Happy Birthday Children Act 1989!

But have you stood the test of time?

Is the Act fit for purpose? Overwhelmingly yes. Able to use its basic structure to allow us to embrace changing concepts in society. Where it is failing is not where its ethos is flawed but because its ethos required it to be funded – to deliver services to families and communities. “

The Children Act is now 30 years old. For many family lawyers, its the only law we have ever known. Both the Act and I were young back in the distant days of 1993 when I graduated from University and went on to Bar School; becoming a fully fledged family lawyer in about 1998.  We are both very much older now and the world is very different in very many ways – perhaps most notably in how notions of family and sexuality have shifted.

Over the years I have heard a variety of criticisms of the Act. The French documentary ‘England’s Stolen Children’ had an unusual take in 2016, that it was the creation of Margaret Thatcher to ‘liberate’ the working classes and it gives children’s services the power to remove children on a mere suspicion of maltreatment, present or future. This is of course not true. For further discussion about the risk of future harm, see this post from the Child Protection Resource from a retired social worker.

However, rather more compelling criticisms have been raised over the years. Professor Devine comments that the clear lines drawn in the Act have become dangerously blurred between offering help and support with the consent of the parent/imposing coercive measures to ‘rescue’ children.  Professor Featherstone remarks upon the ‘risk monster’ that the Children Act now appears to have facilitated. More and more children are being investigated, care proceedings are rising and yet levels of child abuse are not falling.  There is also evidence of a worrying geographical disparity between levels of intervention.

Patrick Philps, a retired social worker, wrote a guest post for this blog calling the Children Act a ‘deeply flawed piece of legislation’ – his primary concern being that the Act contained a nebulous definition of what was meant by significant harm and children were being removed from their families when they should not have been. He commented:

I am not suggesting that children should never be removed, and I see the ever swinging pendulum in the process of swinging away from child removal again. However, in my view the 1989 Children Act is pie in the sky and needs to be replaced with legal standards which more nearly reflect those expressed in re B-S, that is to set realistically measurable standards to govern the protection of children, rather than to push the law into ever less measurable levels of ‘abuse’ as Robert Buckland, QC, MP, Solicitor General curiously seems to advocate (The Times, 15 January 2015). Any reliable system also needs to recognise the impossibility of predicting abuse, a lesson one may draw from Eileen Munro’s early works in which she draws attention to the mathematics of risk assessment, false positives and negatives etc, but which she proceeds to ignore in her own advocacy of its use in social work (reference needed). The mathematics of ‘false positive’ identification would indicate even higher levels of mistaken removal than some of the conspiracy theorists in the field would have us believe, but not in the least due to ‘conspiracy’.

So I was interested to know what would be Professor Jo Delahunty QC’s take on the Children Act  in her Gresham College lecture on 31st January 2019. Sadly, dire warnings of Snowmaggedon prevented my actual attendance but I was poised and ready by the YouTube Live link. 

If I make any comments of my own on the analysis offered by Professor Delahunty, they will be in italics

The 30th Anniversary of the Children Act 1989 – is it still fit for purpose?

The Children Act 1989 embodied a change in philosophy by making the child’s welfare the courts ‘paramount’ concern, moving away from the concept of parental rights towards the right of the child. It embraced the idea of shared parental rights and responsibilities and that children are best cared for within their families but not at the expense of suffering avoidable significant harm. Has the Act done right by children since 1989? Has it adapted to the challenges of childhood and society?

The Children Act has seen 6 Prime Ministers and 6 Presidents of the Family Division come and go.  Before it was born practitioners had to deal with five different Acts spanning 1933 – 1969 in a system geared very much to ‘juvenile delinquents’ so hearings were conducted in atmosphere of ‘crime and guilt’ rather than help and support. The pressure for reform mounted in the late 1980s with a number of high profile and shocking child deaths.  The core concept of the Children Act was supposed to be working in partnership; offering families support.

But society has changed dramatically in the last 30 years; it has become ‘freer and more diverse’. Has the Children Act stood the test of time?

