Statistic on Breakdowns in Adoptions

A colleague has just sent me a link with statistics on adoption breakdowns, which shows that they are as many as one in five ( 20 %). I personally think that these stats need to be cited each time a family court is considering approving a care plan for adoption, particularly now that we are entering into the brave new world of the 26 week case.

Chris McWatters

Who needs experts anyway ?

The recent ruling in the case of JG adds another nail in the coffin for justice in  private children’s law proceedings. It effectively means that even if a rule 16 children’s guardian is appointed, it will still be extremely difficult to instruct experts, as the Legal Aid Agency (formerly the LSC)  will not be under an obligation to pay for those experts unless the instruction is a joint instruction and all parties pay. It is inevitable that the majority of litigants in person who are now no longer entitled to legal aid will not be able to meet the funding of experts, especially those on benefits. So, for instance, should a children’s guardian be of the view that a child psychologist is required to report in an intractable contact dispute, then their solicitor is going to struggle to get funding – prior authority will need to be applied for and a similar ruling by the court as indicated in Re DS  will be required in order to persuade the LAA that it would be “Wednesbury unreasonable” not to foot the bill. Once LASPO properly kicks in in private children’s law, then we should expect a further JR on this point – that is if the court grants permission and the LAA agree to fund it !

Chris McWatters

The President proclaims on funding for separate representation

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111218

Re TG the President has made strong comments as regards to separate representation of parents in care proceedings when they are singing from the same hymn sheet.’This must stop,’ he states, considering the burden on the public purse. ‘Is this fair?’ We ask.

Prior Authority For ‘Unusually Large’ Amount Of Hours Requested By An Expert

Since 1st October 2012, the LSC has been refusing applications for prior authority for experts if their fees are set within the codified rate [ as per the Community Legal Service (Funding) (Ammendment No.2) Order 2011].  However there is an exception – that is if the hours requested by the expert are ‘unusually large’.  So the question for practioners is what constitutes an ‘unusually large’ amount of hours ? The odds are that if, for instance,  you are instructing a psychologist for a bog standard cognitive assessment of a parent, then the hours are likely to be very much the same across the board. But as soon as any form of complexity creeps in, then how long the assessment / report takes to complete begins to vary. And when you get to Independent Social Workers, what is the ‘norm’ for the LSC and the ‘norm’ for the Independent Social Worker seem continents apart.

I have just been in case where prior authority was requested for an ISW who said she needed at least 80 hours to complete the assessment, whereas prior authority was only granted for 20 hours.  The ISW said she couldn’t do it for that, and sure enough, we brought the matter back to court. At the hearing, the local authority had identified an ISW who was prepared to complete the assessment for 30 hours, and the LA made up the difference in cost. Regrettably, I agreed to this, as there was no way that the court was going to adjourn the final hearing whilst my solicitor crossed swords with the LSC. What we ended up with is a half-baked assessment, with the ISW indicating that she had only seen the parent in 3  (very positive) contact sessions, but not at home or on their own with the child. I’m not sure that with this extra bit of evidence that the case would have been won, but the parent came away feeling agrieved that they had not been properly assessed, and the further evidence of their parenting, had it been positive, might just have tipped the balance.

Of course, the expert who required the 80 hours would not have considered that amount to have been ‘unusually large’. However if the solicitor had not applied for prior authority, and simply billed the case at the end of the proceedings, then the LSC would no doubt have refused payment for those 80 hours on the basis that they were ‘unusually large’.  So quite where that leaves us, I’m not at all sure.

But given this previous experience of agreeing a 30 hour assessment,  my own view is that one should always establish how many hours are requested from the expert and why, and if there is any doubt that they may be deemed excessive in the eyes of the LSC, apply for prior authority.  And if the LSC then only grant a limited number of hours – go all outs and take the LSC to the Administrative Court, as was suggested as a possible remedy in Re DS.  Of course one is up against the current aspiration to complete care proceedings within 26 weeks. But one can always request the Administrative court to stay the proceedings in the family courts….

Please do comment if you have any thoughts on this issue. 

Chris McWatters

A significant case in the family courts – LB Islington v Al Alas and Wray

The recent case of LB Islington v Al Alas and Wray, (where I was led by Ian Peddie QC [also of Garden Court Chambers] in representing the father, Rohan Wray) should have some pretty significant implications in cases involving alleged non-accidental injuries.

In summary, this was a fact finding hearing where the parents were exonerated of killing their baby son, Jayden Wray (DOB 7th march 2009) through a non-accidental head injury, as well as inflicting multiple fractures on him. The parents had previously faced a murder trial at the Central Criminal Court, where the Judge had directed the jury to acquit the parents due to conflicting expert evidence. However the Local Authority pursued a fact-finding hearing regardless, having been granted an interim care order of their daughter, Jayda Wray (dob 17 October 2010).

Research shows ISW’s would reduce delay

As I suspected in a recent blog on ‘ISW’s an endangered species?’, it appears current research proves that Independent Social Workers would in fact reduce delay rather than extend it. Let’s hope the Government take notice ! – especially when the LSC are routinely refusing prior authority for instructions of ISW’s at the moment for mainly spurious reasons.

Chris McWatters

Pscych Alert !

Unsusual bit of press interest in care proceedings……