Social Work Legislations Problem Question

Melanie, a cultural worker doing work for the public service department of the local specialist, has just been assigned a possible child coverage case as the nursery institution attended by a child called Sophie aged 3, has alerted them about their concerns about her. The school come to mind about Sophie as she's recently become withdrawn and is not playing and getting together with the other children. She also comes to nursery sometimes looking alternatively unkempt and dirty and a week or two ago when the kids were talking about what they eat for breakfast, Sophie said she does not have breakfast. Sophie is not at nursery for days gone by week.

Melanie set up to visit Vicky, Sophie's mother and discovered the next by using background. Sophie's daddy is Darren who lives with them intermittently. Darren has been violent to Vicky when she was pregnant with Sophie and she obtained an injunction against him plus they separated before Sophie was created. However, they resumed their marriage when Sophie was 6 months and since that time Darren has lived either with Vicky and Sophie or he often stays with his mother when there has been a disagreement. Vicky seemed despondent and said there had been an event at the weekend and Darren has truly gone back to his mothers. The house is filthy and Sophie is home is still home from nursery. Melanie notices how slender Sophie was and also that she experienced bruises on her right arm which Vicky says were therefore of a street to redemption in the playground at nursery.

Melanie established to pay Vicky a visit again once the following week and when she turned up no-one answered the entranceway. She asked a neighbour passing by if they acquired seen Vicky and/or Sophie. They replied they hadn't seen them for a few days but heard Vicky shouting and swearing at Sophie in the garden the other day. They said they found Darren outside the house last night.

Melanie is seeking your advice as to how the local authority could proceed next. Advise her as to the duties of the local authority in this situation, and what her legal options are, if Vicky co-operates. Ensure that you provide Melanie with information not simply on the steps that can be taken in the short term, but also, in the long term if possible.

Following a recommendation from the institution, the local expert need to think about what damage Sophie may be facing and the appropriate solution needed. Plainly, concerns are indicated in the moment case concerning whether Vicky and Darren are properly rewarding their father or mother responsibility. Just like the Children Act 1989 imposes duties on parents, it also imposes tasks on the neighborhood authority. THE KIDS Action 1989 s47 requires the neighborhood authority to research circumstances where there is fair cause to think that the kid or children concerned are struggling or are likely to suffer significant damage. The Action requires the local authority to do something, wherever possible, in partnership with the parents of the kids. Pushing co-operation between parents and local expert and maintaining, wherever possible, the good care of the child within the family will be the guiding philosophies of the Function. Sophie satisfies the test for children in need, hence, the neighborhood specialist has a statutory obligation under the Children Act 1989 s17(10)(a) since it seems that both Darren and Vicky seem to be unconcerned about the down sides that their child is suffering; the issue is how to endorse Sophie's welfare long-term. You can find two long-term child protection measures in the kids Act 1989, the care and attention order (Children Act 1989 s33) and the supervision order (Children Take action 1989 s35). It is suggested that the attention order is the appropriate order.

As Sophie's parents are not considerate, the greater coercive power of the care and attention order, including the local authority gaining parental responsibility under Children Take action 1989 s33(3) may be necessary. It seems dealing with the family by providing support would be ineffective and instead a far more coercive approach might be necessary under Children Function 1989 Part IV to assist parents and children in need. This general obligation to children in need requires the neighborhood authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Sophie has not been attending school, she is physically slim and has been verbally and bodily abused. To be able to obtain a care and attention order in respect of Sophie, the local power will first have to meet the threshold standards in the Children Function 1989 s31. They are that they are satisfied that the child, here Sophie, is hurting or will probably suffer significant damage due to insufficient parental care or even to be being beyond parental control. This test does indeed appear to be satisfied. Injury is defined in the Children Act 1989 s31(9) and it is clear from Re O (A) (Health care Order: Education: Method) (1992) that this range from truancy. Any application made under the Children Action 1989 will contain the child's welfare as the paramount concern s 1(1) and the court will be reluctant to intervene unless it could be shown that the making of order is preferable to leaving things because they are s1(5). An education guidance order is made on request, usually to the Family Proceedings Judge, where the local education specialist acts in appointment with the sociable services. The Children Take action 1989 s36 requires children of compulsory university age to attend school if not an education supervision order may be made. Sophie is of compulsory school age and it does seem that she is not being properly educated according to her needs, time and capability, given the amount of time where she is absent from institution. Section 36(5) creates a presumption a pupil at a university who is not joining regularly is not being properly educated. Thus, it would seem that it would be possible to show to the courtroom that Sophie is not being properly informed. If the courtroom was satisfied of this, it could appoint a supervising official to ensure that the child attends university. This supervising official can take responsibility for guiding and helping both the child, Sophie, and her parents, Vicky and Darren, in understanding the value of education and setting up certain guidelines to ensure that Sophie does indeed attend school.

The order will most likely last for just one year but it could be long or conversely it can be discharged on software by the kid, Sophie, or her parents or, if all is going well, by the education power. If, however, the supervision order does not succeed in getting Sophie to wait school, then the local authority might need to consider a lot more extreme step of seeking a attention order. A treatment order can be acquired under the Children Act 1989 s31 and is merely available once the local expert has completed initial investigations to see if any action is necessary to guard or promote Sophie, see, 47(1). Generally, the local authority must consult both Sophie and her parents but, if the case is an immediate one or assessment may prejudice Sophie's welfare, the local authority may take action without consultation. In any application for a good care order, both Sophie and her parents will need to have notice and become made respondents to the application form. Since Sophie is a child most commonly it is necessary to appoint a children's guardian to do something to safeguard her pursuits. The children's guardian will talk to Sophie and try to ascertain Sophie's emotions and wishes in regards to today's position. Sophie is obviously eligible for be consulted and plainly her co-operation will be essential for the smooth jogging of any future strategies regarding him. The statutory grounds for a health care order are found in the kids Act 1989 s31.

The Family Proceedings Judge must be satisfied that the child is struggling or will probably suffer significant harm. This does not require proof on the balance of probabilities that you will see harm in the future; it is enough to show a real, significant likelihood of harm see, Newham London Borough Council v AG 1993. Damage includes ill-treatment or impairment of health and development. In the present case, it does seem that Sophie is being ill-treated at home and her lack of attendance at school, and her parent's obvious unconcern of the problem, do seem to indicate that maybe his health and development are being impaired. The second criterion under s 31 is usually that the harm or odds of harm is due to the care and attention being directed at the child or likely to be given to her if the order is not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to provide him, or subsequently, the kid being beyond parental control. That is an objective standard based on what a acceptable parent could or could not do, Lancashire State Council v A (2000). In Re O (A) (Treatment Order) (1992) the consistent truancy of a kid was deemed suited to a care order to be made and this is the case here. Since neither Darren nor Vicky can control Sophie to ensure that she attends institution, or they don't particularly concern themselves over her attendance, this would show that it is not reasonable for them to behave in that way concerning the education of the 3-year-old little girl. Again, much like any Children Action 1989 order, the child's welfare is the paramount thought see, s1(1) and, to be able to know what would maintain Sophie's best interest, the s1(3) checklist would be reviewed.

The first account in the checklist could be the wishes of the child, Sophie. She actually is still a kid and definitely at this where the court would consider her desires. However, this does not mean that she would have the ability to determine to the court what she wanted to do. Definitely, her disinclination to attend school would not result in the judge deeming any care and attention order unnecessary. In fact, her inability to act maturely according of her education may indicate that her wants will not carry a great deal of weight. The next criterion on the checklist is the child's physical, psychological and education needs. Obviously Sophie is in need of some assistance, and the fact that she is not attending college, she is a kid who seems to be drifting through life. The apparent unconcern of her parents seems to suggest that something must be achieved for Sophie. However, whether this might necessarily require her to leave her home and become taken in to the care of the local expert is another matter. The court docket may decide a less draconian solution would become more suitable. If Sophie wants to remain at home it may be that the great shock of being threatened with removal will be adequate to make her mend his ways. When the judge is of the view that Sophie and her parents may be able to perfect the defects with just a little the help of other people, then maybe the education supervision order discussed earlier, or a supervision order, could be more appropriate. The supervision order under the s 31 standards requires the threshold of harm in s 31 to be satisfied. However, the result of a supervision order is completely different. A supervision order does not vest parental responsibility in the neighborhood power; instead, a supervising official, the local authority official or a probation officer, is appointed to aid and befriend and suggest the kid and his parents ( s 35(1) ). The supervising official will do what is necessary to ensure that the child is guided which her welfare is marketed. Usually a guidance order lasts for just one year but it could be lengthened up to 3 years by one software; to keep beyond the three-year period another program would be necessary. The supervising officer will try to provide directions to Sophie: showing her to wait college; possibly also requiring her to participate in certain activities; and imposing commitments with the consent of Darren and Vicky to help them package with Sophie and promote her welfare.

