Children Law in Social Work - Essay Example

?Children Law in Social Work Introduction The United Kingdom laws act as a guide for social workers when addressing society issues particularly for children. England and Wales common laws have provisions that specifically address children issues and these laws act as guidance for social workers. These provisions provide principles and guidelines for both anti-oppressive and anti-discriminative classes of social workers concerning the care of children while under their parents or guardians. These laws and guides are adequate and just to resolve dispute and provide satisfactory solutions for many cases involving children. This paper will therefore examine application of laws by social workers in solving issues related to children. The paper will achieve this objective by analysing how a social worker can apply existing laws and statutes in Stephanie and Stephen’s case. In the given case study, Stephanie and Stephen are school-aged children who are still under the care of their parents. Recently the two children have suffered from neglect resulting from their parent’s drug dependency problem. Due to the neglect, the two children have been forced to perform household duties including cooking which has compromised their education. Due to their parents’ lifestyle, Stephanie and Stephen have been exposed to domestic violence and drug abuse that has effect on their social life As an anti-oppressive social work, I consider Stephanie and Stephen’s case as a controversial case that can only be resolved through a systematic application of laws policy and legal statutes. The controversy in the case arises from the nature of the case and the people involved. Although UK children Acts are biased towards the protection of children, there are similar laws that are concerned with the protection of the parents (Clarke, 1993; Hester, & Harwin, 1998). Such laws define the rights of the parents and give them guidance towards the care of their children. The main reason for embedding parent protection laws and rights in children Act is to enhance children care by discouraging oppressive behavior. This is important since children need someone to care for them. The parents have legal rights to care for their children although the rights can be extended to a third party in situations when the parent is unable to care for the child. For them to carry out this responsibility effectively, the law comes in by providing them with rights and guidance. This implies that as a social worker, I need to consider the case from both the children and the parent’s perspective. Schools have an important part to play in child development and the law considers them as important institutions in child development and care (Fischer, Schimmel, & Kelly, 1994). This indicates that the school’s vote on the case matters to the decisions made by the concerned parties. Stephanie and Stephen’s case represents the numerous cases involving child abuse and neglect that social workers handle every day. In this case, the UK children Act of 1998 will be the main statute that can be employed by a social worker to solve this issue (Scott, 1996). In the United Kingdom, the law defines a child as any person below the mandatory school age. The law also recognizes the parents as legally responsible for their children education and development. According to the law, parents are legally responsible for any case of abuse or neglect that affect children under their care. The UK laws have a variety of provisions that have been enacted to address children issues concerning their rights. These legislations provide children with rights on matters concerning their education, health, justice system, and employment. According to the given cases study, the two children have been denied some of their basic child rights and therefore the issue requires legal intervention. Firstly, the two children have been deprived of their basic rights concerning parental care. This is implied by the fact that their parents are not actively providing them with basic care that parents ought to provide their children. In this case, the failure to provide the children with the required care is not intentional (Best, & Barrier, 2007). The law however consider the parents responsible for any misfortune that might affect the children due to their failure to provide them with adequate care whether intentional or unintentional. In the given case study, the two children have been denied their rights to adequate parental care. This is because their parents are not available to provide them with all the care they deserve as children. Additionally, the two children are below the mandatory school age and therefore the law require their parents to provide them with adequate care and uninterrupted learning. This type of treatment qualifies as oppression hence the need of an anti-oppressive social worker to step in. Stephanie and Stephen’s parents have denied the children parental care and right to uninterrupted education. Lack of parental care is not only making the children fail to attend school but it is also making them vulnerable to child labour. The case study indicates that the two children failed to attend school because they had domestic responsibilities such as cooking and washing their clothes. This amounts to oppression. The Education Act of 2002 and the Education Act 1998 provides the legal framework on matters concerning children education. According to these statutes, the law recognizes children as persons below sixteen year of age. Below this age, the law requires children to have compulsory primary and secondary education. This requires that children should be given all the material and moral support required to enable them attend school. Stephanie and Stephen’s parents therefore denied the two children their education rights. This is because the parents did not provide them with favourable condition for uninterrupted education. The parents also exposed the children to domestic labour denying them time for education. Cooking is the main domestic duty that the two children were exposed to this raises the issue of their safety and health. In addition to being exposed to duties that could affect their health, the children were exposed to incidents of domestic violence that affected their emotional health. According to the National Health Service Act 1997, the law provides guidelines for comprehensive physical and mental health for every individual living in the UK (Blackwood’s, 1999). Recently England’s government introduced provisions within the basic health act that deals with issues concerning children health. Stephanie and Stephen’s parents denied their children their rights to health by exposing them to factors that compromised their health. The parents are therefore liable to any misfortune that may affect their due to their neglect. According to the children Act, children have the rights to be raised by their parents unless there is a court restriction on matters concerning their welfare (Dalrymple, & Burke, 2008). The two children have legal rights to demand that authorities in the referral centre should hand them back to their parents. This issue brings out the main controversy in the case since the parents are not in a position to provide adequate care to their children due to their drug dependency problem. The children should be left under the care of the referral on the condition that the referral seeks a court protection on the ground that the parents are unable to care for the children (Freeman, 1992). The law under the Adoption Act of 2002 and the Children Act of 1989 provide the legal framework for the transfer of children care from parents to any other person or organization in cases of oppression or discrimination (Davis, 2009). The law requires that children can only be given out for adoption if their parents are willing and ready to give them out for adoption. The parents in the case study were not consulted on the issue implying that they did not give their children to the referral willingly. The parents therefore have legal rights to claim their children from the referral. The adoption Act will be useful in governing the resultant dispute relating to the persons or party responsible for the children. Due to the parent’s drug dependency, the law might require the referral to take care of the children while the parents are on rehabilitation. The law may also require that the referral to take responsibility of the children based on their parents inability to provide them with education and adequate care. The court can also make the decision based on the social vices such as drug abuse and domestic violence that the children are witnessing. As a good and impartial social worker, I would consider all these factors and therefore require that the children remain under the care of the referral. The law recognizes the parents’ rights towards their children and therefore the referral will be required to make provisions for the parents to visit their children thus I would allow the parents to visit their children appropriately. The NHS and community care Act is also applicable on the issue concerning Stephanie and Stephen’s care. This statute considers the local authority to be responsible for carrying out assessment and identify needy cases in the community. Section 47 of the Act also requires that authorities such as anti-oppressive or anti-discriminative social workers give advice to the concerned people on how they can meet their requirements (Long, Roche, & Stringer, 2010) According to section 47 of the Children Act, local authority has the mandate to carry out enquiries on any case relating to child abuse. The local authorities should conduct investigations concerning the given case and give recommendations. In the given case, the children are in need of education, parental care, and protection from harmful social behaviours. This is where the services of a social worker will come in as supported by the legal framework. The referral centre is providing the children with the required support services. With the services and care provided by the referral centre, the children will be able to continue with their studies. Due to the drug dependency condition of the parents the law consider them as unable to take care of the children, the law therefore recognizes the referral home as the most appropriate to cater for the children in such case. A good social worker should also come to the same conclusion and recommend the children to remain under the care of the referral centre. According to children Act 1998, harm on children is any form of ill-treatment suffered by the children this include physical abuse, sexual harassment, emotional abuse or any form of ill treatment that might compromise the physical or mental health of the child (Johns, 2011). Section 31 of the Act gives the relationship between a child’s health and development by indicating that good health implies good development. Children are also responsible for their welfare and the law recognizes this. The law consider children responsible to some extent on matters concerning their welfare. This implies that in this case Stephanie and Stephen have a vote in deciding their guardians. Section 16 of the children act provides provisions for listening to the views of the children on matters concerning their welfare (CHILDRIGHT, 1996). Even though Stephanie and Stephen have a vote in deciding whether they should be left under the care of the referral centre of their parents, the court has the final decision on the issue. The provisions in the children protection act under section 16 provide an adequate background for making an appropriate decision on the issue. It is possible to weigh the benefits of having the children under the care of either party using the provisions. The provisions will also consider the views of the children to reach the final decision. The Children Act, Section 44(1) provides the legal framework that gives guidelines on how parents should work together with other professionals to support their children on matters relating to their education and development (Brayne & Carr, 2008). From this statute, it is evident that the parent should consult from the necessary professionals on matters concerning their children welfare. The provision also indicates that any guidance given to the children by the partners should include the parent’s direction. In the given case, Stephanie and Stephen’s parents should seek professional advice on issues concerning the development of their children. Stephanie and Stephen are in a desperate condition on issues concerning their education and health. This implies that the referral centre workers have a bigger vote in making decisions concerning the children’s welfare than their parents have. The law however require that the two parties should work together for the mutual benefit of the children. Conclusion It is important to consider all the legal provisions and implications regarding this case. Stephanie and Stephen have rights to education, parental care, and health. Their parents also have the rights to raise them as their children. A social worker should therefore consider all the conditions, provisions, and legal implication to come up with a fair course of action. The law has provisions that ensure all children attain their basic rights. As a social worker, I would ensure that Stephanie and Stephen’s rights to education, health, and parental care are not be compromised on any ground whatsoever. Although Stephanie and Stephen’s parents are unable to provide their children with their basic rights, the law recognize them as their biological parents. Any arrangement made by the referral canter to provide the children with education and protection should therefore involve the parent’s decision. By considering everything, the two children should be left in a referral centre with the parents having a chance to visit them. References Best, A. & Barrier, D., 2007. Basic Tort Law: Statutes, And Problems. New York: AspenPublisher. Brayne, H. & Carr, H., 2008. Law for social workers. London: Oxford OUP. Blackwoods, W., 1999. RESISTANCE - client led self-defence training with women sex workers. London: Routridge. Clarke, J., 1993. A Crisis in Care? Challenges to Social Work. New York: Sage Publications. CHILDRIGHT: Magazine of the Children's Legal Centre - excellent for summaries of legislation and news - http://www2.essex.ac.uk/clc/ Children's Legal Centre: The Children Act 1989, briefing paper. Davis, H. (2009) Human Rights law (2nd Ed) Directions. London: Oxford University Press.  Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., & Kelly, C 1994. Teachers and the law (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Dalrymple, J. & Burke, B., 2008. Anti-Oppressive Practice: Social Care and the Law. Washington: open University Press. Freeman, M., 1992. Children, Their Families and the Law – Working with the Children Act. London: Macmillan Hester, P. & Harwin, M. 1998. Making An Impact - children and domestic violence. London: University of London press. Johns, R. 2011. using the Law in social work (5th Edition). New York: Learning Matters Ltd. Long, L. Roche, J. & Stringer, D., 2010. The Law and social work: Contemporary issues for practice. New York: Palgrave McMillan Open University Press. Scott, B 1996, Out of Control. Who's Watching Our Child Protection Agencies? New York: Alpha Pub Inc. Read More