Children at Risk?

LAW IN ACTION BBC Radio 4's Law In Action Tuesday 1 July 1600 BST On Radio 4 and online Latest programme

We report on serious concerns that vulnerable children could be put at risk because of changes to child case proceedings brought in since April.

The fees local authorities have to pay to the courts in England and Wales when applying for care orders have gone up from £150 to over £4000.

Nick Crichton, the presiding judge at Wells Street Court in London, says he is unhappy about the rise in fees.

"The principle of charging a fee to bring proceedings to protect vulnerable children to me is shameful, absolutely shameful."

The government says it's ensured that local authorities have been given extra money to cover the increase in costs.

But some senior council officials are concerned that they've not been given enough because funds were allocated using a general formula, and not according to how many care order applications individual councils actually issue.

The rise in fees has coincided with the introduction of a new procedure called the Public Law Outline. This means local authorities need to have explored all other possible options for placing children with the extended family before applying to the courts.

However, critics say this creates more work for already over-stretched social workers.

Our research suggests applications for care orders have fallen between 20% and 60%.

Justice Ministry response

A statement from the Justice Ministry says:

"Children will not be put at risk by the introduction of a new fees structure for local authorities.

This is not just our view but the view of a wide range of experts in the field of child care.

Before making changes we consulted the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Children's Services, various local councils and others.

Contributors on Court Costs "Angela", mother whose daughters were taken into care Nick Crichton, Family Court judge Paul Clark, Director of Children's Services, Harrow Council Jenny Beck, solicitor Martha Cover, barrister Helen Mary Jones, chair, Children and Young People's Scrutiny Committee, Welsh Assembly

No-one said they would be influenced by cost considerations when dealing with at risk children. We would not have changed the fees structure if this was a possibility.

Additionally, children's services have an obligation in law to protect the interests of children. This is not negotiable. It would be unlawful for them to avoid taking court proceedings for financial reasons.

A range of evaluation methods are in place to monitor the overall impact, including early surveys, initiative area workshops and commissioned university-led evaluation, all of which will help to monitor and understand the full effects over the coming weeks, months and years."

Your thoughts on "Children at Risk?"

Reforming the insanity defence

The word "insanity" is perhaps only eclipsed by "Bedlam" in evoking the stereotypical Victorian madhouse. It's not a clinical term in modern psychiatry, yet it remains a defence in the criminal law of England and Wales.

Critics say the current law unfairly encompasses medical conditions such as epilepsy, which affects nearly half a million people in Britain.

Monica Cooper of the Leeds-based charity Epilepsy Action tells us that an epileptic who commits a crime during a seizure can only plead either guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity.

However, the epileptic is clearly not insane and she argues for a change in the law.

Solicitor Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, who specialises in the area, has strong criticisms of the current test for "fitness to plead" - in other words whether the defendant is able to decide whether to plead guilty or not guilty.

She says the test is crude and does not encompass many degrees of mental illness.

She calls for the criminal courts to adopt the test used in the civil courts, which is based on modern psychiatric concepts.

The Law Commission, the body charged with the task of updating the law in England and Wales, is going to review both insanity and the fitness of a defendant to enter a plea at trial.

Guns and the death penalty

The US Supreme Court has recently ruled on two areas that split public opinion across America.

In Kennedy v. Louisiana the court ruled the death penalty was unconstitutional in cases of child rape.

The US Supreme Court in Washington DC

In The District of Columbia v. Heller, they ruled on a local law passed by Washington DC's local council that placed limits on gun possession, the right to "bear arms" being guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Jess Bravin, who covers the Supreme Court for The Wall Street Journal explains the thinking behind the decision - and why in both cases the nine judges came out with 5-4 decisions.

Coming Up

In next week's Law In Action we'll be giving our most senior judges an extreme PR makeover.

If you have thoughts on any of the topics we've covered, or any other legal issues, Law In Action would like to hear from you.

You can contact us by email at [e-mail] or by post at Law In Action, BBC White City, Wood Lane, London W12 7TS or you can call us on 020 8752 5646.

Law In Action is broadcast on Tuesday 1 July 2008 at 1600 BST on BBC Radio 4.