Category Archives: legal aid

Emergency Protection Orders And Who Can Apply For Them (Yes, You Can).

13 Wednesday Sep 2017

Posted by in Family Law, legal aid, Researching Reform

≈ 13 Comments

Far too often the law is used as a way to make the playing field uneven for parties who are either financially disadvantaged or who have limited knowledge of family court process so when we get the chance to even out that playing field, we do.

The latest item we have been asked to write about is the Emergency Protection Order (EPO), and whether parents can apply for one.

The very short answer is, yes.

The law is very clear. Under S.44 of The Children Act 1989, ANY PERSON who believes that a child is at risk can apply for an EPO. 

An Emergency Protection Order is usually applied for when there are reasonable grounds to believe that there may be an  immediate risk of significant harm to a child.

If you are a parent who believes their child is at risk of imminent harm whilst in the care of a local authority, carer or parent, you can apply for an EPO.

Whilst it is incredibly difficult to find publicly available case law to highlight this practice, Researching Reform knows of at least one parent who has successfully used an EPO to remove their child from imminent harm and secured residency after doing so.

We also found this very helpful slide show which explains The Children Act 1989 very nicely, and offers some key points which are incredibly useful which includes information about Emergency Protection Orders. The slide was prepared by Nathan Loynes, programme manager for Child and Family Studies at the University Of Leeds. 

Nathan has produced a series of slide shows (124 of them) which have been prepared for students at the university, but they also work as an excellent resource for families going through child protection proceedings. The slide shows touch upon a range of topics, and highlight how the system works. Presentations which caught our eye include:

As for EPOs, The Children Act gives parents the power to protect their children through them, as long as the danger is imminent. In fact, the Act makes provision for any person to apply, which includes parents and family members, first, with local authorities and ‘authorised persons’ listed after.

So, don’t be shy. The law is there to help you, don’t be afraid to use it.

A very big thank you to Jane Doe.

THE LAW IS YOURS

Advertisements

Interesting Private Members’ Bills In The House Of Lords

05 Wednesday Jul 2017

Posted by in child welfare, legal aid, Researching Reform

≈ 8 Comments

Private Members Bills, which allow MPs and Lords to propose new legislation very rarely become law, however they are interesting clues about  current thought inside government.

Two Bills caught our attention.

The first Bill, The Home Education (Duty of Local Authorities) Bill, proposed by Labour Peer Lord Soley, asks for measures that would allow home schooled children to be monitored by local authorities so that they could assess their educational, physical and emotional development. The measures would be inserted into the Education Act 1996, the go-to piece of legislation on education provision.

Home schooling is a growing trend in the UK.  It makes sense that home schooling should be addressed in this Act, as all other forms of education are detailed there, however this Bill concerns us a great deal. Local authorities already have powers to investigate home schooled children. Many parents also choose home schooling for their children because they wish to be free from the limited curriculum currently doing the rounds in our generic school system. This Bill could have a profound effect on that freedom.

The Bill sets out a list of requirements on parents who elect to educate their children at home. They include an annual review by social workers on each home schooled child, which includes not only an educational assessment, but emotional and physical assessments as well. In order to do this, social workers would be allowed to visit the child’s home, see their work, and interview parents as well as any children involved. This could lead to social workers querying the content and style in which parents are choosing to educate their children, without having proper training in this area, and profoundly distorting the potential benefits of this kind of schooling.  

Researching Reform has also assisted on cases where home schooled children were being targeted by at least one local authority through the production of policy documents which invited social workers to treat home schooling as a form of neglect and gave them permission to remove home schooled children from their families and place them in care.

It’s also likely that the requirements in the Bill would place an enormous amount of strain on already stretched local authorities, and would lead to a clumsy doubling up of services, especially as many home schooled children will be attending doctor’s surgeries for vaccinations or medical conditions where GPs would already be assessing their welfare, for example.

The Bill had its first reading on 27 June. The next reading has yet to be announced.

The second Bill we spotted aims to do something really rather wonderful. The Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, sponsored by Lib Dem peer Baroness Hamwee, aims to reunite refugee families and provide them with legal aid where needed. The Bill would do this by:

“[Making] provision for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom to be granted to the family members of refugees and to refugees who are family members of British citizens and settled persons, to provide for legal aid to be made available for refugee family reunion cases.”

You can read the clauses of this Bill here. 

The first reading of this Bill was also on the 27 June. A date for the second reading hasn’t yet been set.

portcullis3

 

 

 

Domestic Violence Evidence Requirements Under Review – Have Your Say

17 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by in legal aid, Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

When the government announced that victims of domestic violence would need to provide courts with certain types of evidence  before being able to apply for legal aid, there was understandable concern and criticism towards the move.

Domestic violence as a phenomenon is largely invisible because many victims are too frightened to seek the medical or emotional help they need, which makes gathering evidence often impossible. Concerns deepened when it became apparent that the restrictions on legal aid access were placing even more women and children in danger. 

The result was a challenge by Rights of Women and The Public Law Project in 2014, which accused the government of restricting access to justice by forcing victims to produce specific documents showing harm. Regulation 33, which sets out the kinds of evidence victims of domestic violence have to produce in order to get legal aid, was shutting out people in need.

Then, in February 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled that Regulation 33 was unlawful.

As a result the government is now carrying out a review of the current evidence requirements for domestic violence in private family law cases and they would like to hear your thoughts.

The survey is open to everyone, and closes on Friday 1st July, 2016. Please take the time to fill it out and pass it on to anyone else you feel might like to contribute, if you can, from victims of domestic violence, to charities, lawyers, judges and anyone else interested in legal aid and Access To Justice matters.

We’ve added some useful links below:

MOJ LA Review.png

 

Judges Defeat Government Plans To Restrict Legal Aid Access Further

19 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in legal aid, Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

Setting aside for a moment the fact that Legal Aid is hardly accessible these days, to anyone, it’s been a good day in court for the support service, as judges overturned a government plan to restrict access to it further by imposing a residency test on people in need of legal support.

The residency test would have prevented people from accessing legal aid if they had not lived in the UK continuously for 12 months and could have affected newly arrived migrants and their children. The test, backed by Justice Secretary Michael Gove, was summarily thrown out in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling and unusually, the ruling itself was delivered only minutes after recess yesterday.

The Supreme Court took the view that the government would be acting ‘ultra vires’, or beyond its own powers if it decided to proceed with the residence test. However, the government could push ahead and try to enforce the policy by presenting a Bill to parliament with the measures, in full.

So, whilst the battle to save what’s left of legal aid is not over, the ruling represents an important stand against the erosion of civil justice and human rights in the UK.

Watch this space.

Gove

 

 

New Case: Accessing Legal Aid For Abuse Of Power By Police

10 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by in legal aid, Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

In what will be a fascinating hearing, a new case raises important questions relating to accessing legal aid for abuse of power claims against the police. In an already fraught economy, with a government hell bent on cutting welfare budgets and legal aid down to its last wick, this case, at its heart, is all about economics.

The facts of the case are as follows: Ms Sisangia wished to bring proceedings against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for false imprisonment and assault arising out of her arrest and detention in 2011. Her request was refused twice, and on the second occasion, on the ground that she had not shown the proposed action was within the scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”) and in particular paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 to that Act.

Ms Sisangia’s claim to pursue legal aid was eventually allowed, but concerns about the wider implications of allowing people to claim for legal aid in this context were raised, and so an appeal was brought by Matthew Coats, the Director of Legal Aid Casework (who initially refused Ms Sisangia’s request to access legal aid).

This appeal has been allowed, though we do not yet know the date of the hearing. It will be interesting to see which points will be raised in relation to The Director’s concerns, but we feel this appeal is driven by concerns over whether permission to access legal aid for cases involving false imprisonment and the police may open a floodgate, which the government, and The Director of Legal Aid Casework, will be keen to avoid. This case is relevant to the family justice system because the police work closely with social workers and families involved in the court system and there are potentially instances where police conduct, particularly with vulnerable families, could be construed as abuses of power.

What do you think? Is this appeal motivated by money, or have we missed a finer point?

If you have a moment, the discussion in the judgment on the definition of abuse of power is worth a read, not least of all because there is no set definition that exists (interesting reasons for that apparent omission are offered in the text).

Many thanks to Maggie Tuttle for sharing this case with us.

Addams

President Says Family Courts Are “Neither Compassionate Nor Humane.”

22 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in child welfare, legal aid, Researching Reform

≈ 13 Comments

It’s taken ten years for us to get here, but finally it seems the most senior minds inside the Family Court are starting to actively push for change.

Suggesting people would be forgiven for thinking the system was, “neither compassionate, nor even humane”, President of the Family Justice System, Sir James Munby was passing judgment in a case which involved two parents unable to access legal aid to fight to stop their three year old child from being adopted. Munby also touches on the human rights principles this case raises – the right to a fair trial is a well known and basic human right, which is currently being eroded by the government’s ongoing cutbacks to the child welfare and legal sectors.

These cutbacks are preventing parents and children from accessing legal support and this, to our mind at least, is a direct breach of Article 6. 

Munby’s observation that the Family Court is a place devoid of compassion and humanity does not just apply to access to legal aid. It applies in every corner of the system where support services are being pared down, where training is not up to par and where working culture allows child protection processes to be ignored and even illegally circumvented.

Researching Reform supports Munby’s continued efforts to speak out about these issues, many of which he has touched upon in previous judgments – now we need Sir Munby to push a little harder. We have seen him talk about other controversial issues, such as male circumcision, but much like his comment on access to legal aid in the current case above, his wording is typically sheepish and cautious.

And whilst some might argue that judges should not be political nor allow their personal views to intertwine with their work (which for the most part we agree with), when it comes to government policy and legislation, the moment they begin to impact on basic human rights, every judge in the land has a duty to speak out.

The family justice system does not need more armchair philosophers or half hearted sentiment. 2016 is the year in which we must tell it like it is – and demand change.

Munby

 

Can You Get Legal Aid?

21 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in legal aid

≈ 3 Comments

Although no one’s ever heard of it, and this is compounded by the fact that no one seems to be using it, the government have a web page called Civil Legal Advice, which allows you to work out whether or not you can get legal aid.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t even manage to do that – which may explain why the government is currently reviewing this service – as once you’ve filled out the mind-numbing form online (which runs to several pages), you get an irritating message at the end telling you “may” qualify for legal aid, and to input all your personal information into the last page so they, whoever they are, can call you back.

It’s a lot of hassle for very little. We know, because we gave it a go. We presented as a divorcing woman with one child under 15, no income and only jewellery to show for our worldly wealth. When the form asks you for the value of the jewellery, you have to assume they mean what you’d get for it today, which is also unhelpful as most of us haven’t a clue. If the form wants to know what you paid for the jewellery or how much someone else paid for it, this would be equally pointless – you certainly wouldn’t get that much for it today, whatever it was. So, as you can see, the online service, which is in Beta phase to be fair (although that doesn’t excuse its clumsy process) is less than helpful.

The other thing that’s not very clear is who exactly is going to call you back. Is it a volunteer at a charity? A civil servant? A telephone operator with one of those annoying handbooks filled with questions they can’t deviate from (whatever you do, don’t ask them if they’re human), or an engaged ring tone? Apparently, it’s a Civil Legal Advice operator. So, the dude with the handbook then. Goody. But not before you’ve given your full name, telephone number, address, and synopsis of what your problem is. Just in case the five pages of multiple choice you filled out didn’t quite do your dilemma justice.

If you’re not feeling suicidal at this point, you probably will once you realise the operator might end up passing you on to a  CLA specialist adviser. That’s if you qualify for legal aid.

So it’s a three-step process, where you have to repeat yourself constantly, both online and on the phone and then, if you’re lucky you might get legal support.

We’re tired just thinking about this process.

It seems ridiculous to us – why not just have a phone line, where you can talk to people quickly and efficiently and then find out if further action can be taken. The whole process as it stands relies on people filling out the form accurately, and it’s not a very good form by any means, so that by a process of elimination the phone operators don’t have to ‘waste their time’ with people who may not qualify. A system like this will inevitably result in many people who could have qualified, not being given the opportunity to do so.

And that’s what’s wrong with service in this country. Our government wants to do, and give the bare minimum.

If you’re bored and don’t mind the rigmarole, you can see if you qualify for legal aid here. If you’d rather dive into the Thames naked, we’ll be standing by the shore line with a flask of tea.

legal aid