Welcome to a warm and humid week.
Our question this week focuses on terrorism, child welfare and where we draw the line when it comes to social engineering.
A recent article in the Guardian describes how several children, ranging from the ages of 3 to 17, have become the subjects of Interim Care Orders or Wards of Court, due to radicalisation fears. The article does not detail how the family courts have come to this conclusion, nor what the behaviours in question were to justify removal.
In the Family Courts, orders of this type can be made if the judge takes the view that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. We add a good summary of the principles below:
Actual or Likely Significant Harm
S. 31 of the Children Act 1989 sets out the legal basis or the ‘threshold criteria’ on which a Family Court can make a Care or Supervision Order to a designated LA in respect of a particular child. This is:
That the child must be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.
And that the harm or likelihood of harm must be attributable to one of the following:
a) The care given to the child, or likely to be given if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give; or
b) The child being beyond parental control.
If the LA can demonstrate evidence (on a balance of probabilities) that the threshold criteria have been met, the Court will then go on to consider whether making a Care or Supervision Order would be in the child’s best interests. Whether a child is likely or not to suffer harm will also form part of the criteria for the initiation of a S.47 investigation but may be an actual lower threshold than the test applied by the Court. Thresholds of harm for a S.47 investigation are likely to be defined by the local LSCB or local practice in a LA area.
‘Significant Harm’
The Children Act 1989 defines ‘harm’ as “ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development”. ‘Development’ means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development; ‘health’ means physical or mental health; and ‘ill-treatment’ includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical. As a result of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the definition of harm also includes “impairment suffered by hearing or seeing the ill-treatment of another”.
According to Working Together, significant harm refers to “the threshold that justifies compulsory intervention in family life in the best interests of children, and gives LAs a duty to make enquiries to decide whether they should take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child who is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm”.
The legislation, however, does not define the line between ‘harm’ and ‘significant harm’. As a practitioner, you should give ‘significant’ its ordinary meaning (i.e. considerable, noteworthy or important). The child’s particular characteristics also need to be taken into consideration. For example, a child left home alone at the age of 3 could be at risk of significant harm, whereas a child aged 13 years may be less likely so. The test will be subjective to the particular circumstances.
Whether the harm is significant is determined by comparing the child’s health and development with what could reasonably be expected from a similar child. For example, if a child is failing to meet developmental or physical milestones, it is necessary to determine whether this is the result of a lack of “good enough” parenting. There is no clearly defined criteria to judge whether harm meets the threshold of ‘significant’—it can be the result of a traumatic event or a compilation of acute and long-standing events. As highlighted in Working Together, “Some children live in family and social circumstances where their health and development are neglected. For them, it is the corrosiveness of long-term emotional, physical or sexual abuse that causes impairment to the extent of constituting significant harm.”
Working Together lists the following as factors to consider in understanding and identifying significant harm:
The nature of harm, in terms of maltreatment or failure to provide adequate care;
The impact on the child’s health and development;
The child’s development within the context of their family and wider environment;
Any special needs, such as a medical condition, communication impairment or
disability, that may affect the child’s development and care within the family;
The capacity of parents to meet adequately the child’s needs; and
The wider and environmental family context.
‘Likely to Suffer’
A child being ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ does not mean that there is a more than 50 percent chance that the child will suffer or that it is more likely than not that the child will suffer significant harm. Rather, ‘likely’ in S. 31 refers to a ‘real, substantial risk.’ If a Court considers the likelihood of harm to be based on past events regarding which there are disputed facts, it must first make a finding of fact before treating the past event as a grounding of future risk, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Re. S-B [2009] UKSC 17.
Our question then, is just this – where would you draw the line when it comes to the court’s threshold of risk of significant harm when removing children from parents or monitoring family activity?
For example, what kind of behaviours would you include and how is freedom of speech affected? And most importantly, how do we measure the existence or risk, of harm?
Forced Adoption said:
Pretty simple I would say .Remove a child if the parents have committed a crime against that child or other children but never for risks that may never happen !
Punishment without crime is disgraceful and makes a mockery of the law. What about radicalisation?Well that becomes a crime if there is an incitement to violence but otherwise not.