In Oxfordshire County Council v L (1998) a supervision order was considered befitting six children. This is because the parents wished to meet their responsibilities with their children, and with help from the local authority these were apt to be able to achieve this. Another concern is the verbal and physical abuse Sophie got. The occurrences at institution, the physical misuse and the verbal abuse at the garden, gives appreciable cause for matter over Sophie's health insurance and well-being. Nevertheless, it isn't clear that there is any actual abuse and the local authority should move forward with caution in this very delicate area.

For now, regarding Sophie a case convention should be presented in which the child's welfare and situation should be discussed. On the other hand, there is the concern that appointment with the parents and with Sophie may increase Sophie's unease and could be damaging by causing delay. Consequently, the neighborhood authority must act to access underneath of the problem and discovered exactly what is relating to Sophie.

If Sophie has been abused. One option is always to apply to the court docket for a child assessment order. Such an order is open to the local authority and will permit it to learn exactly what is certainly going on in relation to the child. However, full notice must be given by the local authority to both the child and the child's parents and, at the hearing, the courtroom must be satisfied that the local authority has affordable cause to believe that Sophie is suffering or will probably suffer significant injury; that an analysis of Sophie's health insurance and development is necessary in order to determine if she is struggling harm; and that it is unlikely an assessment will be produced or made satisfactorily without a child evaluation order. In cases like this the school article of Sophie's behavior does bring about matter that Sophies has endured some kind of harm. Her reactions do not appear to be those of the common child in that situation, her personality, gives for concern. There is no need showing on the total amount of probabilities that Sophie is likely to suffer significant injury, just that there is a real possibility. Vicky and Darren's response is slightly dismissive and it generally does not seem likely that the neighborhood authority can assess Sophie without a child analysis order. Such an order, if made, will only last for seven days and it generally does not impact Vicky and Sophie's parental responsibility. The neighborhood authority does not have any parental responsibility through the lifetime of this order; the order only requires Vicky and Darren to produce Sophie so that she can be assessed. This may imply that Sophie continues to live at home though it is possible for her to be assessed as an in-patient in hospital. If Sophie is to stay in clinic, then contact will usually be allowed under s43 between Sophie and her parents. You have the possibility a child of such an age may refuse to consent to the diagnosis. Evidently, Sophie is a disturbed and upset child, but maybe, with proper explanation and reassurance, she will be happy to comply with the order. If the local specialist is frustrated in its enforcement of the kid diagnosis order or if concern is available that more immediate safety is necessary for Sophie, then a crisis security order under s44 of the Work may be searched for. The foundation of this application is, first, that the neighborhood power may apply if it has acceptable cause to assume that Sophie is likely to suffer significant damage if either she is not removed to accommodation provided by the neighborhood power or she will not then stay in where she actually is being accommodated. A further option open to the local expert is to apply under s 44(1)(b) on the foundation that enquiries are being made out of respect to the child which those enquiries are being annoyed by usage of Sophie being unreasonably refused by the parents and the applicant will also need to show they have fair cause to believe that access to the kid is required as a subject of urgency.

The emergency cover order is an extremely draconian measure; it offers the local authority parental responsibility throughout the order (s 44(4) and the local authority can take such action as is acceptable to guard or promote Sophie's welfare. The judge will authorise the child's removal to local power accommodation or it will order that the child remains in any hospital or other place where the child has been accommodated prior to the order being made.

