Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 159–179 | Cite as

Mutual respect or mutual distrust: Social workers and the courts in child care decisions

  • Carole Smith
Article
  • 60 Downloads

Keywords

Local Authority Interim Order Care Order Final Hearing Residence Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See for example G. Brasse, “After the Care Order—Into Forbidden Territory, Part 1”,Family Law 25 (January 1995), 31–33; G. Brasse, “After the Care Order—Into Forbidden Territory Part II”,Family Law 25 (February 1995), 75–77; P. Kidd and P. Storey, “The Role of the Guardian ad Litem—Reality or Myth”,Family Law 26 (October 1996), 621–625; P. Kidd Kidd and P. Storey, “Interim Assessments and Section 38(6)”,Family Law 27 (March 1997), 185–190; M. Hayes, “The Proper Role of the Courts in Child Care Cases”,Child and Family Law Quarterly 8/3 (1996), 201–215; C. Smith, “Judicial Power and Local Authority Discretion; The Contested Frontier”,Child and Family Law Quarterly 9/3 (1997), 243–257.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A v.Liverpool City Council [1982] A.C. 363; [1981] 2 F.L.R. 222; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 948; [1981] 2 All E.R. 385, HL.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Re W (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Wardship) [1985] A.C. 791; [1985] F.L.R. 879.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    SeeRe CB [1981] 1 W.L.R. 379.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Review of Child Care Law, Report to Ministers of an Interdepartmental Working Party (London: H.M.S.O., 1985), para. 2.32.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Department of Health,The Children Act 1989: Regulations and Guidance, Vol. 1, Court Orders (London: H.M.S.O., 1991), para. 3.99, author's emphasis.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Department of Health and Social Security,The Law on Child Care and Family Services (London: H.M.S.O., 1987).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Social Services Select Committee,Volume 1, Children in Care (London: H.M.S.O., 1984), para. 67.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Supra n. 5,Review of Child Care Law, Report to Ministers of an Interdepartmental Working Party (Oondon: H.M.S.O., 1985), para. 2.32, at para. 2.21.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Supra n. 5,Review of Child Care Law, Report to Ministers of an Interdepartmental Working Party (London: H.M.S.O., 1985), para. 2.32, at para. 2.24.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Re T (A Minor) (Care Order: Conditions) [1994] 2 F.L.R. 423, at 427.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nottinghamshire County Council v.P [1994]Fam. 18; [1993] 2 F.L.R. 134, at 148.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Re R (A Minor) (Wardship: Consent to Treatment) [1992]Fam. 11, CA.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Re X (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [1975] A.C. Fam. 47.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Wall, “Constructive Criticism or Overzealous Investigation: The Court's Role in Relation to the Local Authority Care Plan”,Seminar Papers 1995/96 (London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, 1997), 31–38.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Supra n.15, at 32.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Supra n. 15, at 31, author's emphasis.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Children Act 1989 Advisory Committee, Annual Report (London: Lord Chancellor's Department, 1992/93), 35.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Re G (Minors) (Interim Care Order) [1993] 2 F.L.R. 839.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Re P (Minors) (Interim Orders) [1993] 2 F.L.R. 742.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buckinghamshire County Council v.M [1994] 2 F.L.R. 506.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Supra n.21,Buckinghamshire County Council v.M [1994] 2 F.L.R. 506, at 510.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Re S (A Minor) (Care: Contact Order) [1994] 2 F.L.R. 222.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kent County Council v.C [1993] 1 F.L.R. 308.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Re B (Minors) (Care: Contact: Local Authority's Plans) [1993] 1 F.L.R. 543.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Re T (A Minor) (Care Order: Conditions) [1994] 2 F.L.R. 423.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Supra n.26,Re T (A Minor) (Care Order: Conditions) [1994] 2 F.L.R. 423, at 426.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Supra n. 25.Re T (A Minor) (Care Order: Conditions) [1994] 2 F.L.R. 423.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Supra n.25Re T (A Minor) (Care Order: Conditions) [1994] 2 F.L.R. 423, at 451.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Supra n.25Re T (A Minor) (Care Order: Conditions) [1994] 2 F.L.R. 423, at 452.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Re E (A Minor) (Care Order: Conditions) [1994] 1 F.L.R. 146.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Supra n. 31Re E (A Minor) (Care order: Conditions) [1994] 1 F.L.R. 146 at 154.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C v.Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [1993] 1 F.L.R. 290.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Supra n.33C v.Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [1993] 1 F.L.R. 702, at 302.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hounslow London Borough Council v.A [1993] 1 F.L.R. 702.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Supra n.35Hounslow London Borough Council v.A [1993] 1 F.L.R. 702, at 709.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Supra n.35Hounslow London Borough Council v.A [1993] 1 F.L.R. 702 at 711.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Re J (Minors) (Care: Care Plan) [1994] 1 F.L.R. 253.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Supra n.38,Re J (Minors) (Care: Care Plan) [1994] 1 F.L.R. 253, at 261.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Manchester City Council v.F [1993] 1 F.L.R. 1000.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Department of Health,The Children Act 1989: Regulations and Guidance, Vol. 3, Family Placements (London: H.M.S.O., 1991).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    SeeManchester City Council v.T. [1994] 2 ALL E.R. 526.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    The Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991: The Adoption Agencies Regulations, 1983 and The Adoption Agencies and Children (Arrangements for Placement and Reviews) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Supra n. 41..Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Supra n. 38Re J (Minors) (Care: Care Plan) [1994] 1 F.L.R. 253, at 562.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    SeeRe O (Minors) (Medical Examination) [1993] 1 F.L.R. 860 andBerkshire County Council v.C and Others [1993] 1 F.L.R. 569.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Re L (A Minor) (Interim Care Order) [1996] 2 F.L.R. 706.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Supra n.47 Re L (A Minor) (Interim Care Order) [1996] 2 F.L.R. 706, at 711.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Supra n.33C v.Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council [1993] 1 F.L.R. 290.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Re M (Interim Care Order: Assessment) [1996] 2 F.L.R. 464.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Re C (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) [1997] 1 F.L.R. 1.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Supra n.51,Re. C (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment) [1997] 1 F.L.R. 1, at 7, author's emphasis.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    The “orange book” assessment is the commonly used reference to the Department of Health publication,Protecting Children: A Guide for Social Workers Undertaking a Comprehensive Assessment London: H.M.S.O., 1988.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    S. Braye and M. Preston Shoot,Practising Social Work Law (London: Macmillan, 1997, 2nd ed.), 2.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    O. Stevenson, “Guest Editorial on the Jasmine Beckford Inquiry”,British Journal of Social Work 16/5 (1986), 501–510.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    M. Freeman,Critical Issues in Welfare Law (London: Stevens and Sons, 1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deborah Charles Publication 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carole Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social Policy and Social WorkUniversity of ManchesterManchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations