In Court
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050004700326 |
| Published date | 01 September 2000 |
| Date | 01 September 2000 |
| Author | Nigel Stone |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
227
IN COURT
Nigel
Stone,
Senior
Lecturer
in
the
School
of
Social
Work,
University
of
East
Anglia,
reviews
recent
appeal
judgements
and
other
judicial
developments
that
inform
sentencing,
early
release
and
court
welfare
practice.
In
an
important
judgement
with
implications
for
agencies
such
as
the
Probation
Service
which
have
a
stake
in
child
protection,
the
Family
Division
has
spelt
out
standards
to
be
maintained
by
Social
Services
when
dealing
with
families
where
concern
has
been
raised
about
child
abuse,
neglect
or
failure
to
thrive.
R v
E
AND
OTHERS
The
Times
10
May
2000
concerned
a
family
of
five
children
whose
schools
had
expressed
grave
anxiety
about
their
physical
and
emotional
welfare.
Social
Services
had
tried
to
offer
support
from
1984
onwards
but,
because
of
parental
failure
to
co-operate,
matters
drifted.
In
1998
a
senior
social
worker
decided
that
no
further
action
was
warranted,
taking
this
decision
without
reading
the
file.
When
a
further
referral
was
made
later
that
year
a
new
social
worker
read
the
file
and
was
so
alarmed
that
within
two
weeks
two
of
the
children
had
been
removed
on
an
emergency
protection
order
and
care
proceedings
were
commenced
in
respect
of
the
three
younger
children.
In
making
care
orders,
Bracewell
J
noted
that
it
was
quite
common
to
find
that
children
have
been
left
to
deteriorate
in
inadequate
homes
year
on
year
with
no
effective
action.
Clear
lessons
should
be
learned
from
the
present
case
and
applied
in
future.
(i)
Every
social
work
file
should
have
as
the
top
document
a
running
chronology
of
significant
events.
updated
as
events
unfolded.
This
would
make
it
easier
to
identify
deep-rooted
problems
rather
than
the
circumstances
triggering
the
instant
referral.
(ii)
Lack
of
parental
co-operation
was
never
a
reason
to
close
a
file
or
to
remove
a
child
from
a
protection
register;
on
the
contrary,
it
was
a
reason
to
investigate
in
greater
depth.
(iii)
Referrals
by
professionals
such
as
health
visitors
and
teachers
should
be
given
great
weight
and
investigated
thoroughly.
(iv)
Line
managers
and
others
with
decision-making
power
should
never
make
a
judgement
without
full
knowledge
of
the
file
and
consulting
those
professionals
who
know
the
family.
(v)
Children
who
are
part
of
a
sibling
group
should
not
be
considered
in
isolation
but
in
the
context
of
family
history.
Where
previous
children
have
been
brought
to
Social
Services
attention,
the
details
of
their
cases
should
be
considered
in
assessing
the
present
problems
and
gauging
whether
appropriate
change
has
been
effected.
(vi)
To
avoid
drift,
work
with
families
should
be
time-
limited
so
that
an
effective
timetable
can
be
laid
down
within
which
changes
need
to
be
achieved.
Application
of
such
ground
rules
in
this
case
earlier
intervention,
would
have
protected
the
children
from
years
of
dysfunctional
parenting.
.
A
man
in
his
early
20s
approached
a
group
of
youths
in
a
park
and
robbed
a
boy
aged
15
of
his
gold
chain,
threatening
him
with
a
syringe
and
the
prospect
of
being
infected
with
AIDS.
On
his
guilty
plea
he
received
a
prison
term
of
18
months
suspended
for
two
years.
The
Attorney-
General
referred
the
case
to
the
Appeal
Court
on
grounds
of
undue
leniency.
Rejecting
this
submission,
the
Court
noted
that
the
judge
had
received
a
series
of
reports
indicating
that
the
offender
had
made
determined
efforts
to
secure
treatment
for his
drug
problems
and
had
To continue reading
Request your trial