Children and Families Bill

[inappropriatelyemployed]

Here we go.

Here is the bill

Ipsea pres release is here

I haven't had a look yet.

CDC press release is here

Just bumping - this is the SEN bill

Hmm, the 2 responses from the charities seem to be contradictory about the right of parents to request an assessment. The letter from the MP states that there is included an explicit right to request an assessment.

IPSEA seems to suggest that there is no time limit to respond to a parent not that there is no right to request.

The Bill says:

36 Assessment of education, health and care needs
(1) A request for a local authority in England to secure an EHC needs assessment for a child or young person may be made to the authority by the childís parent, the young person or a person acting on behalf of a school or post-16 institution.
(2) An ìEHC needs assessment is an assessment of the educational, health care
and social care needs of a child or young person.
(3) When a request is made to a local authority under subsection (1), or a local
authority otherwise becomes responsible for a child or young person, the
authority must determine whether it may be necessary for special educational
provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC
plan.
(4) In making a determination under subsection (3), the local authority must
consult the childís parent or the young person.
(5) Where the local authority determines that it is not necessary for special
educational provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance
with an EHC plan it must notify the child ís parent or the young personó
(a) of the reasons for that determination, and
(b) that accordingly it has decided not to secure an EHC needs assessment
for the child or young person.

I misread it, I think. Sorry, IE.

It's clearly an improvement on the last version, but needs digesting. I assume the intention is to put a time limit for a decision on assessment into the regulations in the same way as the current ones have time limits for other elements of the statementing process, though it seems illogical to include the right to request in the legislation without any time limit.

I am very pleased that our Government is set to amend the Children Act (1989) in order to protect the Human Right of a child to benefit from maintaining a meaningful relationship with both its parents, post separation/divorce.

This was an original intention of the Children Act, but has been misinterpreted by the judiciary (specifically by Lady Butler-Sloss).

I have e-campaigned vigorously over recent years for the acceptance of the principle that a child's paramount interests are served by the Courts giving due regard to maintaining its meaningful relationship with both its parents.

Sadly, to date, the judiciary has remained more focused upon the wishes and feelings of the so-called 'primary carer' (usually mum) and has relegated the importance of the involvement of the de-facto 'secondary carer' (usually dad). It has remained stubbornly wedded to the 1960's and 70's ideology that children need the nurturing of their mother and the financial support of their father: as we know, today's parenting is very different indeed!

There have been well-publicised cases in which the senior judiciary has recognised this shortcoming in the law, but has been either unable or unwilling to act.

Outspoken High Court Judge, Sir Paul Coleridge has spoken of being powerless to prevent good fathers being excluded from their children's lives.

In the reserved judgment of Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, the former President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall broadcast (and later reiterated in a Family Affairs interview) his carefully considered view that Relocation Law ? in the form of Payne v Payne ? ascribed too great a weight to the wishes of the primary carer and relegated the harm done to a child due to the loss of its meaningful relationship with the left-behind parent.

Regardless of his concerns, however, Wall applied the very legal principles of Payne v Payne which he had criticised! He was unwilling to go against a legal precedent which plainly failed to serve the best interests of the children in that case.

With the forthcoming amendment to the Children Act, the judiciary will now be legally obliged to give due and proper weight to maintaining meaningful relationships between children and both their parents.

It is very hard to see how the principles of Payne v Payne can now survive. Plainly, a child which has been removed thousands of miles from its home country cannot easily benefit from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the left-behind parent. I expect this beastly law to be consigned to the history books before too long. A law which effectively permits a mother to cut out ? like a cancer ? a father from the life of his child is utterly barbaric and has no place in 21st Century Britain.

Regards
Bruno D'Itri

How does that all fit into the context of children with special needs Bruno?

He's gone poof!!!

Maybe the lycra suit needed adjusting??

It gets really dark in those bat caves maybe he couldn't find his way back out!

Yes, thanks for that Bruno....

The 'Children and Families Bill' addresses a number of topics, an important one of which is child custody, post separation/divorce.

The Children and Families Bill can be found in full here:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0131/2013131.pdf

Its proposal for a presumption of shared parenting post separation / divorce is worded as follows:

11 Welfare of the child: parental involvement
(1) Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (welfare of the child) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert?
?(2A) A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the
contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child
concerned will further the child?s welfare.?

A few believe that a presumption of Shared Parenting should mean an exact 50% share, although most reasonable commentators view ?shared? as meaning a significant share, but not necessarily 50%. Practical circumstances vary greatly from case to case.

My personal concern is that good fathers do not find themselves completely excluded from their children?s lives in future. This can have disasterous consequences not just for the children but also for the excluded parents.

For very sad examples of the degree to which some parents are pushed, see Karen Woodall's excellent blog:

karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/if-no-one-speaks-of-dreadful-things/

Contrary to popular perception, this is a problem which also affects many women. Yvie is a regular poster on Karen Woodall's blog who very movingly describes the terrible torment both she and her son face in trying to maintain contact with her grandchildren. This rather begs the question: why isn't this important and very current issue given greater consideration by the likes of Mumsnet and BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour?

Both parents (and their extended families) involved in the parenting of their children and maintaining a meaningful relationship with their children. That is the goal of the Government's legislation.

