Its interesting to speculate whether or not the judges have been subject to any direct pressure. The 'rowing back' from Re B and Re B-S is quite apparent.
I shake my head in sadness at the summary of the judge's findings:
The test of 'nothing else will do' must be read with the proviso that placement orders are to be made "only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by the overriding requirements of the child's best interests".
- The existence of another credible option does not mean that 'nothing else will do' bites. A contingency plans, or 'something else would do' does not mean that a plan for a placement order should automatically fail.
(3) The fact that there are advantages to other options again does not mean that an application for a placement order will fail.
(4) The judge must assess the whole picture in light of the child's needs and the harm that child has suffered.
the more they continually set out tests and try and find some 'perfect principle' that can fit every case and always bring the right outcome, the more they give work to the lawyers. Because what else I am supposed to do? If I am fighting a case for a parent, I will have to go to each of these authorities and unpick each 'principle' and argue that the judge didn't apply it correctly, or misinterpreted it or misunderstood it.
I asked a pretty senior social worker in cross examination why her statement wasn't 'Re B-S compliant'. She just looked at me wearily and said she hadn't read it, just a summary of it.
Its all just bollocks, if I may slip into technical jargon for a moment.
I think the fundamental principles are very easy. You don't split families up unless you have to. Its when you apply this simple principle to the real world that it gets messy. Is it 'necessary' to separate a family because the mother needs therapy for her personality disorder/depression/substance abuse but the NHS waiting list is six months and the children can't wait that long?
that's why these cases are so difficult. Because we all fundamentally know they aren't 'fair'.
I think we urgently need to 'triage' care cases. Cases of suspected non accidental injury in households with no other concerns need a very different approach from cases of chronic neglect going on for years and years.
But no one has time to stop and think any more. SW are more and more just fighting fires and reacting to emergency situations. The more 'guidance' the politicians and courts give the more there is to argue about.
We need to be much, much clearer as a society what kind of help and support we are willing/able to give parents who do an awful job. If we are not willing/able to give that support we need to stop messing about and dressing up the inevitable in grand sounding principles for the lawyers to pick at.