The concept of significant harm in law and practice
| Pages | 73-83 |
| Date | 30 June 2010 |
| Published date | 30 June 2010 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.5042/jcs.2010.0304 |
| Author | Judith Harwin,Nicola Madge |
| Subject Matter | Education,Health & social care,Sociology |
Journal of Children’s Ser vices • V olume 5 Issue 2 • June 2010 © Pier Professional Lt d 73
10.5042/jcs.2010.0304
Abstract
This article examines the value of the concept of significant harm some 20 years after its
then discusses the profile of children and families in care proceedings, the decision-making
process, the interpretation of significant harm in case law, ‘panic’ and its impact on patterns
of referrals for case proceedings, and the issue of resources. An alternative model of the
problem-solving court is outlined. It is suggested that ‘significant harm’ has largely stood the
test of time. However, the absence of a clear operational definition is both its strength and its
weakness. It allows necessary professional discretion but is vulnerable to external pressures
affecting its interpretation. A more confident workforce and sufficient resources are required,
but the future role of the court and compulsory care is more contentious. The problem-solving
court model may offer a helpful way forward for the scrutiny of significant harm.
Key words
courts; parental substance misuse
and the role of resources. In addition, we
examine an example of a problem-solving court
as an alternative model of care proceedings.
The interpretation of significant harm is a critical
question that has enormous bearing on safeguarding
children, the functionality of the care system, and
the welfare of the most vulnerable young people
(and their families) in our communities.
The Children Act and
significant harm
Concern over the rising numbers of children
coming into care during the 1980s, prominent
scandals such as Cleveland (Butler-Sloss, 1988) and
the Jasmine Beckford case (Blom-Cooper, 1988)
Introduction
The Children Act 1989 introduced the concept
of significant harm as a brand new threshold test
for care proceedings that was widely praised at
the time for being comprehensive and based on
child development concepts, and for avoiding the
rigidities and gaps in grounds present in earlier
legislation. Now, as the Act comes of age, we
examine how significant harm has fared in the
interim and some of the challenges and issues that
have arisen. We look particularly at the profile
of children and families in care proceedings, the
decision-making process, the interpretation of
significant harm in case law, the impact of ‘panic’
on patterns of referrals for care proceedings,
The concept of significant
harm in law and practice
Judith Harwin
Centre for Child and Youth Research, Brunel University, UK
Nicola Madge
Centre for Child and Youth Research, Brunel University, UK
To continue reading
Request your trial