Best regards
Bruno D?Itri

I am indeed a 'MAMIL', although nowadays the lycra suit is used rather more on the cycle track and rather less sat atop Buckingham Palace!

Poof!!!

Bruno D'Itri x

Bruno, do you understand that our children have worse problems than which parent they live with. It's not that it isn't an important topic, but this forum is about the life chances of children with disabilities (as is clear by the heading) and their rights to an education and a life equal to that of their typically developing peers, regardless of who they live with.

Bruno are you aware of how many parents of SN kids are threatened for the removal of their children by SS under CP investigations for the "crime" of requesting an education, or that they recieve appropriate medical care each year? Are you aware of just how many suffer abuse at the hands of schools and care homes?

Do you know how many children on the autistic spectrum lose any right to an education via permanent exclusion due to failure to recognise their special needs each year/(clue 1 in 8 ASD kids get excluded for no other reason than their disability).

Do you know how many SN children are currently unable to attend school at all right now due to the refusal of local academies and free schools to take them via the admissions process? Or how many are too ill to access any kind of educational or leisure activity?

Are you aware of how many children's hospital departments are currently under imminent threat of closure? Or how many parents struggle to obtain basic items like continence items or mobility aids for their children?

Do you have any figures for the numbers of SN parents, (of both sexes!) currently on antidepressive medication as a direct consequence of the stresses of caring for their children? Sadly many relationships crack under the stress too.

I've got the T-shirt for the family court, and it's walk in the park compared to the NHS and educational systems. The Family Court system has checks and safeguards within it that the Educational Tribunal process can only dream of. The family court system at least acknowledges that the welfare of the child is a consideration. The corruption within the SN system is one that often has to be lived to be believed at every single level.

Seriously there is a time and a place for the battle of the sexes, but the special needs section of this parenting forum is not it! You'll find the Mums and Dads who use this section of the board equally united in trying to get blood out of a stone. Your comments are out of place, ill considered and frankly pretty insulting! Go and play cocka rooster someplace else as most of us have far more important things to worry about.

I was under the impression that this was a thread concerning the 'Children and Families Bill', which appears very prominently in its title.

The hostility you have exhibited is extremely exaggerated!

Are you really suggesting that the welfare of children in contact disputes is not worthy of any consideration whatsoever (because, according to you, their are other children who face even greater injustices)? That's rather a selfish position to take! Surely we can consider ALL injustices which our children face?

I am not au fait with the welfare issues of the children you describe (and I am grateful for your enlightening comments) but for you to suggest that it's an either/or situation is rather odd.

Surely we can argue for the rights of all our children? It's not a competition.

If my comments concerning the welfare of children in contact disputes are "out of place" - in that this thread concerns ONLY one element of the 'Children and Families Bill', then fair enough. I shall redirect my comments to other blogs which are considering the Bill in greater detail and scope.

However, for you to say that my comments are "ill considered" and "insulting" are very strange and illogical indeed.

Fair-minded readers will make up their own minds in deciding who has been insulting!

I wish you well in your campaign.

Best wishes
Bruno D'Itri

This is the Special Needs section, it's hardly unreasonable to expect people to work on the assumption that the interests of those clicking on this section are in the main confined to the section concerning provision for children with SEN. And it's not as if there aren't sections on the site clearly relating to legal issues and relationships which would obviously be much more appropriate for the issues you have raised.

Wot Veritate said!

(and Boch actually)

"I was under the impression that this was a thread concerning the 'Children and Families Bill', which appears very prominently in its title."

Bruno - Yes, it is... but specifically in relation to children with special needs, the clue being that this area of MN is called Special Needs.

Has the penny dropped yet...

Precisely Bruno - this is the special needs section and we are interested in the Bill because of changes to special needs legislation.

If you want to do some Fathers 4 Justice campaigning, great, but don the lycra mate and take your protest elsewhere. It's hardly a balanced line anyway.

What is 'reasonable', Veritate, is that if someone inadvertently posts on a thread which he assumed concerned the Children and Families Bill, he is not assaulted by a barage of childish insults, whilst simultaneously being accused of being 'insulting' himself!

I really do wish you all success in your campaign for children with special needs, but what I have learnt in my own campaigning for child welfare is that it is vitally important to be polite and reasonable in your dealings. Anger and hostility turns people off. Politeness and reasonableness engages the people whom you are trying to persuade.

Good luck

Bruno D'Itri

It is considered polite to spend a few minutes reading existing postings in a special interest section prior to posting for the first time. There are other sections of this site that deal with your particular bugbear, where it would have been appropriate for you to post.

A brief browse through this section would have enabled to to get a flavour of the issues posters in this special interest section are addressing. (I'm frankly suprised the title didn't give any clues!). If you had been bothered to do the even the most cursory research, then you'd have very quickly spotted that both men and women post in this section on a regular basis asking for advice on the types of issues I listed in my previous post.

For those worried sick about children who will never get the opportunity to lead independent lives or have families of their own, your post seemed in rather poor taste.

OP could you start a new thread so we can get this thread back on track please?

I must say, considering that his posts were a blatant attempt to hijack the thread for a Fathers for Justice campaign, I think the vast majority of the responses Bruno received were models of moderation.