LikeLike
Mike Howard said:
Ask any parent if they would rather serve a year in Jail or lose their child to Social Services and I know what the answer would be. The criteria should be “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” as it is in the criminal courts, because losing your child is the most Draconian penalty for a parent, it can be a living death sentence, and should never be imposed without compelling evidence.
LikeLike
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Grant Low said:
Given the “care” the State offers it seems fit to remove the children from their (State) care given ‘likely to suffer significant harm’. This type of Draconian action is in direct violation of the UNCROC and EU human rights Law — someone needs to contest this in the UK Courts because the UK has signed up to human rights laws (not that it seems to pay much heed to its obligations and is now trying to scrap their responsibilities to EU HR Law) .
LikeLike
Maggie Tuttle said:
Shirley Oaks abuse survivors: ‘We are unstoppable’ – BBC News
BBC – 3 days ago
More than 100 ex-residents of the former Shirley Oaks children’s home in Surrey, which was …
Shirley Oaks survivors uniting in music to beat abuse – BBC News
BBC – 2 days ago
More news for shirley oaks children’s home 2015
——————————————————————————–
Turning the tables on child abuse – BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33818106
Cached
Mark Easton reports on a campaign by former residents of the Shirley Oaks children’s home to investigate the abuse … 7 August 2015 … two men who realised they had both been abused in the same Surrey children’s care home has led to
LikeLike
Dana said:
It is incredible that this government has taken so many children from their homes to supposedly keep them safe. The figure has tripled since the often quoted death of Baby P. This actually hasn’t kept any child safer as children are still being harmed and killed by their parents shockingly known to social workers but these children are failed by their ineptitude as they bypass their radar.
When a child is in care, after being traumatised by being taken from their family, there is a I in 4 chance that he/she will be abused by the Carers paid to look after them. We now know about the historical abuses by those with some kind of power but what we know is just the tip of the iceberg and no doubt continues, but another era will pass before that scandal erupts!
The outcomes for children when leaving care are consistantly poor, their education lower than their peers who are not in care. The ratio for ex care kids becoming prisoners, prostitutes and addicts are alarmingly high!
So I want to know why are we spending billions, starting with an average of £500 per week per child alone on foster care and getting such shocking results! Surely it should now be apparent to all that child protection money would be better off keeping the child at home where possible. Social workers should work with families not tear them apart!
I see that in the USA adoptees are now asking that they be able to reject their adoption status as they had no voice in the matter. Another reason to stop forced adoptions. This country, the UK, is trying to adopt children to offset their costs of raising the children they take!
LikeLike
Maggie Tuttle said:
Dana, watch some of the programmes born to kill, these people who have suffered in care and at the hands of families were never born to kill no child on this planet was born to kill.
LikeLike
mike howard said:
Dana, every word is a gem, excellent summary.
LikeLike
Maggie Tuttle said:
There are TV documentaries ( BORN TO KILL) this is just one of these programmes sadly yes many of the murder’s are kids from the care system so what are kids taught in the system, sex , I wish I was god then no child will ever be born, but then we have the experiments for CLONING and for those who think this is not so, when I researched and brought out the truth of a drug that was legally prescribed to murder women world wide (HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERIPY) after researching into the menopause and WHY they were messing with women’s hormones (bodies) my research also took me back to the Nazi Empire, those scientist’s even made women have sex with animals all part of cloning , there are many dead millionare’s who pay untold money and their bodies lie in chemicals waiting to be brought back to earth, so of course get rid of the plebs and what better then to rule the world starting with the kids and the elderly all sent to the care system.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Death Of Presumption Of Custody At All Costs – But Who Will Decide ‘Risk Of Harm’? | Researching Reform
Pingback: Tell Politicians What You Think About The Family Courts | Researching Reform
Pingback: Hundreds Of Parents To Sue Government Over Lack Of Evidence In Forced Adoption Cases | Researching Reform
Pingback: Hundreds Of Parents To Sue Government Over Lack Of Evidence In Forced Adoption Cases by Natasha | World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum.