The LA cannot refer Justin to boarding school without consent of his mother, under s.31 Childrens Act as the LA do
not have Parental responsibiltilty (PR) for him. PR is defined in the Children Act 1989 as: "All the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to a child and his property." There is no limit on the number of people who can have parental
responsibility for a child at any one time, and a person does not lose parental responsibility merely because someone else acquires it. Although on
the making of a care order a local authority obtains parental responsibility for a child, the parents will not lose it and it will be "shared".
If his mum doesn't agree the LA could consider applying for care order. This is an order that places your child in the care of a particular local authority and gives parental responsibility to that authority. This does not mean that Justin's mother will lose parental responsibility but it does mean the local authority can override her wishes if it believes that this would be best for your Justin. However, they must consult her first. Once a care order is made, the local authority will decide where Justin will live, in this case it is lilkely to be Hopgarden. This is not a permenant decision, as the LA may decide in the future that it would be best for Justin to return to his mother's care. The local authority will also be responsible for maintaining Justin. The local authority should support his mother so that, unless the risks to Justin are too high he can be return to her care. The local authority must hold regular case reviews every six months to consider how their plans for Justin child may need to change. An Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO), who is ‘independent from the management of the case’, will be appointed to look at the care plan.
A court can only make a care order if it is sure that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, and the harm is caused by the child's parents. The harm would be caused because of insufficient care being given to the child by the parents in the future, or the child is likely to suffer harm because they are beyond parental control . In this scenario it is unsure as to whether it would be deemed that Justin is likely to suffer 'significant' harm. S.31(9) defines 'harm' as ill-treatment or the impairment of health, whether physical or mental, or development, whether physical, intellectual, emotional, social, or behavioural. Although Justin isn't being physically abused, it may be ruled that he is suffering from significant harm as he is socially withdrawn, and his intellectual development is suffering.
A care order can only be made for children under 17 years of age (or 16 if the child is married). A care order stops if the child is adopted, and can only last until their 18th birthday.
s.34 (1) stipulates that a child under a care order should be allowed reasonable contact with his parents unless it would be detrimental to his health, in Justin's case it would be highly likely that he would be able to see his mum over weekends.
There has been much debate recently regarding the standard of education that children is care receive. Statistically, while "cared for" children are no less able than others, their educational success is shockingly low. Only about 6% can expect to achieve the benchmark of five GCSEs at grades A*- C, compared with around half of all young people nationwide, and only 1% go to university. http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1885656,00.html It has been suggested that instead of staying in foster care and care homes whilst attending school, children may benefit from attending a boarding school. For Justin this may be beneficial, as as well as having superb educational facilites, Hopgarden also has an excellent reputation for helping depressed and isolated children like him.
The ideal scenario for the LA and social services would be Justin's mother giving her permission for him to attend the boarding school. There is a 'no order principle', in which the Courts will not make an order unless it considers it is in the child’s best interests to do so.
In section 17(40 of the Children Act 1989 it states that before determining what, if any, services to provide for a particular child in need in the exercise of functions conferred on them by this section, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child's welfare; ascertain the child's wishes and feelings regarding the provision of those services and give due consideration, having regard to his age and understanding, to such wishes and feelings of the child. Justin has shown no resentment for looking after his mother, and he doesn't like foster care, so he may want to stay with his mother, if this is the case the LA will take his wishes into consideration, as at the age of 13 he will understand sufficiently the situation. Although the LA will take Justin's wishes into consideration, they may go against his wishes if they deem that it is in his best interests.
Justin is already subject to a education supervision order. The purpose of an Education Supervision Order (ESO) is to place a child of compulsory school age who is not being properly educated under the supervision of a local education authority (LEA). The ESO ensures that the child receives efficient full-time education suitable to his or her age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs, and the child and the parents receive sufficient support and guidance. An education supervision order is an order made by a family court under section 36 of the Children Act 1989 to ensure that a child attends school and receives a full-time education. The order will be made on the application of a local authority and effectively puts the child under the supervision of the local authority. Supervising officers are required 'to advise, assist and befriend' and give directions to the child and the parents, to ensure that the child receives and benefits from an appropriate full time education. The supervising officer should establish, reinforce and maintain parental responsibility, and so support parents in communicating effectively with their child and in meeting their duties in education law. The amount of contact between the supervising officer, the parents and the child will depend on each child's individual circumstances and needs.
Children's trusts are a response to Lord Laming's report of the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié, which highlighted the extent to which better working together and better communication are crucial. The evidence from the inquiry confirmed many of the messages from previous inquiries into similar child protection failings: the imperative to see and listen to children and respond to their needs, and to improve the quality of communication and joint working. Children's trusts have been created to address the fragmentation of responsibilities for children's services. They build upon, bring together and formalise the joint work that is already taking place in many local areas. Good examples of existing multi-agency work include: Sure Start, the Children's Fund, Connexions, behaviour and education support teams, children and young people's strategic partnerships, and youth offending teams. Children's trusts are not legal entities, they are partnerships between different organisations who provide, commission, or are otherwise involved in delivering better outcomes for children and young people.
The aims and objectives of the Children's Trust are:
Deliver the by targeting communities most in need and children most at risk from social exclusion and isolation.
Improve services for children with disabilities and special educational needs.
Improve services for children with behavioural difficulties.
Establish Children's Centres.
Develop a fully integrated information, referral and assessment system for combined health, education and social services.
Justin will benefit from the chidren's trust which has recently been set up in his area as he will not be at risk of 'fallin through the net'. The effective communication between his school and his education welfare officer has meant that they were quick to identify the problems affecting Justin and his education.
The social services department in your local authority (council) is responsible for making sure that children are safe and are well cared for by their parents or the person looking after them.
S. 1(1) states that in any proceedings before the court, the child's welfare shall be the 'paramount consideration'. S. 1(3) contains
The Welfare Checklist - section 1 Children Act 1989
When a Court considers any question relating to the upbringing of the child under the Children Act 1989 the court must have regard to the welfare checklist set out in s1 of that Act. Among the things the court must consider are:
a) The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in light of his age and understanding);
b) His physical, emotional and/or educational needs;
c) The likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
d) His age, sex, background and any characteristics of his, which the court considers relevant;
e) Any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
f) How capable each of his parents and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;
g) The range of powers available to the court under the Children Act 1989 in the proceedings in question.
For all proceedings under the Children Act 1989 when the court considers a question of the child's upbringing the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration.
Justin has been in care on a voluntary basis by social services on a number of occasions, this is likely to be under s.20(1), where local authorities have the duty to provide accommodation for any child who is in need of accommodation due to several reasons. In Justin's case it would be because his mother was at the time prevented from providing him with suitable ccommodation or care. The essence of such arrangements is that they are voluntary so when his mum, who has parental responsibilty, may remove Justin at any time from the local authority care without giving notice.
S.22(4) provides that before making any decision with respect to the child, the LA should accertain the wishes of both the parent and the child.