Hailed as 'the most radical piece of legislation to affect child care to date' the Children's Act claims to be an innovation and many predict that it will revolutionise child care law. But is it really such a radical step? Here KATE AHRENS looks at the act and examines its implications. THE CHILDREN'S Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation which formalises what has always been seen as 'good practice' in social work circles, providing parents with rights to challenge care orders, and encouraging voluntary agreements between parents and social workers.
It also introduces mechanisms for children to take steps in court cases - widely explained as 'expanding' children's rights.
Under the Act, court orders must be justified as part of a general plan for the family involved - it is no longer possible (in theory) to apply for an order and then think about the longer term problems. Every action must be with the 'chil's wellare paramount.
"The chid's welfare' is a phrase much applauded by individuals 'concerned" with the existing struc tures, but it is a dangerous one. The Act doesnt allow chidren to determine how to protect their own wetfare, bui leaves it to social workers in consultation with parents.
And how often has its for their own good been used to justily such things as corporal punishment, lock. ing children and young people up and National Service? Not everyone would agree that those actions were best for the children involved.
Although the Act has been described as expanding children's rights, in realty, it makes very ittle difference to the choices open to Children (who are considered mentally mature enough) can now argue for contact orders with their parents whilst in care. They can chal lenge emergency protection orders and push for the ending of care orders.
These measures wil serve only to increase the pressure on children. Now parents, social workers, and the courts will have added reason to persuade children to take a certain course of action which they, not the children, consider to be in that child's best interests.
The aim of the Act is in fact to re-entrench the family as the unit of wellare in society. Most of the chan ges such as the right to challenge care orders alter 72 hours are designed to reduce intervention by the state. Working class kids: are the Tores really on their side?
But even at this it will fail. The lack of resources available from the govemment wil mean that much of the Act wil not be effective. Sections relating to care orders are so vaguely and ambiguously worded they leave considerable room for interpretation by judges and lawyers in the end, the only real effect wil be to change the jargon used by the the child care estab lishment. And the next 'scandal" over child abuse cases will be used by a whole new layer of "concerned" politicians to argue for further cosmetic changes.
23rd November 10-5 Wesley House, 4 Wild Court, London WCI
International News Wie Loton