header-logo header-logo

06 March 2008
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Family
printer mail-detail

2,500% fees hike could put children at risk

News

Vulnerable children could be exposed to serious risk by government plans to hike court fees for care proceedings, family law experts warn. The government proposes raising the fees for care proceedings by 2,500%, from £150 to £4,000, in its December consultation, Public Law Family Fees. Local authorities will be allocated an extra £40m to account for this.

However, the funding will not be ring-fenced. The NSPCC and the Law Society say this means financial considerations could deter local authorities from issuing care proceedings in favour of lower-cost strategies where the child is not represented. This could involve giving parents a second chance in cases of neglect, or encouraging them to agree to the child being voluntarily accommodated temporarily instead of issuing proceedings.

Andrew Holroyd, president of the Law Society, expresses his concern: “This rise could effectively price children involved in care disputes out of court, and deny them the right to justice they need.

“Rather than court proceedings being issued, it is likely that compromises will be reached that are influenced more by financial considerations than what is best for these vulnerable children, leaving them at risk and without a voice.” He says the interests of children are in danger of being made a secondary factor under these plans when they should be central. “The Law Society will be working with the NSPCC to ensure that these concerns are expressed in the consultation process,” he says. NSPCC director and chief executive Dame Mary Marsh comments: “There is a real and serious risk that vulnerable children and their families will be prevented from having full access to justice if these proposals are implemented because some decisions about taking proceedings in relation to vulnerable children could be finance led.”

The Public Law Family Fees consultation period continues until 11 March.

Issue: 7311 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll