Case Review on a Child Rights Case - Essay Example

? Case review on a child rights case affiliation Case review on a child rights case In ref to Child A (Care proceedings: Designated local authority) The case was on the determination of which county council was to be awarded the custody of child D. The two county councils involved were Kent County Council and the Surrey County Council. A court case ruling held in the Medway County Council Court ruled that Medway County Council were the designated local authority to be granted the custody of Child D (Family Justice Review, 2011). The court proceeding were held on 4th August, 2011 and was presided over by Judge Caddick. Child D was born in 2010 in Kent. The child and her mother resided at the same address immediately after birth. Kent County Council had raised concerns of the child even before its birth. The local authority raised fears that the child was not in good hands since her mother was viewed as her child herself. Her mother was under police protection in Surrey County Council but she principally resided in Kent. The only option left in regards to the custody of child was for the child to be taken up by foster parents in a location where they resided. After birth, Child D and the mother stayed under foster care in Kent after which the mother was transferred to police protection in Surrey County Council. However, Child D remained under the care of foster parents in Kent County Council (Family Justice Review, 2011). Kent Count Council had applied for the Custody of the child and they were granted. The ruling was made in regards to Section 31(1) (a) of the Children Act 1989: “placing the child with respect to whom the application is made in the care of the designated local authority”. The 4th August, 2011 court ruling was an appeal on the case made by the Surrey County Council. In their appeal, Surrey County council had argued that the child needed to stay with her mother, since time of its birth the mother stayed in Surrey County and the local authority took care of her. However, regardless of her residence in Surrey County, she principally was the resident of Kent. The Surrey county council pointed out that the age of child was critical and it was appropriate and she needed the company of her mother as she gained self realization (Family Justice Review, 2011). At the same time Surrey County Council could not release the mother since she was under protective custody in the address. However, Kent County Council argues that they had the right to grant the child a proper family to enable it to grow in a normal family setting. Additionally, under protective custody the mother was not in the right position to raise the child effectively considering the limitations she had at protected custody (Family Justice Review, 2011). Legally, the case was against the arguments by Surrey County Council as the law stipulates custody should be granted to the local authority which requested for custody and the local authority to which the child was given birth to (Howe, 2009). In this case, the child and her mother were principally residents of Kent County Council and this was enough to grant the local authority custody of child D under the provisions of Section 31(1) (a) of the Children Act 1989. In this particular case, with the mother of child in protected custody and the child at a critical age the case became a serious case review with a lot at stake in regards to the most appropriate decision that would make the child comfortable. In an argument by Mawby (2008) a case concerning a child immediately from birth makes the case critical since its future life will greatly depend on the care it’s given at its first stages of life. The case of custody in regards to local authorities has been provided for by numerous legislations. In the U.K the role authorities in child care and protection is significant as the bodies are given great mandate to determine the status of each and every child in the counties. In the Children Act 1989, Local authorities are given great mandate to claim custody of any child that is at risk of death or facing a risky lifetime under the care of a particular person or body (Parton, 2009). Additionally, a local authority could be held responsible if a serious case of neglect is not addressed under their watch (Elsley, 2010). Each local authority has a board or body that is given responsibility of ensuring children in the counties are protected and provided with the best maternal care. In an argument by Galilee (2006) local authorities are provided with a great authority to arrest and put up child rights offenders for prosecution if enough proof is collected in their offenses. The author further points out that local authority are given the mandate to take full custody of a child if it realizes the child is exposed to risks at their current location regardless of its relationship with its guardians (Rose & Barnes, 2008). Serious case reviews are usually conducted by the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB). The responsibility of the body is to ensure that each case involving a child is measured on its sensitivity in regards to the safety of the child (Knapp, Parsonage & McDaid, 2011). The body then takes up action against offenders as the fate of child is determined by courts or a mutual agreement of both the Guardian and the body. In case of a court process the body provided its evidence and request for custody of a child or the punishment of the offender. In this particular case, the Kent local authority had the right and responsibility to raise concerns over the stats of Child D. it was appropriate for the local authority to raise concern of the child even before its birth and the formally request for its custody immediately after. If the child was exposed to risks or violence, the local authority could have been held responsible for the mistake. Additionally, it was the appropriate for the local authority to provide Child D with foster parents ton replace her mother due to her social status and condition. Across the United Kingdom, government reports and policies have addressed the issue on the responsibility of local authorities in child protection (Stanley et.al, 2009). Additionally, the U.K in conjunction with the UNHCR has come up with reports that have ensured the protection of children from risks. The reports are developed in terms with recommendation of the UNHCR reports on child protection. In an argument by Aldgate (2002) the implementation of the recommendations of the government reports cannot be complete without the inclusion of local authorities in the entire process. Additionally, the local county councils provide a more devolved system of governance in terms of providing rights to children and protecting them from abuse. In this regard, local authorities have been given great responsibilities by given governments reports as they are provided with rights to handle serious case reviews (Gambrill, 2010). For instance, the Children Act of 1989 was improved through government reports to enable local authorities to be able to request for custody of children through the introduction of section 31(1) (a) (Children Act 1989). Additionally, government reports have been generated to provide local authorities with specifications that enable them to handle cases. The reports have also provided recommendations that would enable a local authority to file for custody of a child (Jessiman, Keogh & Brophy, 2009). References Aldgate, J. (2002). Evolution not revolution: Family support services and the Children Act 1989, in Approaches to Needs Assessment in Children’s Services. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Barak, M., Nissly, J. & Levin, A. (2001). ‘Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Services Review, 75, 625–661. Children Act 1989, Section 31(1) (a). Elsley, S. (2010). Media Coverage of Child Deaths in the UK: The Impact of baby P: A Case for Influence? Edinburg: The University of Edinburgh/NSPCC. Family Justice Review. (2011). Family justice review: interim report. London: Ministry of Justice, Department for Education and the Welsh Assembly Government. Ferguson H. (2011), Child Protection Practice, Basingstoke. Palgrave: Macmillan. Galilee, J. (2006). Literature review on media representations of social work and social workers. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Gambrill, E. (2010). ‘Evidence-Informed Practice: Antidote to Propaganda in the Helping Professions’. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 3 (302–320). Howe, D. (2008). The Emotionally Intelligent Worker. Basingstoke, Palgrave: Macmillan. Jessiman, P., Keogh, P. & Brophy, J. (2009). An early process evaluation of the Public Law Outline in family courts, Ministry of Justice Research Series. London: Ministry of Justice. Knapp, M., Parsonage, M. & McDaid, D. (2011). Mental Health Promotion and Mental Illness Prevention: The Economic Case. London: Department of Health Mawby, R. C. (2008), ‘Built-in, not bolted-on’, Public Service Review. Home Affairs 17, 49–50. Parton, N. (2009). ‘From Seebohm to Think Family: reflections on 40 years of policy change of statutory children’s social work in England.’ Child and Family Social Work, 14 (68–78). Rose, W. & Barnes, J. (2008), Improving Safeguarding Practice: Study of Serious Case Reviews 2001–03. London: Department for Children Schools and Families. Stanley, N., Miller, P., Richardson Foster, H. & Thomson, G. (2009). Children and Families Experiencing Domestic Violence: Police and Children’s Social Services Responses. London: NSPCC. Read More