The latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

• Research on Child poverty and children entering care in England, 2015–20
• National study to discuss the UK’s response to domestic abuse and child protection
• New Nottinghamshire interview suite for sexual abuse victims opens

New powers in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 give judges the power to allow journalists, researchers and members of the public to watch any court hearing remotely.

The new measures came into effect on 28 June.

The press release on the Judiciary’s website explain that the power is to “direct that images or sounds of the proceedings be transmitted electronically”. It must be used “for the purpose of enabling persons not taking part in the proceedings to watch or listen to” them. It is not designed for those taking part in the proceedings. Other powers exist to cover remote participation.

And this is the really important part, particularly for family court hearings. The statement says:

“This power is given to any “court”, but in this context that term has the expanded meaning of “any tribunal or body exercising the judicial power of the state”. This Guidance adopts that meaning.

The power can be exercised in “proceedings of any type” that are (a) in public or (b) not open to the general public but “specific categories of person, or specific individuals, who are not taking part in the proceedings are entitled to be present by virtue of provision made by or under any enactment or of being authorised by the court.”

The second category would include youth court proceedings, family proceedings to which the media or researchers are admitted under FPR 27.11(2), and other hearings in private, where the court has allowed a non-participant to attend.”

There is a very good summary of the new powers and related documents over on LexisNexis for those who subscribe.

For non-subscribers you can access the publicly available press release here.

A guide for anyone wanting to observe a court or tribunal hearing can be found here.

Individuals in England and Wales found guilty of causing or allowing a child to die could now be handed a life sentence following a new law which comes into force today. Prior to the change in law, the maximum sentence available for these crimes was 14 years.

‘Tony’s Law’ which is included in the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act 2022, also raises the maximum penalty for causing serious harm to a child from 10 to 14 years.

The legislation was named after 7-year-old Tony Hudgell, who was battered by his birth parents as a baby and left with life-altering injuries. His abusers were given 10 years in jail in 2018, which was the maximum sentence available at the time.

Child rights campaigners and lawyers have welcomed the move to enable tougher sentencing for serious cases of violence against children, but also warned the new measures were unlikely to deter abusers and could also create problems in cases where the cause of injury to a child is not easy to determine.

Welcome to another week.

These are the child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

• “Adoption is trauma, and no child — or natural parent — should ever have to go through it.”
• Russian sanctioned by UK over ‘forced adoptions’ of Ukrainian children
• How a cancer diagnosis helped me find my natural father

Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, a body which represents solicitors, will talk about the problems faced by the family courts during an online seminar hosted by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.

At the event, Boyce will speak with Lisa Harker the Director of Nuffield Family Justice Observatory about how the family courts should be improved to make things better for children and their families, as well as the challenges faced by professionals inside the system.

The conference is part of a new series launched by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, titled ‘In conversation with…’. Nuffield says the series will bring “leading thinkers, experts, practitioners and those with lived experience for frank discussions on a variety of themes related to children and families in the family justice system.”

Anyone interested in watching the conversation can also email in questions beforehand at contactfjo@nuffieldfoundation.org or ask questions during the event using the online platform’s chat box.

The event takes place on Friday 8 July 2022, from 1pm to 1.30pm.

You can register to attend here.

The latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

• Vulnerable clients struggle in face of “cold, clinical and chaotic” lawyers
• Launch of National Deprivation of Liberty (DoLs) Court for Children Cases
• Mrs Justice Knowles appointed Lead Judge for Private Family Law matters
• Cafcass launches phone line for children to share feedback about their experiences of family court proceedings

A report published by adoption charity Adoption UK has said that support for children wanting to maintain relationships with their natural families is not fit for purpose.

The report, entitled “The Adoption Barometer” looks at the state of adoption in England and Wales. As part of its report, Adoption UK chose to dedicate a segment to adopted children’s feelings and thoughts about the barriers to contact with their natural parents and relatives.

Key findings about contact with natural family members included:

• 80% of adopted adults and 88% of adoptive parents who were involved in direct contact during childhood were glad they had participated
• 69% of adopted adults who did not have childhood direct contact regretted not having the opportunity
• 17% of adopted adults recalled receiving professional support prior to childhood direct
• contact beginning
• 52% of those who received counselling said it felt like a tick box exercise
• 37% of adopted adults were offered counselling as part of the process of tracing birth relatives in adulthood
• 57% of adopted adults who had childhood direct contact described it as sometimes being emotionally challenging
• At least 28% of 13-18-year-olds had direct contact with a birth family member, outside of any formal agreement, during 2021

The report found that 70% of prospective adopters believed direct contact should be standard for adopted children whenever possible.

