A Deep Dive into Child Protection Law with Julie Dann
Ever wondered about the intricacies of the Children’s Act and its impact on families undergoing divorce or separation? Julie Dann, with her vast knowledge and firsthand experience, guides us through the Children’s Act of 1989 and 2004, highlighting their differences, aims, and how they have influenced child protection policies in the UK.
A very warm welcome to another podcast episode with Warners Solicitors, and today I’m with Julie Dann, who is an associate with Warners Solicitors and specialises in family law. A very warm welcome, Julie.
Thank you.
Good to talk to you. Let’s start off, Julie, by looking at what the Children’s Act is.
The Children’s Act 1989 came into force on the 14th of October 1991 and it’s essentially the piece of legislation that contains provisions relating to children, whether this be in private law, which covers disputes between individuals, or in public law, which is where the local authority or children’s services are involved. It covers who can make an application to the court, which can, in certain circumstances, be the child themselves, and the procedure to be used and the outcomes available to the court.
What are the main aims of the Children’s Act?
Prior to the Act, the law relating to children was very fragmented, with inconsistencies present between the various pieces of legislation that were in force. So the Children’s Act 1989 basically consolidated everything into one piece of legislation, with the primary aim being to simplify the law relating to children, making it more consistent and more appropriate to the needs of the children.
Could you please explain the difference between the Children’s Act of 2004 and the 1989 Children’s Act?
The Children’s Act of 1989 reversed the traditional view that parents had rights over their children to the view that children have a free-standing right. The Children Act 2004 was then a development of that Act and reinforced the view that all people and organisations working with children have a responsibility to help safeguard children and promote their welfare. With its ultimate purpose being to make the UK a safer place for children, the Act created a children’s commissioner, in addition to requiring each local authority to appoint a director of children’s services, so that there was a clear, single point of professional accountability for children and young people’s outcomes. A lot of people will know about the case of Victoria Klimby, which was the case of an eight-year-old girl who was tortured and murdered by her great-aunt and her great-aunt’s boyfriend. Up to her death, the police, the social services department of four local authorities, the National Health Service, the NSPCC, and local churches, all had contact with her and noted signs of abuse, but all failed to properly investigate the case, which ultimately led to her death.
How long ago was that Julie?
That was in 2000.
And did that prompt the Children’s Act of 2004?
Yes, her death led to a public inquiry and, as a result of that public inquiry, major changes in child protection policies came about within the UK.
And what impact does the Act have on families who are going through divorce or separating?
So where arrangements for the children are agreed between separating parents, then the Act has no impact, as no court proceedings are required and the parents are free to make decisions regarding the upbringing and welfare of the children as they see fit.
However, where arrangements cannot be agreed and outside intervention is required, whether this be through solicitors or alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation, then section eight of the Act becomes relevant. There are four different types of order able to be made in relation to children, these being child arrangements, live with order, previously known as a residence order, a child arrangement spend times with order, previously known as a contact order. A prohibited steps order, which can limit when certain parental rights and duties can be exercised. Such an order could be obtained where it’s necessary to prevent a parent from seeing a child. And then, finally, a specific issue order, which will see the court give directions to determine a specific question that may or may not arise in connection with the exercise of parental responsibility, such as which school a child should attend or whether a child should be relocated to a different area.
And have you worked on any matters where the Act helped or hindered the families you were working with?
Yes, I’ve had two cases where the Acts helped the clients. One case was where the parents’ relationship had broken down and the father was prevented from seeing the children by the mother, who made various and serious allegations of abuse in respect of herself and the children. Against the father, investigations were carried out by the police and children’s services and then the court held its own independent fact-finding hearing and none of the allegations were upheld by any means. As a consequence, the father was granted parental responsibility for the children and a ‘spends time with order’ was also granted as, despite the mother’s view of the father, it was deemed to be in the children’s best interest to have a relationship with their father as well as their mother.
And then, in another case, the Act had assisted my client by making an order preventing the father, in this instance, from making further applications to spend time with his child without the court’s permission. The order was seen as necessary as a protective measure for both the child and the mother, as the father had bought two sets of proceedings over two years but on each occasion had failed to progress his application in terms of addressing his drug use and general commitment to the child, who he had not seen in three years. This had caused emotional distress to the mother and also a huge financial burden in having to finance two sets of proceedings which never really progressed beyond the initial application due to the father’s non-compliance with the court’s directions. A period of respite was therefore deemed to be required from proceedings, as they were seen to be a means of harassment and control over the mother. It doesn’t mean that the father can’t bring further applications, but to do so he has to seek the court’s permission, so the court can assess the merits of any such application before issuing it.
Julie, are there any changes that you would like to see introduced to The Children’s Act, or indeed, would you look forward to another Children’s Act to be made law?
I think at the current time, the Act itself still seems to be up to date and relevant. However, some changes would be good in respect of procedural changes and how the Act is interpreted and implemented. Such changes are always ongoing and there are frequent practice direction updates made, but there could be more emphasis in respect of judges imposing decisions at an interim hearing on appropriate minor issues that don’t need the time and a fully contested final hearing. Also making interim orders for contact at first appointments or interim hearings when it is clear that one party is simply adopting delaying tactics to frustrate contact or delay it. Equally, it would be good to see more cost orders being made when the contact with one party has been unreasonable and reprehensible, as too often, this issue seems to be overlooked as not being in the child’s best interest.
Julie, is there anything you’d like to add to any of the points that we’ve discussed today?
The only thing I would want to add is just in relation to the main aims of the Children’s Act, in terms of emphasising that the foundation of the Act is the belief that children are best looked after in the family home by their parents, without the need for court proceedings.
And that belief is manifested in three guiding principles which have to be at the forefront of the court’s mind when dealing with the children being the welfare principle being to safeguard the welfare of the children, which is always the court’s paramount consideration when determining any question in respect to the upbringing of a child or the administration of the child’s property. The no-order presumption is that the court will only make an order under the Act if it is in the child’s best interests. So an order would be better for the child than making no order at all. And the no-delay principle, as any delay in making a decision is likely to prejudice the child’s welfare. That said, there are occasions where a delay can be beneficial, for example, to allow the child time to settle into new arrangements, so all parties can see how those arrangements are impacting the child.
Julie, thank you for all that information regarding the Children’s Act. There’s obviously a lot of information to get across. If people want to make contact with you at Warners, how can they do that directly?
They can do that by emailing me at [email protected], or contacting the office and asking to be put through to the family department.
Thank you for your time today, Julie.
Thank you.
I’ve been talking to Julie Dann, who is an associate with Warner’s Solicitors, and Julie specialises in family law and this podcast was focussed on the Children’s Act. Now, please check out the other podcasts in this series. You can gain extremely good advice from the solicitors at Warners and the family team. Please arrange a consultation with one of the teams here at Warners Solicitors as soon as it’s convenient for you. I’m Paul Harvey. Please join me next time.
