freepaella
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
1. ' Alocal authority can only remove a child compulsorily from the care of itsparents where the ‘threshold conditions’ are satisfied - (Children Act 1989section 31). The local authority cannot remove the child purely on the basis ofthe child’s ‘welfare’ – that is, simply on the basis that the local authoritybelieves that removal of the child and placement elsewhere would be better forthe child than continuing to live with its parents. Does this give enoughprotection to the child, and does it achieve a proper balance between thechild’s rights and the parents’ rights, or is the law in need of reform?'

Again I'd like to stress I don't want the full answer, merely a bit of direction in answering. Thanks.
0
reply
freepaella
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#2
anyone?
0
reply
GeneralStudent95
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Introduction

Introduce the inherent tension which the question hints at. When the state enacts child protection legislation there are a number of policy considerations: (a) the welfare of children; (b) the importance of preventing harm and stopping it where it has already occurred; (c) the rights of parents; (d) the rights of children.

Some of these factors suggest that we should have a pro-active and expansive, paternalistic approach to child protection. Others suggest a more relaxed approach. The law does not however subscribe to one particular extreme viewpoint. Instead, it recognises the central aim of protecting children, but balances this against the rights of other interested parties.

The question is asking you whether this balance is correct.

General Judicial Overview

I will throw down some quotes for you:

Lanarkshire CC v B — "...a decision to engage with Child Protection proceedings needs to be made carefully, and with professional objectivity."

Re B — "removal of a child is a sign of a totalitarian state...it must be a measure of last resort."

Re O & N — "the threshold conditions exist in order to protect families from unjustified interference from the state."

Re J — "...the conditions represent a balance between Article 3 and Article 8 obligations."

Re O — "...strive for the least interventionist approach."

Note that all of these quotes demonstrate the internal tensions in child protection law: the law itself is an attempt to balance competing interests and the judiciary is acutely aware of this in their interpretation of the statute. The question then arises: in the interpretation of the statute, have the judiciary got the balance wrong?

Areas of Contention

I am not going to list everything out for you, because I would basically be writing the essay as I was above. But the key areas are:

1. The meaning of harm (Re MA, Re W, Re L, Re R (Rehabilitation);
2. The meaning of significant (Humberside CC, Re MA);
3. The meaning of "is suffering" (see Re M);
4. The meaning of "is likely to" suffer (Re H, Re B, Re S-B, Re J);
5. The attribution stage (Lanarkshire CC v B, Re S-B, Re J);

Consider all of that conflicting case law. Then move onto a consideration of the welfare stage and how this has factored in, along with the obvious no order principle and the welfare checklist.

Concluding Remarks

Consider all the issues discussed and see if the correct balance has been struck: does the case law seem too restrictive, or is it fair in balancing the rights of children against the rights of parents so as not to interfere too readily in family life?
0
reply
Ruksak
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Can you please send me some more guidance I'm extremely confused
0
reply
GeneralStudent95
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Ruksak)
Can you please send me some more guidance I'm extremely confused
What are you confused about?
0
reply
Ruksak
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
The local authority cannot remove the child purely on the basis of the child’s ‘welfare’ – that is, simply on the basis that the local authority believes that removal of the child and placement elsewhere would be better for the child than continuing to live with its parents. This part it says they cannot remove purely on the basis of the welfare but isn't childs welfare paramount ?
0
reply
Ruksak
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by GeneralStudent95)
What are you confused about?
can you private message me, I realy could do with some help please
0
reply
freepaella
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by GeneralStudent95)
Introduction

Introduce the inherent tension which the question hints at. When the state enacts child protection legislation there are a number of policy considerations: (a) the welfare of children; (b) the importance of preventing harm and stopping it where it has already occurred; (c) the rights of parents; (d) the rights of children.

Some of these factors suggest that we should have a pro-active and expansive, paternalistic approach to child protection. Others suggest a more relaxed approach. The law does not however subscribe to one particular extreme viewpoint. Instead, it recognises the central aim of protecting children, but balances this against the rights of other interested parties.

The question is asking you whether this balance is correct.

General Judicial Overview

I will throw down some quotes for you:

Lanarkshire CC v B — "...a decision to engage with Child Protection proceedings needs to be made carefully, and with professional objectivity."

Re B — "removal of a child is a sign of a totalitarian state...it must be a measure of last resort."

Re O & N — "the threshold conditions exist in order to protect families from unjustified interference from the state."

Re J — "...the conditions represent a balance between Article 3 and Article 8 obligations."

Re O — "...strive for the least interventionist approach."

Note that all of these quotes demonstrate the internal tensions in child protection law: the law itself is an attempt to balance competing interests and the judiciary is acutely aware of this in their interpretation of the statute. The question then arises: in the interpretation of the statute, have the judiciary got the balance wrong?

Areas of Contention

I am not going to list everything out for you, because I would basically be writing the essay as I was above. But the key areas are:

1. The meaning of harm (Re MA, Re W, Re L, Re R (Rehabilitation);
2. The meaning of significant (Humberside CC, Re MA);
3. The meaning of "is suffering" (see Re M);
4. The meaning of "is likely to" suffer (Re H, Re B, Re S-B, Re J);
5. The attribution stage (Lanarkshire CC v B, Re S-B, Re J);

Consider all of that conflicting case law. Then move onto a consideration of the welfare stage and how this has factored in, along with the obvious no order principle and the welfare checklist.

Concluding Remarks

Consider all the issues discussed and see if the correct balance has been struck: does the case law seem too restrictive, or is it fair in balancing the rights of children against the rights of parents so as not to interfere too readily in family life?
Didn't see this before. Thanks anyway. I ended up getting it anyway.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think non-essential uni exams should be cancelled?

Yes, they should be cancelled altogether (43)
46.74%
No, they should still go ahead (21)
22.83%
They should be cancelled for everyone but final year (28)
30.43%

Watched Threads

View All