The court will consider whether contacat should be allowed between Sophie and her parents and also whatever medical and psychiatric diagnosis is essential. Usually the child will have connection with her parents but if it's considered that this would be detrimental to her welfare then contact can be refused which refusal can't be challenged. A crisis protection order lasts for eight days ( s 45(1) ), though it can be extended once more for an additional seven days s45(6) if the court has cause to trust that, if it is not long, Sophie are affected significant damage. The emergency safety order can be challenged by the child and her parents and anyone else having parental responsibility on her behalf, after 72 hours have expired. However, an effort is extremely hard if the gatherings received notice of the hearing and were present at it s45(11). Since the emergency safeguard order is an extremely dramatic step to take, the court will consider long and hard whether it's in the child's best interest for this order to be produced. Clearly, in this case there are concerns as to what is troubling Sophie and it would appear that the parents' frame of mind is slightly ambivalent, given the concerns expressed by the neighborhood authority. Whether this is sufficiently significant to provide rise to the necessity for a crisis safety order is debatable. Concern has frequently been indicated at the hasty removal of children using their company parents' care and attention by local specialists; therefore, it might be that the neighborhood authority would be best offered by making an application for a child analysis order in the instant case, because the evidence of mistreatment is not sufficiently overpowering to justify the application form for the crisis protection order. A crisis safety order should only be sought if the kid assessment order is being thwarted by Vicky and Darren. If either the kid evaluation order or the crisis security order produces evidence that Sophie is actually being abused, then the local authority should consider more long-term steps. The appropriate measure to take will be the treatment order under s 31 of the Act. The local specialist may obtain a care and attention order if it can build the threshold conditions in s 31. The local power must first fulfill the court docket that Sophie is enduring or will probably suffer significant harm and, second of all, that the harm or probability of harm is due to the care being given to Sophie or likely to be directed at her if the order is not made, not being what it might be reasonable to expect a parent to give her; or that the child is beyond parental control. The data of Sophie's distress at institution and her change in personality, either under the kid assessment order or disaster protection order, may substantiate the claim that Sophie is struggling significant harm. Injury under the Function means ill-treatment or impairment of health insurance and development. Ill-treatment includes intimate abuse as well as physical and mental ill-treatment. If Sophie has indeed been sexually abused by either or both of her parents, then the criterion of injury will be satisfied and evidently, if there is nothing done, Sophie will continue to suffer from this significant harm. Additionally it is essential to show that the damage is due to care being given to the kid by her parents. In case the parents are responsible for the maltreatment or are failing woefully to act to safeguard Sophie from it, then their actions are not those of the affordable parent or guardian and the s 31 criteria will be established. Sophie's welfare under s 1(1) of the Work is the key consideration and it is paramount throughout. In instances of serious erotic abuse, it'll be necessary to take away the child from the family environment so as to ensure that the misuse does not continue. The s 1(3) checklists must be employed and Sophie's wants must be ascertained. If she actually is being abused she will obviously have mixed up emotions about her parents and whether she desires to remain with them or be removed into local authority care. This isn't a case where in fact the judge can stand again and do little or nothing. The non-interventionist coverage enshrined in s 1(5) of the Act should be put to 1 side as something must be done to ensure that Sophie's well-being is safeguarded. Any attention order that is made will last until Sophie is 18 unless it is discharged previous either on application by the kid, by her parents or by the neighborhood authority. Despite the fact that a attention order is made, the local specialist should think about the question of contact, especially in relation to the parents of the kid. Usually contact will be allowed even though a parent may have abused the kid. It'll usually continually be possible for the other innocent parent to see the child. Even the abuser may have limited supervised usage of the kid since it is in the child's best interest for the partnership to be given the opportunity to be mended. However, it is crucial to attempt to ensure that any misuse is not repeated. If Sophie is used into treatment by the local authority, the neighborhood expert has a obligation under s 22 of the Take action to promote the child's welfare and to consider Sophie's wants and the ones of her parents in any way stages.

The parental responsibility of Vikcy and Darren does not end on the making of the attention order and the neighborhood authority will still try to keep them mixed up in upbringing of the youngster where this is still in the child's best interest. The local authority will talk to Sophie to observe how she wishes her future to unfold and it'll also consult her parents when possible. In making any decisions about the kid, s 22(5) of the Action requires the neighborhood authority to take into account the wants and thoughts of the child and her parents, and also to look at the child's religious beliefs, racial source and cultural record. To conclude, therefore, it could be seen that appropriate procedures for the local power are an education guidance order and, declining that, a care order or possibly a supervision order under s 31 of the Function, however, more stringent procedures may be needed. First, a study by using a child analysis order will be required or, in an emergency, a crisis security order. If either of these actions discloses that Sophie is being abused then it'll be necessary to make a attention order under s 31 of the Function. In relation to both children any application must have their welfare as the paramount factor, and consequently it'll only be when the entire facts are known about Sophie and Jack that the appropriate order can be desired.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)