Section 31 children act 1989 threshold criteria

The following must be considered as non-accidental unless there is evidence or an adequate explanation provided: Any bruising to a pre-crawling or pre-walking baby; Bruising in or around the mouth, particularly in small babies, for example 3 to 4 small round or oval bruises on one side of the face and one on the other, which may indicate force feeding; Two simultaneous bruised eyes, without bruising to the forehead, rarely accidental, though a single bruised eye can be accidental or abusive ; Repeated or multiple bruising on the head or on sites unlikely to be injured accidentally, for example the back, mouth, cheek, ear, stomach, chest, under the arm, neck, genital and rectal areas; Variation in colour possibly indicating injuries caused at different times - it is now recognised in research that it is difficult to age bruises apart from the fact that they may start to go yellow at the edges after 48 hours; The outline of an object used e.

Inevitably, we had to question — was it really worth it? The local authority will have to prove that things happened on or before the date they applied for a care or supervision order. Subdural haematoma is a very worrying injury, seen usually in young children; it may be associated with retinal haemorrhages and fractures particularly skull and rib fractures.

Maybe as it should be. And when will I see it?

section 34 of the childrens act

When deciding whether the threshold is crossed the court should identify, as precisely as possible, the nature of the harm which the child is suffering or is likely to suffer.

The welfare checklists The Children Act checklist a the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned considered in the light of his age and understanding ; b his physical, emotional and educational needs; c the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; d his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant; e any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering; f how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs; g the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.

Threshold Criteria Posted on Sunday, 30th Aug, at PM The Threshold Criteria for a Care Order or a Supervision Order, as outlined in Section 31 of the Children Act is that a court may only make a Care Order or Supervision Order if it is satisfied that: The Children are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and That the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to: The care given to the child is not what it would be reasonable to expect the parent to give him or The children are beyond parental control.

The rise in the numbers of applications for care orders may be explained by the …much greater and deliberate national focus on the early protection of the child, a stronger focus on lower level parenting concerns as first signs of cumulative neglect and with a recognised risk of future harm, a greater sense of urgency to act and secure permanency without delay and the need to act on the side of safety She poses the worrying question — are we simply asking too much of parents now?

Likely to Suffer A child being likely to suffer significant harm does not mean that there is a more than 50 percent chance that the child will suffer or that it is more likely than not that the child will suffer significant harm.

children act 1989 s33

Linking the alleged facts to the harm suffered, or likely to be suffered. Although in the majority of cases intervention was necessary, if a child ended up with a Supervision Order — was it really necessary for that have gone to court?

Section 31 children act 1989 threshold criteria

One injury to a child is not in itself an indication of physical abuse, as many children sustain accidental injuries. Skull fractures are uncommon in ordinary falls, i.

Section 19 childrens act 1989

Criticisms of the current approach to threshold — are too many cases going to court? Inquiries into child deaths have placed great importance on the height and weight of very young children being plotted on the percentile charts. To be eligible they should have been in care for 13 weeks after the age of 14, with at least one day in care after Where there is infection, this of course will require treatment. Where a girl within a family has been sexually abused by a family member it is not safe to assume that boys within the household are not at risk of sexual abuse, or vice versa. Children suffering neglect may show dramatic changes in appearance and social functioning when placed in a different environment such as a hospital or foster placement. It can rely on information that became available after that date, as long as it is information relevant to what was happening at that time. The public purse pays a heavy price for taking families into court only for children to remain at home anyway; but families and their children pay the heaviest price of all. This will depend whether or not the parents have accepted they have difficulties and are willing to work at them. The parents do not show any insight into their relationship difficulties and have refused to attend any counselling or domestic violence intervention programmes. Development means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development; health means physical or mental health; and ill-treatment includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical. Although in the majority of cases intervention was necessary, if a child ended up with a Supervision Order — was it really necessary for that have gone to court? Reasonable suspicion is a sufficient basis for the authorities to investigate and even to take interim protective measures, but it cannot be a sufficient basis for the long term intervention, frequently involving permanent placement outside the family, which is entailed in a care order. Linking the alleged facts to the harm suffered, or likely to be suffered.
Rated 5/10 based on 98 review
Significant harm