Two men have been found guilty of causing or allowing the death of a 17-month-old boy, baby P. The child's mother had already admitted allowing or causing the child's death.

The child was on the Child Protection Register and under the investigation of Haringey Council. Haringey was the Council previously investigated following the death of 8 year old Victoria Climbie in 2000.

An independent investigation has been launched to make enquiries as to how a baby who was, unlike Victoria Climbie, on the Child Protection Register and seen by professionals an alleged 60 times, was not, in fact, protected, despite Haringey Social Services appearing to follow the multi-agency approach introduced following the Climbie enquiry.

The Children’s Minister Beverley Smith and the Director of Children’s Services Maggie Atkinson have both stated that in Baby P’s case, the systems in place were correctly used, and have been very careful not to place blame on social services or the Local Authority, pointing out the extensive deception of Baby’s P’s mother and partner. Indeed it is very important to remember in such emotive cases as this that the perpetrator of the tragic crime was not Social Services, but was Baby P’s mother, partner and lodger.

However, leading academics and professionals in the field of Social Work have commented that the training of social workers may be inadequate, that they are not being correctly equipped with the skills required to work in this highly sensitive, extremely important area of work.

In a BBC Newsnight interview last night, a leading government advisor suggested that the answer may be to remove more children from their parents, instead of adhering to the current system whereby Social Services attempt to work with families to improve children’s lives within their own homes.

From a legal point of view, this raises concerns about the rights of parents who may not be given a chance to demonstrate change. It is not just the children, but often the parents in these cases who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, having had little guidance and support throughout their lives.

Further, now that the government has massively increased the fees that Local Authorities are required to pay to bring a case to court to allow a child to be removed from their parents, the question of resources, which is unfortunately critical in so many vulnerable families’ lives, requires us once more to ask, what needs to be done to safeguard our children, and how much will the government pay for it?

In May this year, the Government imposed a 2,500% rise in the fees that Local Authorities have to pay to bring a case to Court, on the basis that the courts were underfunded and that care cases were causing the judicial system to run at a massive loss.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is vital, in terms of human rights and the very principles of English law, that these cases MUST be heard in court rather than Local Authorities having the power to remove children without their parents having a say, and that Local Authorities said from the outset that paying the new fees would put a massive strain on their budgets, the Government stance was that Local Authorities had received extra funding as part of a package, and that the number of cases issued by Local Authorities should not be influenced by the cost of bringing them to court.

This fee rise was introduced with a whole range of measures attempting to address child protection issues before the need for court proceedings arose, thereby relieving pressure on the courts and social services, saving money, and keeping children within their families.

These fee rises were, and still are, an area of major controversy. In fact, just last week a legal challenge over increased court fees for public law childcare applications and placement order applications has been dismissed by the High Court. Hillingdon Council, Liverpool City Council, Leeds City Council and Norfolk County Council sought a judicial review after claiming that the raised fees could put funding for other children's services at risk. But on 6 November three High Court judges dismissed the application.

It is not known whether Haringey considered taking legal proceedings in respect of removing Baby P from his mother’s care. As practitioners we have expressed concern that in reporting this case, no mention has been made about care proceedings.

Baby P tragically died in 2007, before the fee increases were implemented.
Whilst it is only speculation, we cannot fail to wonder whether, if proceedings were not issued in a case as serious as this, with fees at only in the region of £100, how many fewer cases will in reality try to be sorted by underfunded Social Services who don’t want to pay a £2225.00 issue fee.

What can be certain is that we all as practitioners need to look very carefully at the case of Baby P and, regardless of resources, ensure that vulnerable children and families are safe.

Melanie Sharples
Trainee Solicitor