newsletter October 2007 Issue 41 “Are we there yet?” Children’s participation in family proceedings Content

Children’s Participation in Family Proceedings 1 “You have the right to Editorial 3 say what you think and you must be Children’s Participation cont 4

listened to” Discharge of Care Orders 6

By William Simmonds Scheme of Arrangements for Experts Continued on page 4 undertaking Assessments for Courts 8 (Child friendly version of Article 12, Is there another way for Legal Aid? 11 United Nations Convention on the Rights of The Child – Article 12, The Care proceedings research 12 Children’s Rights Organisation) Care plan for removal 13

Notice of Annual General Meeting 19

Notice of Elections 20

Minutes of Annual General Meeting 21

Book Reviews 22

Dates for your Diary 25

Sponsored by Jordan Publishing Ltd 2 October 2007 Issue 41

Booking Medical Evidence in Child Abuse Cases Seminar Now Training for all lawyers and other child care professionals who need practical insight into, and an understanding of, key medical and forensic information in child abuse cases.

• Morning Seminar (10.00 - 13.15) Non-Accidental Head Trauma and the Shaken Baby Syndrome

• Afternoon Seminar (14.00 - 17.30) Emotional Abuse, Domestic Violence and Attachment

CHAIR Robin Tolson QC VENUE/DATE , Wednesday 28 November 2007 SPEAKERS COST Professor Tim David £195 + VAT per half-day seminar Dr Danya Glaser £345 + VAT for both seminars Dr Tim Jaspan Dr Claire Sturge Attend both seminars and save £45

Visit www.jordan-training.co.uk for more information

AHandbook for Expert Witnesses in Children NEW EDITION Act Cases

2nd Edition The Rt Hon Lord Justice Wall With contributions by Stephen Cobb QC, 1 Garden Court and Peggy Ray, Partner, Goodman Ray Practical advice and guidance for expert witnesses who need to prepare reports and give evidence in proceedings under the Children Act 1989.

This new edition of the handbook is published jointly with the updated Witness Pack revised Dr Eileen Vizard, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, NSPCC and Penny Cooper, , Associate Dean, The City Law School and Inns of Court School of Law. It is fully updated and explains the way in which the courts, hearing proceedings relating to children, approach expert evidence. It aims to dispel misunderstandings and to help doctors and other health professionals to an awareness and understanding of important legal developments which have been taking place.

October 2007 Papercover + CD-ROM £30.00 + £4.00 UK p&p ISBN 978 1 84661 034 9

visit our website www.familylaw.co.uk or contact Customer Services on 0117 918 1490 Association of Lawyers for Children 3

Editorial

So the Government The LSC behaved as smugly as did the Meanwhile the proposed revision of the Government until the debacle of its Judicial Case Management Protocol in the and the Legal Services Autumn Budget. The high and heavy form of the Public Law Outline (PLO) is being Commission have had hand of autocracy will not be readily piloted in a number of areas. This includes forgiven or forgotten. At the same time it London, although many seem ignorant of their way. Fixed fees is notable that the Budget makes no this fact. An entirely laudable aim is for the were introduced for mention of any additional funding for length of proceedings to be shortened children’s welfare. where that is in the interests of all children’s proceedings Where now? We can only fight on. We concerned. We all know of cases where the on 1 October 2007. may reflect that we have progressed since outcome is plain to see from the outset and Maria Colwell was murdered by her step- yet proceedings are allowed to wend a The protestations of father in 1973 and the resulting enquiry weary way through the court, with resultant every other voice established the start of a system providing delays in planning for the future of the child for better representation of children. and continuing unrealistic uncertainty for the about the damage to There is still much to do. What a tragic parents. Some argue that this may fulfil a children’s interests irony that it is a Labour Government, therapeutic need for the parent. It must be which having improved conditions for the questionable whether the courts or lawyers were ignored. more vulnerable in society in many ways, are the best forum for that particular need. has now turned a totally deaf ear to one On the other hand the success of the PLO of the central requirements of a civilised must depend in part on children’s solicitors, society, the provision of adequate who have yet to see whether care work is representation when the removal of a viable under the new fees regime. Will child from his family is threatened. uncomfortable choices have to be made And what are we to make of the between the welfare of the client, the LSC CAFCASS changes being required of budget and the survival of publicly funded children’s guardians in care proceedings? practices? Is the role of to be front- And in the current climate the suspicion loaded and backloaded with little or no inevitably surfaces that the main objective of service in between? Does the HMICA the PLO is a rather simple alternative to report on CAFCASS, which gives such preventing unnecessary delay: to save money little weight to the importance of their with little regard for those whose interests role in negotiations (assisted of course by may suffer in the process. Those seeking to the child’s solicitor) between parents and implement the laudable objectives will have local authority, herald an era in which we to ensure that their motives are not return to a pre-Colwell state in which the highjacked by those with more base motives. local authority and the parents slug it out or carve it up? (See the letter from the Chief Executive of CAFCASS at page 00.) Richard White

The Newsletter of the Association of Lawyers for Children provides a forum for all professionals working in the field of child law and seeks to draw attention to current legal issues. The views expressed in the Newsletter are those of the individual contributors and are not necessarily the views of the Association, its Committee or the Editors. The publication is intended for information only and is not meant to provide any kind of legal guidance or opinion. The work may be freely reproduced so long as authorship is acknowledged. It is not to be used for any commercial or profit-making purpose. 4 October 2007 Issue 41

“Are we there yet?” (cont.)

In the last newsletter, I reported on the being offered a tour of the court: Children’s Hearings for the past 35 years5. ALC ‘Stop, Listen, Learn’ Conference. One Indeed, the principle that the majority of of the themes explored at that event was “I’m not really children and young people should have the extent to which children and young interested in the decisions made about them in an people are active participants in the family 2 atmosphere conducive to their justice system. Historically, both architecture” . participation was set out in the Kilbrandon professionals and courts have been Report as far back as 1964. Although reluctant to allow children and young Although the pendulum is swinging in Children’s Hearings and Care Proceedings people to attend court both for protective favour of increasing participation3 it is still differ, they both make decisions that effect reasons (often misplaced) or because such comparatively unusual for children and children and young people yet approach matters were deemed to be the preserve young people to attend court hearings and the issue of participation from radically of adults. In addition, children’s wishes there remain numerous barriers to their different perspectives. In Children’s and feelings have sometimes become lost effective participation at that stage. Hearings the presumption is that the child in the process; reduced to a few lines in a When a child or young person does attend or young person will attend with their Guardian’s report, subject to a professional court, their experience can often be as a parents/carers, together with social worker, ‘filter’ or in the case of many pre-verbal or marginal player in cases about their own teacher and anyone else involved with disabled children not put at all. future, the focus remaining on the lawyers them. The children and young people are and other professionals. Many may find also encouraged to complete a ‘Having Although there is little reliable research the experience such that they choose not Your Say Form’. The whole process is evidence on the views and experiences of to attend again, being left with the geared towards engaging the child and children and young people attending impression that family as fully as possible. I have just court, research in 19991 found that half of returned from a three day trip to Scotland the children did want to attend court and where I was able to observe a number of this figure might arguably be much higher “It is called the Family such hearings. It was illuminating to see if lawyers, courts and guardians more Court but they don’t the young people literally ‘at the centre’ of actively encouraged such participation and 4 the proceedings and being made to feel the system was better placed to make involve the family” . that the hearing really was about them their attendance a safe and positive and their family. The young person is experience. We might give a young Whilst and Wales struggle with sometimes asked to introduce those person the opportunity to visit the court in the concept, in Scotland children and present and is given an opportunity to advance of the hearing but is this really young people have been attending express their view directly and to ask enough? As one young person said on questions.