The report also offers background information from adoptees which offers insight into how social workers view contact with natural families. One comment reads: “When Frankie* was 14 she discovered her birth mother’s name and made contact by herself. When she confided in her family’s social worker, she was told it was a ‘stupid decision’. “

Recommendations made inside the report included:

• The creation of a national contact service in each nation of the UK
• Training about contact in preparation courses
• Every adoptive family to have a named social work professional with responsibility for overseeing support for contact
• Agencies to conduct research about barriers to direct sibling contact
• Specialist support for contact
• Ensure every adopted adult has access to robust support when tracing birth relatives

Adoption UK also provides a case file, but it features only one adult who was adopted as a child. The comment from the adoptee just focuses on the support she received from a social worker when tracing her family, which is a positive experience.

Several barriers currently exist for adopted children wanting to have contact with their natural families.

The adoption process has been set up to ensure that adoption itself is as attractive as possible to prospective adopters. This includes severing all legal and practical ties with a child’s natural parents and wider family.

And while legislation exists to apply for post-adoption contact, the legal thresholds for obtaining that contact are so high that almost no contact orders in this context are ever awarded.

Current government thinking around adoption as the gold standard for children in care also aggravates this problem, with current policy actively encouraging the courts to place most of the decision-making in the hands of the adopters during applications for post-adoption contact.

The end result is that even the smallest pushback from adoptive parents will ultimately result in contact being blocked.

Once very popular, adoptions in the UK have decreased drastically following successful movements by child rights campaigners to highlight the damage the policy causes to children, and the sophisticated parenting skills required to love and look after these unique children. The adoption sector is now facing a stark reality in which many adoption agencies are struggling to survive.

The popular narrative that adoption offers a fairytale ending for a child and is itself an exclusive process without the need for natural families and with little to no complication has skewed the expectations of prospective adopters. It is also a terrible lie.

You can read the report in full here.

Additional links:

• Top Social Work Professor: Adoption Works For A Minority Of Children
• Disrupted Adoptions – What Councils Don’t Want You To Know
• Effects of Adoption on Mothers’ and Fathers’ Mental Health

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Children and Families Act 2014 has very kindly just shared a short survey with Researching Reform, which asks families and children what they think of the act – and we were pleasantly surprised to discover that it is a survey families can answer without being fully versed in the law itself.

The survey is part of an inquiry launched in March, whose central question is “whether the Children and Families Act 2014 has achieved its aim of improving the lives of children and families, particularly the most vulnerable children and young people in society.”

The questionnaire focuses on adoption, family justice, SEND, shared parental leave and flexible working and mental health.

The committee has asked for the views of parents, young people, professionals and teachers.

The deadline for completing the survey is 11:59pm on Monday 11 July. 

You can access the questionnaire here.

Anyone who would like to read/ re-read the act before answering the questionnaire can find it here.

There is also a guide to the act for children, which can be accessed here.

The latest child welfare-related items that should be right on your radar:

• Today: House of Commons debate on the sentencing of repeat offenders
• Ofsted launches consultation on care leavers inspection judgement
• Damning report into child sexual exploitation in Oldham

A judgment which has just been published highlights the tensions between upholding children’s human rights in cases where they have been damaged by observing the severe domestic abuse of a parent, with the law’s inability to sever parental responsibility so the child can achieve closure.

The case involved a father with mental health challenges who had inflicted serious domestic abuse upon the mother which had resulted in the mother and the children having to relocate and conceal their identities, at the advice of the police.

The father was married to the mother at the time, which means he has automatic and everlasting parenting responsibility (PR) under the law in England and Wales. The mother challenged the father’s right to retain his PR under human rights legislation.

While the court has done everything to minimise the extent to which the father can intervene in the two children’s lives, the children themselves wanted to be able to cut all legal ties in order to heal and move on.

The judge hearing the case explained that the court did not have the power to do this.

The case itself opens up a very important debate about the weaknesses of our family justice system: its inability to provide protection for children at a fundamental level; the irrational distinction between the rights of married and unmarried fathers which do not take into account the realities of parenting on the ground; and the failure to understand just how important – and powerful – severing legal ties can be for children who have been forever altered by abuse.

To the judge’s credit, she does acknowledge the serious problems the law poses when she says:

“The Court does not question the harmful effects that FZ’s [father’s] past behaviour has had on MZ [mother] and the children but cannot by its judgment provide counsel or support to MZ and the children in coming to terms emotionally with what has happened in the past that they want; such support must be provided by professionals with the expertise to do so.

The limitations of litigation in providing closure or emotional relief are not the subject of this case but remain of concern to the Court.”

There is a very good summary over on LexisNexis for subscribers.

The judgment itself can be read for free on BAILII.