A really interesting article in yesterday’s Times by barrister Martha Cover at Coram. It sets out why the introduction of procedures designed to protect at risk children may have had the opposite effect to that desired – by discouraging the issue of proceedings in favour of focus on the provision of low level support services. She explains very well the process of ‘threshold inflation’ which has put children at risk and the switch-on-switch-off mechanism which enables services to be withdrawn from families who bounce along the bottom, every time there is a minor improvement.
Advertise here
Tags
-
Recent Comments
TrentCareLawyer on Panorama Shaun O'Connell on McKenzie Friends familoo on McKenzie Friends 
Recent Court of Appeal Decisions (Civil Division)- Dibble v Urs Bernhard Pfluger [2010] EWCA Civ 1005 (03 September 2010)
- Raggett v Society of Jesus Trust of 1929 for Roman Catholic Purposes & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1002 (27 August 2010)
- Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 997 (24 August 2010)
- Southern Insulation (Medway) Ltd v How Engineering Services Ltd & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 999 (20 August 2010)
- Chubb Fire Ltd v The Vicar of Spalding & the Churchwardens and Church Council of the Church of St Mary and St Nicholas, Spalding [2010] EWCA Civ 981 (20 August 2010)
Archives
[I have deleted the bulk of your comment because I consider it is couched in highly inflammatory terms and makes allegations against individuals and organisations that I consider inappropriate and offensive. The balance of your comment follows. I suggest if you want a forum through which to comprehensively set out your own views on these topics you consider using your own blog not mine.]
What has this baby child’s death to do with any family law practitioner.