1 Masson and Oakley, 1999 2 Brophy (2006) DCA ‘Research Review: Child Care Proceedings under the Children Act 1989’ CA 3 E.g.Mabon v Mabon [2005] EWCA Civ 634 4 Freeman & Hunt (1998) Parental perspectives on Care Proceedings 5 The Kilbrandon Report, HMSO 6 Scottish Executive ‘My Turn To Talk – The participation of looked after and accommodated children in decision making’ and ‘Big Words and Big Tables: Children and Young People’s experiences of advocacy support and participation in the Children’s Hearings System’ 7 Scottish Executive (2006) ‘Getting it Right for every child’ 8 CAFCASS (2007). Available at www.cafcass.gov.uk Association of Lawyers for Children 5

Of particular note, the Panel Members make a visible contribution to the undertook their deliberations in the reporting process to court, promotes the presence of the young person and had to analytical approach to assessing explain to them the reasons for making information shared by the child or young their decision, ensuring transparency at person and ensures the young person’s that crucial stage. In practice, the Scottish own analysis in not minimized in the system is not without its weaknesses and process. The guidance also includes a research has indicated that when seen valuable list of resources for engaging with from the child’s perspective, the adult children and young people and a set of driven process to facilitate participation ‘Principles of Good Practice’. The looks very different from what adults had guidance, although practice based is in mind6 (areas for improvement are in the underpinned by legislation, case law and process of being addressed by the Scottish international conventions and I would Executive7). However, it remains the case commend it to all lawyers who act for that a neighbouring jurisdiction has children. achieved what for England and Wales remains largely an aspiration. William Simmonds Attendance at court is of course just one Solicitor aspect of participation and for many children and young people the court hearing can be an imperfect vehicle for eliciting their candid wishes and feelings. The processes and practices leading up to court remain key in delivering active participation. The CAFCASS officer has a crucial role in ensuring that children and young people’s wishes and feelings are before the court. CAFCASS has recently published “My Needs, Wishes and Feelings - Guidance for practitioners”8. This practice model seeks to enable young people to

6 Scottish Executive ‘My Turn To Talk – The participation of looked after and accommodated children in decision making’ and ‘Big Words and Big Tables: Children and Young People’s experiences of advocacy support and participation in the Children’s Hearings System’ 7 Scottish Executive (2006) ‘Getting it Right for every child’ 8 CAFCASS (2007). Available at www.cafcass.gov.uk 6 October 2007 Issue 41

Discharge of Care Orders and the child’s rights

The latest figures Local authorities are being encouraged to for such things as school trips, holidays reduce the numbers of children who and routine medical treatment. The child show that the number spend long periods on care orders. This may well be conscious of being ‘labelled’ of children looked may be by simply discharging the care by adults and peers as a child in care. order or by replacing it with a residence In the well-known passage from its after by local order or special guardianship order. judgment in the case of Olsson v Sweden authorities remains at This article focuses on the situation where (No 1)(application no. 10465/83), the a child is subject to a care order and is European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) about 60,000. This living with one or both parents. Many of noted that, where the authorities’ plan includes many children the same principles will however apply was not for adoption, the care decision where the child is living with members of “should be regarded as a temporary who are subject to the extended family. measure, to be discontinued as soon as care orders, but are in Either the local authority or the parent can circumstances permitted”. This was fact living at home, or apply to the court for discharge of the care reinforced in 2003 in K.A. v Finland order. There are no threshold (27751/95): are settled with requirements for discharge. It is not, for As the Court has reiterated time members of the example, necessary to show that the s31 and again, the taking of a child into threshold criteria no longer apply1. The public care should normally be extended family. usual evidential rules as to burden of proof regarded as a temporary measure, do apply, however, as does the ‘No-order to be discontinued as soon as principle’2. Whoever applies for the circumstances permit… . The discharge carries the burden of proving, on positive duty to take measures to the balance of probabilities, that facilitate family reunification as soon discharging the care order will be better as reasonably feasible will begin to for the child than retaining it. weigh on the responsible authorities This reflects basic legal principles, but is it with progressively increasing force compatible with Human Rights law? as from the commencement of the Where a child is living within his or her period of care, subject always to its own family, a care order represents a being balanced against the duty to significant level of intrusion into private consider the best interests of the and family life. Even if they have parental child. responsibility, the carers’ exercise of it is The ECHR is referring to a positive limited. The child and carers are required obligation under Article 8 to facilitate to attend regular review meetings and the reunification of the child with the parents, child is required to undergo regular but I submit that it has also imposed a medicals. The permission of a social continuing duty to minimise the worker or manager is generally required interference with family life after

1 Re S (Discharge of Care Order) [1995] 2 FLR 639 per Waite LJ. “… the jurisdiction is discretionary from the outset (there being no obligation on the parent to satisfy the court that the threshold requirements no longer apply).” 2 Re O (Care: Discharge of Care Order) [1999] 2 FLR 119 Association of Lawyers for Children 7

reunification. It is therefore for the state To illustrate how this works in practice, I parents, although the introduction of (in the guise of the local authority) to was involved in a discharge application special guardianship is likely to reduce the justify this ongoing intrusion, not for the brought by a local authority where it was number of such cases. Where, however, a parents to justify removing it. clear that the care order was doing care order is no longer needed, there is a If this is correct, then for law to comply precisely nothing to further the 16-year old positive duty to seek to remove it. with Article 8, the burden of proof on a child’s welfare. The court however would not discharge the care order because the discharge application should always lie on George Eddon, local authority could not demonstrate that the local authority, whoever the applicant Local Authority Solicitor/ALC Treasurer is. This represents a departure from long- the child’s welfare would be promoted by established legal principle, but it is difficult removing the care order. Taken to its to see how the existing rule can stand up logical conclusion this means that, where to scrutiny. an older child effectively opts out of engaging with the local authority, so that I would like to make a further suggestion. the care order is doing neither good nor As already stated, the no-order principle harm to his or her welfare, it will be also applies to discharge applications, so a impossible to secure discharge of the order. parent who seeks a discharge is required to satisfy the court that it would be better for Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires the child to make an order discharging the the courts to interpret legislation in a way care order than to make no order and that is compatible with Convention rights. leave the care order in place. If Article 8 Section 1(5) Children Act 1989 provides requires that a care order should continue that: for only as long as it is needed, then any Where a court is considering presumption should be in favour of whether or not to make one or bringing the order to an end, unless its more orders under this Act with continuation can be justified. In other respect to a child, it shall not make words, the no-order principle should be the order or any of the orders unless applied to the existing care order, not the it considers that doing so would be proposed order of discharge. better for the child than making no order at all. It is not difficult to see why the courts have interpreted this in the way that they have. Given the duty contained in section 3, it should however be possible to interpret it so as to apply the no-order principle to the continuation of the care order. I therefore suggest that, on an application for discharge of a care order, the no-order principle should be applied so as to require the local authority to demonstrate how retaining the order will be better for the child than removing it. Child care lawyers, whether in local authority or private practice, spend most of their working lives debating whether children should go into care, but relatively little time considering what should happen to children once they are in care. For some children, it is necessary to retain care orders for long periods, for example to protect the placement from disruption by 8 October 2007 Issue 41

