header-logo header-logo

01 May 2019
Issue: 7838 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Expert Witness , Fees , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Children left without experts

Fee rates leave social workers unable to afford to take on legal aid cases

A shortage of expert witnesses is putting vulnerable children at risk, a social workers’ group has warned.

The Legal Aid Agency confirmed in April that fees for reports by independent social workers will remain at their 2013 rate of £33 per hour, in its ‘Guidance on the remuneration of expert witnesses’. By comparison, legal aid rates for ‘employment consultant’ experts are £54.40 per hour, while midwives and computer experts are paid £72 per hour.

Social worker experts provide independent opinions on the best interests of a child in high-stakes cases where the family court is deciding whether the child should be removed from his or her family, be fostered or adopted, or continue to have contact with their parent. The expert will not usually be paid for more than 30 hours work including reading all the evidence, conducting interviews with all significant parties and writing the report.

According to independent social workers’ organisation Nagalro, however, many experts spend considerably more than 30 hours on each case.

Nagalro chair Sukhchandan Kaur said: ‘Many of our members, who bring with them post-graduate qualifications and tens of years of front-line experience, are left feeling that the government does not value their skills, or the work which they can do, but is still happy to take advantage of their commitment to vulnerable and disadvantaged children.

‘An increasing number are taking the sad and reluctant decision that they can no longer afford to take on legal aid cases. Others say that they are not able to undertake a reliable assessment due to the limit on the number of hours.’

In November 2018, the president of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, told delegates at the Bond Solon Experts Conference that cases are being delayed because of a national shortage of experts willing to accept cases at the prescribed rates.

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