Conclusion
It is clear from the above that little was achieved in the way of removing fears and anxieties about the use of independents. Moreover, it seems that doubt is already being cast upon their value. However, it is hoped that there will be support for the conference’s resolution to encourage organisations on Merseyside to participate in the establishment of a working party to continue discussion and to further co-operation in this sensitive area.
Perhaps the most important point to have emerged from this conference is that all those involved in working with and for children need to re-examine the structures which exist for determining what is in a child’s best interests. The use of independents is not a single issue: it is part of the broader debate about how to resolve problems of dysfunctional families. It is to be hoped that great co-operation will lead to agreement about ends and means and that apparent conflict between professionals will not prevent constructive debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
See the articles by Nicholas Warren and Jennifer Levin in theLegal Action Group Bulletin, July 1981, 155–158 and September 1981, 203–206, respectively.
See particularlyReports for the Court (ed. Jo Tunnard), London, Expression Printers Ltd., 1981.
Or determining the “least detrimental alternative” — see J. Goldstein, A. Freud and A. J. Solnit,Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, London, Burnett Books Ltd., 1980, especially chs. 4 & 5.
Problems of role-definition would still exist — see Paul Kent, “The Child’s Representative — A Constructive Approach”,Journal of Social Welfare Law (1978–1979), 399–412.
Mervyn’s Murch’s research highlights some of the issues — seeJustice and Welfare in Divorce, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1980, especially chs. 12–15.
seeMinton v. Minton [1979] 1 All E.R. 79.
see the discussion in J. Packman,The Child’s Generation, London, Blackwell, 1975, 93–94.
See, for example,Re P., Journal of Social Welfare Law (1978–1979), 361.
For further detail, seesupra note 5 Paul Kent, “The Child’s Representative — A Constructive Approach”,Journal of Social Welfare Law (1978–1979), at 405–409.
Now Child Care Act 1980, s.l.
For detail on this see J. Packman,supra note 21 at Ch. 4.
Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services, 1968, Cmnd. 3703.
For further discussion of this point see J. Rowe and L. Lambert,Children Who Wait, London, Association of British Adoption Agencies, 1973; and B. Tizard,Adoption: A Second Chance, London, Open Books, 1977.
See Magistrates’ Courts (Children and Young Persons) (Amendment) Rules, 1976 S.I. 1769 andsupra note 5. Paul Kent, “The Child’s Representative — A Constructive Approach”,Journal of Social Welfare Law (1978–1979),
see the discussion in J. Packman,supra note 21 at. Ch. 2., regarding the differing approaches of local authorities following the Children Act 1948.
Cf. the role of judicial review and Wardship in recent cases, notablyRe D. (1978) 76 L.G.R. 653,per Balcombe J.
See, for example, the utilisation of preventive work well in advance of the 1963 Act, referred to in J. Packman,supra note 21. at Ch. 4.
seeCadman v. Cadman, The Times, 15th October 1981, C.A.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kent, P. Independent social workers — A day conference. Liverpool Law Rev 4, 90–96 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185312
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03185312