Scheme of Arrangements for Experts undertaking Assessments for Courts

The need to extend In 2006 Dr Claire Sturge and Dr Danya assessor. The scheme makes clear that the Glaser proposed a scheme to assist both clinical assessment, report writing and the pool of experts courts and psychiatrists to meet this need. court presentation will be undertaken by available to assist The initiative led to a Scheme of the assessor. The role of the mentor is to Arrangements being developed by a guide the assessor in the structure of the courts in family cases working group of child psychiatrists and assessment, advise as necessary during the has long been lawyers. The scheme produced has the conduct of the assessment and to confer backing of the Family Justice Council. It in relation to the final report. Once the recognised. was launched on 1st October 2006. letter of instruction has been sent it is Following the launch there were a number expected that all further communication of referrals with reports being successfully will be with the assessor. The mentor completed. Recent months, however, retains a background role guiding the have shown a significant fall off in assessor and ensuring that the conduct of referrals. One year on, we would like to the assessment and the advice given to remind practitioners of the availability of the court is of a high standard. the scheme and to encourage new The scheme is proposed as a pilot to referrals. There are now a good number operate in London in the discipline of of experts ready, willing and wanting to Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. If take on cases. successful, it is envisaged that it can be The scheme provides a formal mechanism enlarged both geographically and in terms to bring together experienced court of the disciplines covered. reporters and clinicians, not yet established The scheme is available electronically as a as expert witnesses, as mentor and PDF document on the 1 Garden Court assessor. It provides a well regulated website: www.1gc.com, under the tabs means by which the high standards of “News/Latest News”. It is hoped that court reporters can be maintained whilst whenever there is a need for an expert at the same time assisting those without report consideration will be given to the court experience to offer their services in scheme and whether the case is suitable. children’s cases. The scheme sets out in If sufficient cases are referred to the detail the experience to be expected of scheme there is every reason to hope that participating clinicians and guidance as to before long there will be a new generation cases likely to be suitable for the scheme. of experts willing, able and well equipped A solicitor or barrister wishing to make use to advise in family cases. of the scheme should approach one of the listed contacts in the Appendix to the Charles Geekie QC scheme. There is one psychiatrist named 1 Garden Court for each of the six teaching areas in London. The enquiry will be fed through to a mentor and assessor team able to undertake the work. The formal instruction will then be of that mentor and Association of Lawyers for Children 9 10 October 2007 Issue 41

Note from Editor - The inspection report is available from www.hmica.gov.uk Association of Lawyers for Children 11

Is there another way for Legal Aid?

As a childcare lawyer I The legal aid changes are clearly not going nevertheless operate in a market for to help the vulnerable people we work services and command a reasonable fee for have, as we all have, with. But the old system was not the work done. A further advantage, been watching with particularly good either. Is there a better inherent in this system, is that the policing is way? done by lawyers not LSC bean counters. As increasing concern the the legal aid certificates remain in the name As a legal aid refugee myself I am now of the Advocate originally designated to do potential destruction working in Jersey. Here, being a small the work, the lawyers actually doing it are island, there is a different system of legal of our areas of accountable to them. The smooth running aid. It probably wouldn’t work in England, of the system is then ensured without the expertise by the given the much greater number of legal aid need for an outside body to oversee it. reduction in fees, practitioners and the volume of cases, but who knows….. A disadvantage in the system is that areas which in turn of law that are going to be mostly legally In Jersey there is no legal aid fund. But aided, such as child care, have not in the encourages people there is legal aid and the eligibility by means past attracted people as specialists because test is far more generous than in the UK. All away from this area of there has been no fund to pay for the Jersey Advocates of 15 years qualification or work. However, possibly now that more of law. less have a duty to take on a certain the larger firms are hiving off their legal aid number of legal aid cases every year, usually commitment to others, more expertise will between 10 and 20, and conduct them for be built up where there is a guaranteed free. This means that in theory, as cases are stream of work available. allocated from a list of all lawyers, (after the means forms have been completed and Wouldn’t it be refreshing for the likes of eligibility assessed) you get trusts lawyers Clifford Chance, Slaughter and May, and and corporate lawyers nipping down to the Allen & Overy to have to either hire in- Magistrates Courts to defend shoplifters or house care and criminal lawyers to fulfil a even conduct murder trials. This does still legal aid commitment, or better still, pay happen to an extent, but mostly the specialist child care and criminal firms to do corporate lawyers with charge-out rates in the work? Perhaps that would be a better the £400 plus an hour bracket tend to sub- market-based system than the one the LSC contract their legal aid obligation to have in mind for us in the future. paralegals and designated advocates within the larger firms. Barbara Corbett Other large firms out-source the whole of Hanson Renouf their legal aid commitment to other firms for a price, typically in six figures. This Barbara Corbett is Head of Family Law at means that the lawyers who are actually Hanson Renouf, Regency House, Regent doing the work may not be being paid the Road, Hill Street, St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4UZ. same as the corporate lawyers, but can [email protected] 12 October 2007 Issue 41

Care proceedings research

Professor Judith 1. Cases that look the same and are in 5.The point also has to be made that the same statistical box can be very outcomes are not simple. ‘To lose’– ie Masson has been different. This the removal of a fourth a care order may be the best outcome commissioned by the child from what appears to be a but in the process the parent may hopeless mother can in fact be very have changed considerably and Ministry of Justice to different if she has got rid of an contact will therefore happen which report on why some abusive partner, moved home, and would not otherwise. taken on board some of the lessons of care proceedings take the previous three removals. 6. A fuller assessment and hearing, even so much longer than if negative, is not time wasted – for 2. Some local authorities come to court the parents to accept the legitimacy of others which seem with assessments done, have the outcome is not simply a human very much the same. consistent social workers throughout rights, abstract issue. There are likely the case and sensible plans in place. to be more assaults on social workers, She has quantitive Some however use the court as a court staff and on foster carers and evidence from figures place to do the basic social work. The adopters if cases are rushed through PLO may change that but whatever its leaving a huge sense of injustice. but is looking for impact for local authorities with explanations. Here are massive turnover of social workers, 7. Some parents do change in the course there are always likely to be delays as of proceedings. Even if it is too late for some random work is not done, and adjournments that child, it may not be for a later thoughts (with which are needed. one. we will all be familiar) 3. The court: some Family Proceedings 8. Different Guardians can make cases go contributed by David Courts may allow more section 38(6) better or worse which is not the same applications than others or agree the as faster or slower but may influence Jockelson. A source of instruction of social workers not it. ongoing debate employed by the local authority. There may be a more robust county court perhaps? judges. Or some court may breed an David Jockelson easy familiarity where opposition to the Social Services is an unusual idea for the bench.

4. Some solicitors will fight proactively for clients, some will just respond. And others may spend (or used to) a lot of time dragging clients out of angry denial into some more realistic attitude where they may engage and change – or they may give up gracefully and constructively. Association of Lawyers for Children 13

Care plan for removal

IN THE HIGH COURT Neutral Citation: 2514 APPROVED JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this judgement and that copies BEFORE THE of this version as handed down may be HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RYDER treated as authentic. This judgment is being given in public on Sitting at THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, the basis that, save with the prior STRAND, LONDON permission of the court, in any report no person other than the advocate or the solicitors instructing them may be IN THE MATTER OF Re L identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the child and the adult members of the child’s family AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 must be strictly preserved.

ON APPEAL FROM THE NORTH SURREY FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT

Ms Stephanie Hine appeared for the Local Authority Mr Darren Howe for the 1st Respondent Mother Ms Lauren Cannon for the 2nd Respondent Father Ms Tali Michaels for the child by her children’s guardian.

Hearing dates: 11th and 18th September 2007 14 October 2007 Issue 41

Mr Justice Ryder: the issues in the case). In the event 6. I have not vacated the final hearing and on day three of that hearing, before FPC in January 2008 and the Magistrates adjourned part may yet remit these proceedings to 1. These are care proceedings heard to a further five (sic) days in a new bench on that day if it concerning a seven month old baby September 2007 and refused an cannot be determined any earlier L. L is represented by a children’s application by the mother for a and if the issues in the case are guardian. The Local Authority is viability report concerning a further once again suitable for Surrey County Council. residential assessment at a unit in determination in an FPC. The Reading known as “One Step at a Magistrates in this case lost control Time”. of the issues and their own process. 2. The proceedings are pending before They should have acknowledged the North Surrey Family Proceedings that this was the case and asked the Court (FPC) sitting at Staines on a 5. On 10th September 2007 the care centre for assistance. It was contested application by the Local appeal against the residential incumbent on their legal adviser to Authority for an Interim Care Order viability assessment decision came give them that advice. I can find no on the basis that their Care Plan before the Applications Judge for appreciation of this in the papers had changed to the removal of L directions. It was remitted to this and will accordingly direct that a from her mother’s care. The Local Court for an urgent hearing of the copy of this short judgment be Authority had given the Court an appeal on the following day. On an provided to the relevant justices assurance that in the event that examination of the conduct of the clerk for his or her consideration. they proposed a removal that would interim care hearing in the FPC, it be brought to the Court to enable immediately became clear that its the matter to be considered on the continuation other than as a final 7. Turning to the key issue in the case, merits. hearing was unsustainable. So far that is, whether L should remain in as the ultimate issues were her mother’s care pending the final concerned, it was equally clear that hearing. That issue needs to be 3. It is now clear that the hearing of an independent expert who had considered in the context of the that Interim Care Order application, given evidence to the FPC, Dr F, had subsidiary issue as to whether she which remains incomplete in the advised that a further assessment should reside with her mother at FPC pending an appeal to this might demonstrate in the mother the unit in Reading. court, had ultimately become a an ability to care for her daughter hearing on the merits of all of the and that there should at least have issues in the case. Indeed the been a viability report from the unit 8. There is no question but that an children’s guardian told me in terms proposed. Accordingly I adjourned interim threshold in accordance with that that was what was required the appeal for one week to allow Section 38 of the Act is made out and as soon as possible. The final that report to be produced and, in by the Local Authority i.e. there is hearing before the FPC is presently the event, it recommended a further cogent evidence that more than listed to take place in January 2008. residential assessment. As the adequately demonstrates a prima gravamen of the appeal was facie case justifying an Interim Care whether such a report should have Order being renewed on the Local 4. For a number of reasons that I need been ordered, I allowed the appeal Authority’s application. Mother’s not dwell upon, the hearing in the without objection, vacated the case is not so much that she denies FPC was blighted by procedural balance of the interim care hearing the likelihood of harm that arises problems some of which had the before the FPC, transferred the out of her relationship with the potential to raise serious Article 6 contested application for an ICO to father but that despite all her complaints (not least the fact that the care centre and thence to the prevarications and alleged the Magistrates were not in High Court and embarked upon deceptions she wants help to possession of all of the papers and that hearing with an estimated separate from him so as to be able the interim hearing was in no real length of one day on 18th to care for L. The Local Authority sense interim at all in that by its September 2007. statement of facts in support of the conduct and invited conclusions it existence of the threshold dated would have been determinative of 17th September 2007 (which I Association of Lawyers for Children 15

annex to this judgment) is full and profound trial of the known to judge the prospects of supported by the evidence filed. As Local Authority’s case and the success. to whether an interim order is parents’ response to the same d) The unit can protect L from the proportionate and necessary, there thereby usurping or substituting unpredictability and volatility would equally be no real dispute as for the function of the final that father allegedly presents. to that question (or at least no hearing or issues resolution discernable case that would have a processes: Re G (minors) (Interim e) At the end of three months, the reasonable prospect of success at an Care Order) [1993] 2 FLR 839 at Court should know whether interim hearing) were it not for the 845 CA and Re H (Supra) at mother’s existing need for a Local Authority’s plan to remove L. paragraph 38. relationship with father interferes with the priority need that L has for protection from harm. 9. It has been the Local Authority’s 11. At the parties request and in f) The previous residential assumption and, in my judgement, addition to reading all of the assessment at the St Michael’s that of the guardian, that all that documents filed, I have heard Fellowship satisfied the need for needs to be demonstrated is that an evidence from the viability assessor evidence as to mother’s ability to interim threshold exists for the Local of the unit concerned, Dr F, the provide practical care (that is no Authority to succeed in persuading Social Worker and the children’s longer an issue) but did not the Court that L should be guardian. adequately address mother’s removed. That is explicit in the relationship with father: in effect documentation filed before this it will be said that the unit left court including the Local Authority’s 12. I can summarise that evidence in mother to it and the relationship statement of facts. That is a the context of the documentary remained in place. profound error of perception that evidence that demonstrates the regrettably on the facts of this case existence of an interim threshold as g) Mother is herself a young person amounts also to an error of law. follows:- who is maturing and changing Nowhere is there a recognition that over time: that may contribute a) The dominant issue in the case is removal is a separate consideration to a different assessment process whether the mother can from the existence of the interim focussed on the dominant separate from the father and threshold or the need for an interim question of her relationship with thereby reduce or minimise the order. father that is whether she can risk that he presents. break her dependence on him. b) Mother loves her baby but does h) Accordingly, there is little or no 10. Even more stark is the failure to not know how to separate from cogent evidence on the acknowledge the need to consider father in which regard she needs dominant issue save the Local on the alleged facts of this case support. Authority Social Worker opinion whether: c) The unit in Reading is particularly and that of the children’s a) there is an imminent risk of suited to provide a supportive guardian that mother has really serious harm i.e. environment within which the demonstrated no capacity to whether the risk to L’s safety key question can be assessed change. demands immediate separation including a month of total i) If mother and L remain at the (per Thorpe LJ in Re H (a child) supervision and restricted existing foster carers or in the (Interim Care Order) [2003] 1FCR activity, locked and secured proposed unit in Reading there 350); and gates, CCTV and planning and will be no immediate harm review mechanisms to help b) if not, the question whether caused to L. mother protect her child mother is able to provide good followed by a monitored J) Rehabilitation of L to her mother enough long term care should environment within which would be very unlikely if L were be a matter for the Court to mother can demonstrate to be removed now. The decide at a final hearing not to compliance and ability to dominant issue would remain be litigated at an interim hearing separate from father. Within unaddressed. which effectively pre judges the three months sufficient would be 16 October 2007 Issue 41

k) There is a possibility that L will children’s guardian confirmed conduct including the deception of develop or may be developing her in her view the mother is a a parent does not change the actual an insecure attachment to her dysfunctional adolescent who risk that a child faces it merely mother i.e. if mother’s emotional has refused to co-operate and changes their perception or responses are unpredictable and doesn’t have the skills to assessment of that risk. If in fact unreasonable. On the contrary, change. the perception of risk could have however, there is no cogent been greater had the Local evidence as yet of an insecure Authority or the children’s guardian attachment and in any event the 14. With the greatest of respect to the known of the parents alleged covert more secure the mother is in social worker and the children’s meetings, then the question still herself the more likely her guardian who are genuinely arises as to whether the attachment to L will be/become concerned and articulate consequences of that risk have been secure and settled. professionals, they have adequately protected against or can misconstrued two issues that are be so as to ameliorate the same. If important at this interim hearing so, there will not be an imminent 13. The extent of the Social Work and which are frequently risk of really serious harm because evidence from the Local Authority misconstrued by professionals when of the new information but rather a and the children’s guardian is that: dealing with incomplete evidence at risk of harm that may be really interim hearings. I emphasise as serious but which has not yet a) L was unresponsive in the strongly as I can that ultimately they occurred and may not do so within context of a potentially may be right but that is a matter for the proceedings if adequate disruptive and distressing the final hearing or issues resolution arrangements can be put into place. incident in the summer of this opportunity when all of the year. evidence will be available to the b) If the relationship between Court. 17. I have heard the children’s guardian mother and father persists, his in evidence on the interim unpredictability, drug and proposals. She takes an absolute alcohol use present a real 15. The first is the test to be applied to view about mother to the point of emotional risk to L. the question of removal. The being dogmatic. As I have children’s guardian valiantly observed, she may be correct in her c) There is no professional attempted to meet that test, when judgement, but her real imperative relationship with mother that it was put to her, by her description is to obtain an early full hearing as allows of any more adequate of the child’s response to the soon as possible. In that regard, it safeguards for L i.e. the Local parental incident in the summer will not do to say that a proposal Authority cannot police the which she, the guardian, observed. that relates to the dominant issue in mother. But in light of Dr F’s analysis, the the case cannot be considered by d) It is the Social Work opinion that question of the insecurity of the Court simply because the there are no prospects for attachment remains a real issue for children’s guardian belatedly change in mother and no signs determination on the merits which submits that the Court’s existing of her developing any trust with can be better addressed by further timetable for a final hearing in them. residential assessment as proposed January is in itself not in the child’s and in any event does not present best interests. To do so, the e) In any event there must be a an acute safety question children’s guardian would have to very real risk that mother will necessitating the child’s removal. rely on particulars relating to the establish another relationship child’s best interests. These are with a man of similar risky singularly missing save in respect of propensities. 16. The second is the nature and extent the vague assertion that an insecure e) The information is now of a of the risk. The fact that the Local attachment may be developing. On covert relationship carried on Authority and/or the children’s any basis, the guardian is arguing between mother and father guardian do not have knowledge of for a hearing after November 2007 which increases the risk to L. matters either generally or even because of her own availability and because of an alleged course of f) The incident observed by the as she rightly points out the Local Association of Lawyers for Children 17

Authority recommendations have pleased has provided the material from father and thereby provide not as yet gone to panel. There is that the Court needs, so might it be emotionally for her child. nothing in the evidence I have read argued that providing too artificial • No later than three months or heard that demonstrates any an assessment within which mother hence the unit in Reading shall significant priority that this case makes no choices for herself provide an assessment report in should have over others with similar provides no opportunity to answer accordance with a letter of issues and deadlines. I agree that it the dominant question. instruction which shall be the needs to be listed on the first responsibility of mother’s available date but that is not a solicitors in consultation with the reason to abandon the proper 20. I have no doubt that with local authority and the child’s consideration of the proposals appropriate case management this solicitors. The report shall be before the Court. In my judgement matter can be ready for hearing in filed and served prior to the the merits of the case can be January whether before me, the care December renewal date of the provided for and a reasonable centre or the FPC. In the event that interim care order. timetable for the child can be the proposed assessment at the unit constructed despite the guardian’s in Reading fails the matter will be • At the renewal hearing in concern. available to go to panel and then to December I shall give further a relatively short final hearing before directions for issues resolution the end of the year. To ensure that and/or final hearing. 18. The Local Authority’s interim case is this occurs I shall personally keep based almost in its entirety upon the conduct of the ICO renewals each probability that mother’s relationship month as an opportunity to review 22. I decline to approve the removal of L with father will continue. I have progress in the case. I shall direct from her mother and upon the Local already commented on the errors of that they be listed before me with Authority’s undertaking not to do so analysis that lead to that question the attendance of the parties and without bringing the matter before being used as a basis for an urgent their witnesses excused and only the Court, I approve a plan to application to remove absent more such advocates as are necessary to continue the placement of the child cogent reasons. I am not persuaded explain the then existing with her mother. that the existing assessment material circumstances. answers the dominant question that I have identified and in that regard I Judgment ends. prefer the advice of Dr F. In any 21. Accordingly, in addition to giving event, as all witnesses defer to the permission to adduce additional Judgement provided by Child Law Partnership, solicitors for the mother existing assessment of the St evidence on the appeal and allowing Michael’s Fellowship, it would be the appeal setting aside the FPC’s preferable in a case where it can be refusal to order a viability provided for, for a second opinion to assessment and vacating the interim be available where the existing hearing before the FPC, I shall on assessment has not apparently the hearing of cross applications for addressed the dominant question. an Interim Care Order and a section 38(6) direction make the following orders: 19. I had considered whether I should • Interim Care Order renewable assist the process of further before me with a direction that assessment by prohibiting father only those advocates who have from associating with mother but anything to say need attend. have come to the conclusion that that would be too artificial a • A Section 38(6) direction that circumstance. Just as I do not mother and child be placed at believe that the St Michael’s the One Stop Unit in Reading for Fellowship assessment which a period of up to three months permitted mother to do as she to assess her ability to separate 18 October 2007 Issue 41

Garden Court Chambers TENANCY VACANCIES FOR SENIOR FAMILY PRACTITIONERS

The busy and well established Family Team at Garden Court Chambers seek to recruit senior practitioners of above 10 years call to join our dynamic team, both to maintain our high profile public and private law children work and to contribute to our expansion into other areas of work involving children. To download an application form please go to our website at http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/join_us/tenancy.cfm The closing date for applications is Friday 30 November 2007.

Members of the team

Ian Peddie QC Kathryn Cronin Rachael Rowley-Fox Amanda Meusz Alison Grief Debra Gold Sam Momtaz Birinder Kang Joanne Harris Bansi Soni Celia Graves Smita Shah Jo Delahunty QC Nadine Finch Elizabeth Veats Maggie Jones Josephene Uzuegbunam Robert Littlewood Judith Trustman Ravinder Rahal Simon Green Jonathan Wilkinson Malek Wan Daud

Applications from ethnic minorities and women candidates are particularly welcome. We seek to operate a fair recruitment policy.

Certificate No. FS 58838 Garden Court Chambers, Certificate No. FS 58838 57-60 Lincolns Inn Fields, London WC2A 3LS www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk Tel: 020 7993 7600 Fax: 020 7993 7700 Association of Lawyers for Children 19

Notice of Annual General Meeting

To be held at the 18th National Conference, at the Midland Hotel, Peter Street, Manchester M60 2DS at 15:30 pm Thursday 15th November 2007. Agenda

1. Approval of minutes of last Annual General Meeting held on 3rd November 2006. 2. Matters arising. 3. Election of Officers and Management Committee to serve until next Annual General Meeting. 4. To consider a report from the Joint Chairs on the work of the Association since the previous Annual General Meeting. 5. To consider the accounts of the Association. 6. To consider plans for the Association for the following year. 7. Any other urgent business.

Barbara Hopkins ALC Secretary

Fisher Meredith's Children Team

If anybody is thinking of making a move given the current climate, Fisher Meredith's Children Team is seeking to expand. We are looking for a skilled solicitor with managerial skills to join our department.

Please do contact Judy Bishton if you would like to talk on: 07989 856786 20 October 2007 Issue 41

Notice of Elections

Annual General Vice-Chairs Resignations Meeting 15th As the Association currently has Joint Louise Noblett and Paul Murray are Chairs it is not felt necessary to have resigning from the Committee. November 2007 Vice-Chairs as well. The Committee at present is as Secretary Under the constitution follows: Barbara Hopkin has been nominated. 1. Alan Bean the Committee shall There have been no other nominations. 2. Barbara Corbett 3. Liz Dronfield consist of the Officers Treasurer 4. Liz Goldthorpe and up to 12 ordinary 5. Stuart Gordon George Eddon has been nominated. 6. Jackie Jones members. The Officers There have been no other nominations. 7. Nicola Jones-King shall include the Chair, 8. Gaye Moran Press and Publicity 9. Piers Pressdee two Vice-Chairs, Barbara Hopkin has been nominated. 10. Beth Prince Treasurer, Secretary There have been no other nominations. 11. Pauline Troy 12. and any such Officers Education and Training Vacancies as may from time to Dr Julia Brophy has been nominated. time be considered There have been no other nominations. There is currently one vacancy for an ordinary member of the Committee. appropriate. Newsletter Editor We are looking for proactive people who would like to join us in Richard White has been nominated. promoting children’s access to justice Officers There have been no other nominations. at this very challenging time. In you are interested then please contact Under the constitution the Chair and Website Co-ordinator Julia Higgins on 020 8224 7071 or by Vice-Chairs hold office for two AGM’s Christine Dean has been nominated. email [email protected] Alternatively from the AGM where they are first There have been no other nominations. you can speak to Julia or a member elected. All other Officers hold office of the Committee at the Conference. from an AGM until the next AGM. Student Co-ordinator On the basis of the above, there is no Chair Claire O’Rourke has been nominated. need for any formal elections, unless There have been no other nominations. Alistair MacDonald was elected as Joint nominations received for the vacant Chair at the 2005 AGM, Caroline Little Ordinary members of the positions outnumber vacancies, or a was elected as Joint Chair at the 2006 Committee contest develops for one of the other AGM and therefore they do not need re- positions already nominated. electing. The term of office is for three years. The Committee may co-opt to fill casual vacancies. Association of Lawyers for Children 21

Minutes of Annual General Meeting Held at the 17th National Conference, the Queens Hotel, Leeds at 16:00 pm Friday 3rd November 2006.

Apologies important that we stop referring to these An electronic database is being set up reforms as the Carter reforms, there are and it is important that this is up-to-date. There were no apologies fundamental differences between those If you believe that your details may be 1. Minutes proposals and the reforms set out by the incorrect then please contact the Legal Services Commission. administrator. We are hoping that The minutes of the last AGM were We have also responded to consultations members will soon be able to renew their amended by the membership so that they such as confidence and confidentiality, membership online. contained the correct reference dates and focusing judicial resources and the review approved as a correct record of the of independent reviewing officers. Training and education meeting held on 18th November 2005. The following ALC events have been Media and campaigning organised for the coming year: 2. Matters arising We recently took the decision to employ 08 December 2006 – Stop, Look and PR consultant Roger Haywood on a part Listen at Kings College London There were no matters arising time basis. The aim was to get three key 03 March 2007 – Child Protection: 3. Election of Officers and messages across: Expanding Boundaries at Brunel University Management Committee 1. Better funding for family justice 28 July 2007 – Hershman\Levy Memorial 2. Safeguarding children Lecture at South Bank University, Lord Details for the elections were included in 3. Cutting costs can cost lives Justice Wilson will deliver the lecture. the ALC Newsletter, October 2006. In April The ALC has been raising its public profile The 2007 ALC conference is going to be 2006 Caroline Little took up the position of with press releases, articles and held from the 15 November 2007 at the Joint Chair with Alistair MacDonald. appearances on the radio and television. Midland Hotel in Manchester.

There was no need for any formal In addition the ALC has also been Resolutions: elections as only one person was standing involved in political lobbying and has 1. This conference does not accept for each position. been represented at meetings and on that there should be no increase in advisory groups. funding for family justice. There were two vacancies for ordinary 2. This conference believes that the members of the Committee and Stuart family justice should be properly Gordon and Alan Bean were elected onto 5. Accounts funded for the first time. the Committee. The Association is in the process of The ALC will continue to argue on behalf changing accountants. There is currently 4. Report of Joint Chairs of its membership to promote access to a healthy balance in the ALC account. justice for children and young people. The ALC has been involved in numerous 6. To consider plans for the activities over the past twelve months. In 7. Any other business particular the following work has been Association for the undertaken: following year There was no other business arising.

