header-logo header-logo

20 November 2008
Issue: 7346 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

The cost of child protection

Case of Baby P highlights fl aws in the care system

Large increases to application fees could discourage some local authorities making applications to court in child protection cases, hindering attempts to protect vulnerable children like Baby P, lawyers claim.

From 1 May this year, the fee paid by a local authority to go to court to protect a child at risk from abuse rose from £150 to £5,225 for a fully contested court case.

In the Old Bailey last week, two men and a woman were convicted of causing or allowing the death of 17- month-old Baby P, who died after a sustained period of abuse. An inquiry into the circumstances leading to P’s death has been launched.

Noel Arnold, deputy head of the children law department at Fisher Meredith LLP, says that recent changes to how children’s services operate may also put the safety of some children at risk. “Children’s services must make robust decisions and, where safeguarding concerns are significant or grave, the relevant application to court should be made. That might be to share parental responsibility of the child with those who already hold it or to be able to remove the child from the home,” he says.

Arnold continues: “There is widespread concern that changes in procedure and guidance as well as the massive increase in the court application fee payable by children’s services may be discouraging some local authorities from making applications to court.”

However, Arnold believes that despite the tragic circumstances of Baby P’s case, the urge to routinely remove children from their families at an earlier stage should be resisted: “Any steps in this direction should be made with caution as children in the care system fare worse on nearly every indicator used to measure outcomes for children.”

Issue: 7346 / Categories: Legal News , Child law , 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