Professor Delahunty admired the drafting of section 31 setting out the threshold criteria. When she is sitting as a Judge, the various components of section 31 has shown it can adapt to society’s changing needs; it is ‘fluid’ and ‘positively directs your attention to the child’s needs’. This is the counter to the criticism of Patrick Philips above – that fluidity is needed in order for the Act to encompass and deal with the almost infinite array of sadness and difficulties that families can face. But questions about lack of clarity of definition remain troubling and probably have been exacerbated by lack of training and funding – which Professor Delanhunty discusses further on.

Of all the components to the Act, what is most important to her is that the child is at the centre. Pre 1989 you had custody and access orders; historically the father had all rights over the child and the mother none, unless born out of marriage. The hangover of those ideas carried through to 1989 and they were pernicious. ‘Custody’ gives a strong connotation of possession and control. It is a process or arrangement that happens to people.  Also ‘access’ has strong physical connotations. It says ‘possession’ and that is exactly what a child should NOT be. Thus the Children Act 1989 made them words of the past and introduced important concept of ‘parental responsibility’.

However and sadly she notes that the new words of ‘residence’ and ‘contact’ introduced by the Children Act quickly hardened into words that parents used to denote who was the ‘winner’ and who the ‘loser’ in any dispute about seeing children – so we now have the opaque and cumbersome ‘child arrangements orders’. However, I strongly suspect the problem here will never be cured by tinkering with the names attached to various forms of orders; it goes much deeper and reveals the emotional difficulties many parents feel in navigating disputes about their children. 

An example of how the Act could adapt and apply was shown in the decision of re M involving a transgender mother who was initially denied contact with her children because of the adverse reactions of the religious community in which her children still lived. The Court of Appeal held that the court had to consider the ‘reasonable parent’ as someone receptive to change, broadminded and tolerant. A symbol of parenthood we should all aspire to. The judge had failed to address head on the human rights issues – even secluded religious communities are not exempt from the laws of the land.  This was not a set of circumstances that those drafting the Act in 1989 could have reasonably contemplated, but the court was able to respond fairly using the existing framework of the Act.

Radicalisation cases however did NOT easily fit the framework of the Children Act. Children were often making choices and keeping them secret from their parents who therefore could not easily be held to be culpable for the risk of harm a child faced. Therefore the courts revived the use of wardship for these children.  The CA was designed to make wardship redundant but we now see its resurgence. This doesn’t mean the CA has failed; once crisis passed the cases often reverted to the CA jurisdiction. This shows the need for different areas of the law to act in partnership to meet children’s needs.

Have we now got the balance right? No. Children are still dying. Herefordshire v AB 2018 ‘rocked our understanding of section 20’.  But what these examples of failures have in common is that they were matters that should have received the oversight of the court and did not. Professor Delahunty identifies not a failure of the legislation but a failure of implementation – and  this stems from lack of resources. There is lack of training for social workers, lack of resources for the child, lack of legally aided lawyers, lack of judges to hear cases. She discussed a number of high profile cases when it was only significant press interest that appeared to prompt identification of support for a child.

Professor Delanhunty concluded with the question: Is the Act fit for purpose? Her answer was:

Overwhelmingly yes. Able to use its basic structure to allow us to embrace changing concepts in society. Where it is failing is not where its ethos is flawed but because its ethos required it to be funded – to deliver services to families and communities.

She ended with a warning – we cannot continue as we are for much longer. The system is under incredible strain, there are simply not enough judges to go round and we are in danger of paying lip service to the need to listen to the voice of the child. I can only hope as we slide further into Brexit madness that there will be some time and space for our politicians in the very near future to hear and act upon this warning.

I won’t hold my breath. I agree that the Children Act is still fit for purpose – but that our political system increasingly is not.


EDIT February 4th 2019

Professor Delanunty kindly sent me the notes of her talk and an additional quote from our now President which she wanted to include but ran out of space.

Per Sir Andrew McFarlane in a speech to the ALC in November 2018

“”Crisis” may be an overused word and some, outside the court system, may have questioned its deployment by Sir James Munby two years ago in relation to the rise of the number of care applications being received by the courts. For my part, I consider that Sir James was fully justified in calling this a crisis and, as the continuing figures have borne out since, Sir James was plainly right to blow the whistle when he did.”

“It was integral to the ethos of the Children Act 1989 that family life should be independent and free from unjustified interference by the state. That ethos was encapsulated in the central concept of “parental responsibility”, which was reinforced by the presumption that a court order modifying or restricting the exercise of parental responsibility would not be made unless to do so would promote the child’s welfare. That statutory foundation was further underpinned by the Human Rights Act 1998. Part Three of the CA 1989 set out general and specific duties imposed upon local authorities in respect to the services that they must, or may, provide to children and families. In the context of Part Three working in partnership with those holding parental responsibility and members of the wider family was a guiding principle in the effective discharge of a local authority’s duties. The principle of work in partnership was introduced and supported by the body of government guidance issued when the Act came into force […]

To my mind the category of cases that are now coming before the court in greater numbers than was seen hitherto must, almost by definition, come from the opposite end of the spectrum of harm. They are likely to be cases of poor parenting and neglect and in such cases there is a need for the courts to be astute as to the requirements of the threshold criteria. There may be a danger of the system slipping into the exercise of a broad benevolent discretion with courts accepting the need to help children who are generally in need, rather than strictly questioning whether the state of affairs for the particular child has indeed reached the level, which the architects of the Children Act clearly considered was required, sufficient to justify statutory orders.”

“It may properly be said that we have reached a stage where the threshold for obtaining a public law order is noticeably low, whereas, no doubt as a result of the current financial climate, the threshold for a family being able to access specialist support services in the community is conversely, very high.”

Professor Delahunty comments:

The lack of financial support for community resources < the rise in s 31’s > they are linked. Hence the value in reminding the audience of how the act was meant to cover community as well as court procedures with access to services, advice and support being embraced within its composite parts . However with limited legal aid for pre proceedings advice for parents , S 20 abuses , legal aid deserts for early ( any!) advice in private law , court staff / judges acting as advisors and counsellors< lack of court time as we have judges working to break point : all these deficits are crippling. Community lack of access to services and legal advice compounds an overwhelmed and overwhelming social care environment staffed by disrespected social workers , often unsupported , and inadequate managerial oversight with little joined up thinking with legal departments. I think every strand is intertwined.

Hence why I thought a reminder of what we should strive at might be timely.


8 thoughts on “Happy Birthday Children Act 1989!

  1. Angelo Granda

    A Parents View

    Many thanks to the writer of this post in this 30th Anniversary year of the Children’s Act.
    The last two paragraphs ,in my opinion, sum up the situation well.The SW’s, parents and she herself, as the leader of the CPR all came to similar conclusions some time ago. The Act is basically sound. The problems in its implementation and practice is caused in the main by political imperatives and the lack of focus on the real aims of the statute due to lack of funding which affects both the aims of the Local Authorities involved and the power imbalance ,lack of justice ,judges,court time,legal representation etc. in the judicial system.
    I echo the warning, we cannot continue as we are much longer and , as we stand right now , i despair the pessimistic note that the writer will not hold her breath by which it can be deduced she does not anticipate any radical change soon.This is sad because it is quite some time now since the Government issued its ‘vision for change’ and recommended radical alterations to frontline practices including to higher management .
    Most of us want change very keenly , especially the frontline SW’s and frontline lawyers . So who is it that paddles against the flow. In my opinion, the answer to that one , is the higher management as identified by the ‘vision for change’. They are the ones who perpetuate the troublesome political imperatives and allocate funds.
    The post-writer sees the main problem as one of funds and refers to Brexit, austerity and legal funding shortages regularly. Whilst I have expressed my opinion in the past that it is not primarily a lack of money causing failure but more the way it is spent particularly in respect of private profiteers, ( a view with which some other readers have agreed) it may cheer her up and give her more hope now that ‘austerity’ is officially over.
    So , how can we move forward positively? Any suggestions ?

    Constructively, my suggestion is that we have to set a long-term strategy with a view to changing the political imperatives . It may take quite a bit of time, alas, but the right approach will work eventually.
    What strategy do i suggest? Firstly, i think we have to look upon the present top SW managers as beyond change.They are too set in their ways. The emphasis should be on managers .I think we should give up on them and look forward to their retirement whilst at the same time , the colleges will train the upcoming young SW’s differently ,teaching them a new set of values and dogma. We should teach them fresh political imperatives and to do they must be spoken to in the language politicians and high management financial executives all understand. BUDGETS AND COMPANY PROFITS!
    They have to be shown the way and led in a direction which is more in sync. with the Children Act. For example, they can possibly spend less and at the same time still make high profits by the provision of facilities, shelters, home-support plans etc. Such plans can be even more profitable for the private entrepreneur , i would guess, than purchasing expensive properties and paying for 24-hour care-home staff. Also the fostering agencies will be able to switch from employing paid 24-hour foster parents to the provision of 8 hours per day home support workers to help train and advise young mothers .WORKING TOGETHER,KEEPING TOGETHER. Support families,not destroy them to be the clarion call.
    Yes, i think this is a way forward . I look forward to any other constructive ideas and suggestions,as always .

    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Sadly my view is that there will be absolutely no chance of any ‘moving forward’ unless and until our politicians have dealt with the mess and chaos that will shortly fall upon us by the staggering dishonesty and incompetence revealed by (lack of) decisions around how we exit the EU. On my most optimistic predications, it will take a decade or more to clear up this mess. Do not expect that reforms to or better funding of the Family Justice System will be anywhere near any politican’s attention for many years to come.

  2. Angelo Granda

    You talk of the ‘staggering dishonesty and incompetence of politicians .I agree they are dishonest but i would not call them incompetent in what they do which is to play the political , power game .
    Readers should understand that politicians are engaged in a constant war of attrition and the object is to attain wealth and riches for themselves and the business people who are the richest 5% of the population. They are very successful at it. They and their sponsors make hay and live a life of Riley . They ponce off the rest of us ,off our hard work and industry, using the political system to their own advantage. There are few politicians who are scrupulously honest. As i said,politics is a war of attrition and to achieve any useful change to their own particular advantage or interest anyone wishing to do so by influencing politicians can only do so by friendly ‘persuasion’ and that is not a short term process and never comes cheaply. Any power or influence one may have can only be achieved by spreading goodwill and offering incentives. For example, when visiting a politician or a government or Council executive first find out through any available source what their favourite tipple is and which brand of cigars they smoke. Go to their office well supplied and hand out the goodies. You are set on selling him your ideas for change so see yourself as part-salesman; visit him every month and never fail to take the right bottle of whisky. Twelve bottles per year and a few cigars is quite an incentive because of course you aren’t his only suitor,he has several. It helps if you are in the same club as him where you can meet him in private and socialise , dine together and talk and you must always remember to pick up the tab! If he lives in London, you should spend a lot of time there too; arrange to become a member of his golf or tennis club and cultivate him on the sports field. Squash will keep you fit but it is best to keep him sweet,of course. Always arrange for him to win the game. Theatre tickets,Wembley tickets,Wimbledon etc.etc. Always keep him happy and remember,it is attrition,change doesn’t come easily. He has to do his part by cultivating those above him .Please ,readers do not hesitate, this is not corrupt in any way it is normal hospitality , can be put on your expense account and it is perfectly legal.Tax relief can be claimed for it. I suppose we can call it what we will, persuasion,flattery or market forces but to achieve ones will whilst retaining integrity we must stay fairly and squarely within these rules. Always lay out a red carpet for the powerful and influential. This is what makes the world go round.Warning,it is not acceptable to offer straight cash inducements.
    My advice to readers is when we consider power ,the most powerful factor in the land is the LAW which trumps all else including here today gone tomorrow politicians. The most powerful are those who keep the Queen’s law as laid down by Parliament. Until the law is changed by Act of Parliament ,it is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the one we have. It is most important we realise this basic fact.The law trancends all monetary considerations , public spending policies and transient political imperatives issued by the Authorities.
    The Courts have the power to grant orders or not at their will and in the Civil Courts this can be at the Judge’s discretion no-one else’s.Barristers can only act within their own sphere of influence which is to persuade within the legal world. Suggestions.Sarah,write to HHJ Wildeblood on CPR stationery and invite him to dinner. Not at a Little Chef or Pizzahouse but at the best restaurant in Bristol. Sell the CPR and Transparency Project consensus whatever it is to him in the best way you can. Have dinner with him whenever you can and make a friend of him.He may already be in regular contact with the President of the Family Division and you can ask him to use his influence in that direction. The President is a member of the London club scene and he will pass it on to the Law Lords. As in politics, this will also be a game of attrition ,i suppose, which may go on for a few years before we get change in the Family Courts but always remember the Courts make the orders nobody else and fairness,proportionality in other words common human rights are sacrosanct .
    Here endeth the lesson. All comments welcome .

  3. Angelo Granda

    From Sarah-

    QUOTE: there will be absolutely no chance of any ‘moving forward’ unless and until our politicians have dealt with the mess and chaos :UNQUOTE

    QUOTE :Do not expect that reforms to or better funding of the Family Justice System will be anywhere near any politicIan’s attention : UNQUOTE

    From Professor Delahunty –

    QUOTE: Community lack of access to services and legal advice compounds an overwhelmed and overwhelming social care environment staffed by disrespected social workers , often unsupported , and inadequate managerial oversight with little joined up thinking with legal departments. I think every strand is intertwined.: UNQUOTE.

    In regard to my own comment just above this one , Sarah, i think your despair comes from the problem that even were the CPR legal representatives to see HHJ Wildeblood ,wine him and dine him etc and get him on board, there is a distinct lack of thought and FOCUS on radical thought and constructive changes we want to be introduced. I could produce loads of very similar quotes of systemic faults made by loads of folk before but no-one seems to set out what needs to be done.

    Is there anyone out there able to focus?

    Let me try , at least,to discuss some specific , radical changes.

    If we provided Dad with £100 to feed ,clothe and house his wife and children and he spent £50 of it on computer games ,£25 on pizzas ,£25 on gambling and beer and neglected to pay the rent, would we not say he had misappropriated his funds? He had plenty money but spent it for his own benefit not for the benefit of his wife and children.He would have disrespected and left unsupported them because of his own inadequacies and lack of oversight.
    The LA’s are the same according to the Professor. For political reasons , they choose to spend 70% ( my estimate) on private community children’s homes than keeping families together and working with them most SW’s would prefer and as laid out by the Children Act. We should be agreeing with the Professor that this is disrespect to SW’s and malignant managerial oversight.

    Logically, the relationship between the LA and the CS is a toxic one because their respective aims clash . With the former, their priorities are financial prudence as they see it and their selfish political ends. The latter , are non-political professionals with ethics who are bound by the more legitimate aims of the Law.
    Am i the only one to see an obvious, decisive antidote to the poisonous connection? It should be eradicated completely . The CS should be given complete independence and the funds to be directly under their own control., the funds should be paid to them and spent by them .

    Has this even been mooted? I doubt it|

  4. Angelo Granda

    P.S. All the problems as to fair representation and Court malfunction ( shortage of Court time etc. could be partly solved were each respondent paid a grant of £100,000 to pay for it by their political representatives, the LA or the Government. We cannot simply continually ask for more and more funding, we must make specific demands in line with our Human Rights.

    Has this even been mooted? I doubt it!

  5. Pingback: Why does everyone hate the Family Court ? Part II | Child Protection Resource

  6. Pingback: Do we make unnecessary use of care proceedings? | Child Protection Resource

  7. Pingback: Children Act 'betrayed' in climate of cuts, top family barrister says

Comments are closed.