Consultations We have been developing our IT and Web The committee has responded to services. The web forum went live on 23 numerous consultations, particularly October 2006 and it is hoped that this will regarding legal aid reforms. It is be extended during the coming year. 22 October 2007 Issue 41

Book Reviews

Van Rooyen, C. and impressive list of well known experts in Mahendra, B. (2007). The third part of the book looks at their field: Dr Clifford Yorke, the Rt Hon adult behaviour as it is relevant to Lord Justice Wall, Dr Judith Freeman, Psychology in Family and family proceedings. Beverley Tydeman, Dr Eia Asen, Jenifer Child Law. Wakelyn, Dr Janine Sternberg, Prof Jo This book sets out to meet a perceived Sibert, the Rt Hon Mr Justice Sedley, Bristol, Family Law need to fill a lacuna in the resources Stephen Cobb, QC, Dr Anne Zachary, available to legal practitioners, and it Khatun Sapnara, Katherine Gieve, 238 pages, certainly fulfils its purpose. Henry Brown, Christopher Richards, price £45 Michael Ledbetter, Professor Philip and ISBN 978 1 84661 067 7 (paperback) Carolyn Pape Cowan, and Dr Stephen Thorpe, C and Trowell, J. Cretney. This brand new book was brought out (eds) (2007). to be a companion volume to Adult I found this book both informative and Psychiatry in Family and Child Law Re-Rooted Lives: Inter- fascinating. It is packed full of useful published in 2006, and it examines all disciplinary Work Within the information and some of the chapters aspects of adult and child psychology in Family Justice System. are challenging to practitioners in that relation to family and child care law. Bristol, Family Law they require us to review our Both books seek to bridge the assumptions and then our child perceived gap between legal and protection practice. medical science, particularly psychology 181 pages, price £29 and psychiatry. The first part of the ISBN 978 1 84661 047 9 (paperback) An example is the chapter by Beverley book goes a long way towards helping Tydeman who looks at the role of the lawyers to understand some of the This is another new book from Jordans, child psychotherapist as part of a multi- basic concepts, for example, what is published to celebrate the tenth disciplinary team undertaking forensic normal – abnormal in terms of anniversary of the publication of assessments for the courts. She considers psychological development, behaviour, Rooted Sorrows, a collection of papers the courts’ need for evidence which, and growth during childhood and from the Dartington Conferences, which even if not absolutely certain, is at the adolescence. made a great impact on practitioners by very least sufficiently reliable upon which introducing and emphasising the to base a decision. She tries to bridge The second part of the book deals with importance of the role of child the gap between legal and psychological psychological issues concerning children psychology and psychoanalysis in the understanding and terminology, asking and adolescents, and sets out concise outcome of child protection cases, and ‘…whether something can be ‘true explanations of the most common to which I feel sure that practitioners still enough’ to be convincing evidence’. childhood disturbances and adult refer from time to time. And… how much of a gap is there mental disorders, in a form easily between… a ‘clinical fact’ and what can assimilated. Examples of childhood The book was written for those be accepted as a ‘legal fact’? disturbances briefly explained are: working with and for children including enuresis, encopresis, fears, temper lawyers health professionals, social The chapters in this book all look to be tantrums, social withdrawal, separation workers, mediators and the police. It very useful in practice, and I for one will anxiety, anxiety, school phobia, PTSD, contains contributions from an be referring to it as often as I did to childhood depression, ADHD and more. Rooted Sorrows. Association of Lawyers for Children 23

Oliver, S. and Clements, P. Sugar, S. and Bojarski, A. Bird, R. (2007) (2007) (2007) Ancillary Relief Handbook, Special Educational Needs Unlocking Matrimonial Bristol, Jordans. (Sixth and the Law, Assets After Divorce Edition) Bristol, Jordans. (Second Bristol, Jordans. Edition) 495 pages, price £59 549 pages, ISBN 978 0 84661 073 8 (paperback) price £65 344 pages, ISBN 978 0 84661 022 6 (paperback) price £35 plus p & p Roger Bird, now a solicitor and formerly ISBN 978 0 85308 575 1 (paperback) This is a book written by an impressive a District Judge, is so well known that this sixth edition of his highly successful This comprehensive book takes into collection of experts in their field, two book now probably needs no account many legal and practice barrister authors with contributions by introduction. He has been a member of changes in England, Scotland, and David Liddell, forensic scientist and the ’s Ancillary Relief Wales over the past few years, David Lockett, Actuary, both of whom Advisory Group since its inception. including the implementation of the are called as expert witnesses in a Children Act 2004, the framework and variety of commercial and personal The book is up to date as at 09 June duties under the Disability disputes, fraud cases, and matrimonial 2007, very well indexed with a good Discrimination Act 1995, and the disputes. contents list, and set out in a way creation of the Scottish Additional This is a tricky area of law and practice which makes everything easy to locate. Needs Tribunals. The authors point out which benefits from the guidance in The author gives clear explanations, that there has been a number of this book, which covers law if evidence commentary and vignettes from cited relevant cases in the High Court and in ancillary relief, disclosure, disposition cases to illustrate his points and to the Court of Appeal recently, including of assets, prevention of disposal of enliven the text. the case of Dean, in which the Court assets, ownership of matrimonial of Appeal tried to extend the Tribunal’s property (real and personal), business The book was delayed in coming out to power to review decisions beyond the issues, partnerships, trusts, inherited await the decision of the Court of criteria set in the regulations. property and pensions, and much more besides. Appeal In Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] All ER (D) 425; The book is immensely practical. It and this new edition covers the vary covers all the essential elements of Cases are discussed in detail, for latest ground in guidance on practice in special needs cases: codes example that of cases involving farm interpreting the two recent landmark of practice, identification and assets, e.g. White v White [1998] 2 decisions of the House of Lords. assessment of special needs, the FLR 310 in which part of the family statement of special needs process, assets comprised a farmhouse and land Whether for students, or for busy rights of appeal, hearing procedures, purchased for £32,000 which was later practitioners, the book represents an and appeals from the Tribunal. valued at £3.5 million… invaluable resource. Additional matters, for example finance, non-compliance and Well set out, clearly referenced, and a enforcement are also covered. The reliable resource for practitioners, this book ends with lists of useful contacts. book is, as was the White’s farm, a good investment. 24 October 2007 Issue 41

Hershman, D. and Pearl, D., (2007). www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk, and McFarlane, A. (2007/8). encourages readers to visit the site and Care Standards Legislation to obtain copies of the tribunal Children Act Handbook. Handbook. decisions. The site also contains a Digest of cases, updated to February Bristol, Family Law Bristol, Family Law 2007, setting out a summary of the (Fifth Edition) decisions. It can be found on the British 651 pages, and Irish Legal Information Website price £40 741 pages, www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST. ISBN 978 1 84661 075 2 (paperback) price £40.00 ISBN 978 1 86441 064 6 (paperback) Given the rapidly changing nature of We all remember the late David this legislation, the next edition of this Hershman QC with much regard and His Honour Judge David Pearl is the book should reflect more new seeing his name alongside that of President of the Care Standards developments. Andrew McFarlane in the preface to Tribunal. the first edition in 2001, faithfully reproduced in this 2007/8 edition of David Pearl has substantially revised Barbara Mitchels the Children Act Handbook is a lovely and expanded the earlier editions, to tribute to his memory. include an extensive and updated collection of statutes and statutory Children Law and Practice is probably instruments relevant to care standards on most practitioners’ bookshelves, if and the protection of children. not, it should be. This handbook fulfils an additional role to Children Law This fifth edition of the successful and Practice in its provision of the book includes the Children Act 2004, statutory material in a separate, more key statutory provisions, statutory portable book to take to court. instruments relevant to child protection, day care and childminding, It contains selected parts of the and a jurisdiction table. Please note, all Adoption and Children Act 2002, the practitioners in Wales, that Welsh Children Act 1989, the Family subsidiary legislation is not included in Proceedings Rules 1991, and the Family this book. Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991, the Children (Allocation of The author points out that this a Proceedings) Order 1991, the Children rapidly changing field of legislation and (Allocation of Proceedings) (Appeals) that the book is up to date as at Order 1991, various Protocols, the January 2007. He warns that things President’s Directions and Guidance, may therefore look very different in Judicial Case Management in Public another twelve months time! Law Children Cases, CAAC Best Practice Guidance, calendars and The Care Standards Tribunal has a interestingly, weights and measures welcome spirit of openness, providing conversion tables. considerable help for practitioners on the internet. The introduction to the The book is up to date, practical and book points out that the decisions of useful, and that is precisely its the Care Standards Tribunal are intention. published on their website and can be downloaded at Association of Lawyers for Children 25

Dates for your Diary

EQUALITY FOR ALL?

A GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE Children and the Government’s human rights and equality agenda Tuesday November 20th 2007, 10-3.30pm

The Abbey Centre, 34 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BU (wheelchair accessible)

An equalities office has been established in government for the very first time and an Equality Bill is on its way. Gordon Brown wants a debate on a British Bill of Rights, and the Children’s Secretary is developing a national Children’s Plan.

To what extent are children and young people part of the Government’s thinking around human rights and equality? How much focus is the new Department for Children, Schools and Families giving to human rights and equality? When will we ratify the new UN Disability Convention, and what’s happening with votes for 16 and 17 year-olds? It is 18 years since the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child – celebrate with us and learn about new opportunities for children’s rights advocacy and change.

Chairs • John Wadham, Legal Director, Equality and Human Rights Imogen Walsh and Sharon Skinner Commission Speakers (in alphabetical order) • Mary Riddell, Observer columnist and CRAE Chair • Young people from Equality for children and young people • Sarah Spencer CBE, Chair of Equality and Diversity Forum too campaign • Dr. Ursula Kilkelly, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University • Bruce Clark, Head of Partnerships Division, Department for College Cork Children, Schools and Families

For further information please contact: Sue Marris, Office Manager, Children’s Rights Alliance for England, 94 White Lion Street, London N1 9PF Tel: 020 7278 8222 ext. 20 Fax: 020 7278 9552 [email protected] www.crae.org.uk 26 October 2007 Issue 41

Dates for your Diary

FOR FURTHER DETAILS ON THE COURSES BELOW CONTACT NAGALRO ON TEL: 01372 818504 OR FAX: 01372 818505 OR EMAIL: [email protected]

IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ISSUES IN CHILD CARE CASES

A course designed for practitioners involved in public and private family proceedings where issues of status in the is a factor. It will cover legal status of people entering the UK, HR legislation, procedures on applications, support from LA s and NASS, multi-cultural issues in proceedings and the role of the social worker and CG. London: Friday, 29 February 2008, 09.30 am – 4.30 pm

RISK ASSESSMENT IN CASES OF DISPUTED EXPLANATIONS FOR SERIOUS INJURIES

Assessing explanations for serious injuries to babies and very young children is an extremely stressful experience for child protection practitioners. This course will consider some of the parameters of risk assessment and decision making generally but with special reference to the work of Peter Dale and his colleagues in considering cases which feature Serious Injuries with Discrepant Explanations (S.I.D.E.) involving infants and toddlers. Norwich: Friday, 9 November 2007, 9.30 am – 4.30 pm London: Tuesday 15 January 2008, 9.30 am – 4.30 pm

MISTAKES OR MUNCHAUSEN'S?: RECONSIDERING THE REALITY OF FABRICATED OR INDUCED ILLNESS IN CHILDREN

The course will focus on dynamics, definitions and assessment issues in this very controversial form of child abuse with reference to the recent concerns about the role and power of expert evidence in safeguarding children affected by Fabricated or Induced Illness. London: Thursday, 24 January 2008, 09.30 am – 4.30 pm

WHICH CASE TO MAKE FOR PERMANENCY?

This evening course will give practitioners and lawyers an opportunity to consider the case law and research in relation to permanency recommendations to assist with a critical analysis of the LA's Care Plan for the child. London: Wednesday, 28 November 2007, 5.30 pm – 8.00 pm

WORKING WITH IN THE NEW PUBLIC LAW REQUIREMENTS

This course will assist practitioners to become familiar with the new requirements prior to and within proceedings in order to address not only their own practice but also the implications for safeguarding the child through the process. It will be relevant to Children’s Guardians, Family Court Advisers, Solicitors, Local Authority Workers, Independent Social Workers and Independent Reviewing Officers. London: Tuesday, 10 June 2008 22 Association of Lawyers for Children 27

Dates for your Diary

RELATED FAMILY AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS –

A GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE Most criminal and family law practitioners will at some time need to navigate the difficult issues which arise in concurrent criminal and family proceedings, whether they be Family Law Act proceedings, private law children proceedings, care proceedings or criminal prosecution. There is very little commonality in approach, ethos and practice between the criminal and family jurisdictions, and cases leading to simultaneous criminal and family proceedings can raise difficult and complex issues. In November Law Society Publishing will launch “Related Family and Criminal Proceedings – A Good Practice Guide”. Drafted for the Family-Criminal Interface Committee, this authoritative guide is intended to assist specialist family and criminal practitioners with cross-jurisdictional issues that commonly arise. This seminar launches the guidance, and will:

• provide a general overview of the jurisdictions involved; • provide a practical approach to understanding the issues • include practical advice and assistance to criminal and arising for family, criminal and local authority lawyers, family practitioners dealing with such cases; including practical worked examples • identify and promote best practice in terms of information sharing to improve dialogue, understanding and, ultimately, outcomes; and

Who should attend this seminar? • Judith Rowe QC, One Garden Court Chambers, Deputy High Court Judge (Family Division), Recorder Family, criminal and local authority practitioners. • Michael Bowes QC, Outer Temple Chambers, Recorder Speakers • Vera Baird QC MP, Solicitor-General Date and location • Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division Monday 5 November 5.30-9.00pm • Mr Justice Hedley, Family Division 1 hr 30 mins CPD • Nadine Tilbury, Lawyer and Senior Policy Advisor, Crown The Law Society’s Hall Prosecution Service 113 Chancery Lane • Nabila Zulfiqar, Principal Solicitor, Legal Services, Birmingham London WC2A 1PL City Council Cost: £30.00 excl. VAT

For further information: Conferences & Events – Room 1.01 The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London or DX 56 Lon/Chancery Ln Note: If you are booking less than two weeks before please email to confirm there are places available: [email protected] 3 ADD THIS DATE TO YOUR DIARY NOW! Accredited for 12 hours CPD and Bar

• CHILD LAW UPDATE ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS FOR CHILDREN • ADOPTION UPDATE 18th ANNUAL CONFERENCE • PUBLIC LAW OUTLINE

• IMPACT OF DOMESTIC PUSH ME – PULL YOU VIOLENCE ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN? CHILDREN MIDDAY THURSDAY, 15 NOVEMBER – • PAEDIATRIC MIDDAY SATURDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2007 OVERVIEW ON CHILD ABUSE Midland Hotel Manchester • ADOPTION/SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP Keynote Speaker Mr Justice McFarlane • PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING Register to receive the Programme in September by e-mailing the CPD accredited by conference administrator: Bar Council, Law Society [email protected] and ILEX. Waverley House, Park Lane, Melton Mowbray Leics. LE13 0PT Tel: 01664 569134

Sponsored by Jordan Publishing Ltd Annual Confer ence