. Covers most topics ranging from debt through to family and employment matters. The users and team are all volunteers and give information and support without liability.

Mother and Child Project – adopts a rights-based approach to try to ensure pregnant women and mothers who are or have been in the care system receive appropriate support to give them the chance to parent their own children.

National Centre for Domestic Violence -NCDV provides a free, fast emergency injunction service to survivors of domestic violence regardless of their financial circumstances, race, gender or sexual orientation. Their service allows anyone to apply for an injunction within 24 hours of first contact (in most circumstances). Works in close partnership with the police, local firms of solicitors and other support agencies (Refuge, Women’s Aid etc) to help survivors obtain speedy protection.

Rightsinfo – uses social media to improve understanding of human rights.

Rights of women – founded in 1975, this is a voluntary organisation committed to informing, educating and empowering women concerning their legal rights.

It has a family law advice line; for advice on issues including:

  • domestic violence and abuse
  • divorce and civil partnership dissolution
  • relationship breakdown
  • issues relating to children, including parental responsibility, child contact and residence

Call 020 7251 6577 (telephone) or 020 7490 2562 (textphone) on Mondays 7pm-9pm, Tuesdays 7pm-9pm, Wednesday 7pm-9pm, Thursday 7pm-9pm and Fridays 12noon-2pm.

Parents accused – site run by solicitor Rachel Carter who offers advice to parents facing allegations that they have caused injury to their child.

Public Access Barristers – find a barrister you can instruct directly via the Bar Council Directory.

Law Firms

Abuse Law – team of solicitors specialising in child abuse claims, based in the North West.

Farleys solicitors – offers advice on making claims against social services. Their advice line is 0845 287 7866. They are based in the North West.

www.latimerlee.com – Latimer Lee solicitors are based at 9 Sankey Street Bury Bl9 0JE Tel: 0161 797 4000

To find a solicitor specialising in child protection law, contact the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Ipsley Court, Redditch, Worcestershire B98 0TD Telephone: 0870 606 2555.

Decisions made by the courts

Family Law Week  is an excellent source of law reports and commentary on all areas of family law.

The British and Irish Legal Information Institute -you can find British and Irish case law & legislation, European Union case law, Law Commission reports, and other law-related British and Irish material. 

Jordans online services – a service which allows you for a fee, to access the latest law reports, case law, commentary, precedents, news and legal and administrative changes.

For commentary on various cases and issues see The Transparency Project 






Child In Need and Child Protection Conferences

Child in Need

Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 sets out that it shall be the general duty of every local authority to

  • to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
  • so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families

A Child in Need plan (CIN) can be produced for a child who has need of extra support for his safety, health and/or development, such as a child who has disabilities. Sometimes, if you are finding it difficult to meet all your child’s needs, for whatever reason  you may be able to get some support to help you.

You don’t have to accept a CIN, it is not compulsory. But if you decide you don’t want or won’t benefit from any support offered, it is a good idea to talk it through with the social worker as they might be worried why you don’t want the help, or that if you don’t take the help it could  increase the risk of harm to your child.

A CIN plan should be written down and reviewed at meetings. The plan should name the responsible professional who will make referrals, visit the child etc. The plan should be kept under review at regular meetings.

Concerns have been expressed that some social workers don’t appreciate the difference between ‘child in need’ – where intervention is voluntary – and child protection – where intervention will be force upon parents if it is felt necessary to keep children safe. For example, see this discussion at The Transparency Project by a social worker in August 2018 ‘Oh I’m sorry, did I forget to mention you don’t have to agree to this?’ When social workers forget that interventions under ‘Child in Need’ are voluntary’

The author comments:

My experience is that, in practice, social workers treat the two parts [of the Children Act] as if they are interchangeable. I have no doubt that social workers generally intend to do the best by the children with whom they work, often in very challenging circumstances, but observations of a typical local authority children’s service department suggest that social workers routinely intervene in a child’s life under the guise of section 17, where this may be inappropriate and without providing families with adequate information about the voluntary nature of their involvement. They are not working in partnership with families, but operate as if they are working through the powers available in part five of the Act. In this way, they are intervening in families’ lives potentially without justification, without scrutiny and without the agreement and consent from families.

 

Child Protection Plan

If there are worries that  your child may be at risk of significant harm due to things that you are doing or failing to do as parents, the local authority may have to consider a child protection plan.  This will be drawn up at a child protection conference and should deal with such matters as:

  • Who the key worker is – usually the social worker
  • What needs your child has and how the local authority can help to meet them
  • What needs you have as a parent
  • Who needs to do what and when to reduce concerns for your child

At the first meeting an outline child protection plan will be agreed and a core group identified. The core group will then meet about every six weeks to keep everything under review.

What is the core group?

The core group includes the professionals who need to work with you, such as teachers or health visitors. It is very important that parents attend these meetings so you can give your input and understand what is going on.

How long will the child protection plan last?

This will depend a lot on the circumstances of the case but probably after a year if the local authority are still worried about your child, they will have to think seriously about starting care proceedings.

 

Further reading

CPR post on the pre-proceedings stage.

CPR  post on investigations and referrals, including consideration of the local authority’s duties under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.

See this useful post from the Tees Local Safeguarding Children Board’s Procedure from September 2017

Surviving Safeguarding writes about the child in need meeting.