NEWS | More than 50 Children in Birmingham State Care-Homes have runaway due to Harm &/or Abuse

Jeanette Oldham | Birmingham MAIL | Articles | 18 Jan 2013
(article last updated 11:53)

More than 50 Birmingham children who went missing were feared to have suffered harm or sexual abuse, the Mail can reveal today.

Birmingham City Council disclosed a total of 55 youngsters were believed to have been harmed, sparking a referral to social workers and, potentially, the police, since 2009.

Last November, the Mail revealed a total of 5,794 youngsters had gone missing from state-run and private care homes in Birmingham over that period.

The city council refused at the time to say how many of those children were suspected to have been harmed or subjected to sexual offences during their absence.

But it has now revealed the figure of 55 after being repeatedly pressed on the subject by this newspaper.

Our original investigation also uncovered that the authority’s children’s services department, already in special measures, was breaking government orders by not offering ‘return interviews’ to all runaways, a requirement since 2009.

The council is currently employing two charities to help meet its statutory obligations, costing the taxpayer almost £100,000 in 2012.

The 55 cases included 13 referrals to social workers following return interviews carried out by the Children’s Society on behalf of the authority in 2009 and another 15 in 2010.

But in 2011, when Lotto funding used to pay for the interviews dried up, only two referrals were made.

In 2012, when the council started to pay the charity to conduct interviews, 25 referrals were made because of abuse fears.

Despite the figures unearthed by the Mail, the council awarded itself a score of 12 out of a possible 15 marks in 2010, the last year authorities were allowed to self-assess their performance in safeguarding missing children.

That rating was questioned by Andy McCullough, head of strategy and policy at charity Railway Children, which fights to protect street kids.

He said: “These figures make uncomfortable reading as there is clear evidence between sexual exploitation and instances of young people going missing, particularly on multiple occasions.

“What you have unearthed is a discrepancy between what a local authority is doing to protect vulnerable missing children at risk of abuse and what it says it is doing. When compelled under the Freedom of Information Act, local authorities are admitting they have broken government orders by not carrying out return interviews, despite the fact they have been required to do so since 2009.”

In a statement, Birmingham City Council said: “The Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board ensures that all agencies work together to share information regarding missing children and to assess risk level.

“We also work closely with voluntary organisations such as the Children’s Society who visit families to discuss problems and look at what help they may need and, if necessary, make a referral to a statutory agency.”

The Mail’s investigation also revealed other councils across the Midlands were failing to interview returning runaways.

Wolverhampton City Council recorded 1,112 missing children reports between 2009 and 2012 but carried out only 67 return interviews – meaning potential abuse cases may have been missed.

The authority received £15,000 in charitable funding to fund the interviews from April 2009 to March 2010, but failed to conduct any during the whole of 2009.

In 2010 it completed 52, despite recording 302 missing kids that year.

And only 30 of the 52 interviews were carried out within 72 hours of the youngsters’ return, in line with statutory requirements.

After the external funding dried up, the authority had to pay for the crucial interviews itself. But it carried out just five in 2011 and 12 last year. The council was unable to provide information for the number of children believed to have been harmed or subjected to sexual offences in the past four years.

But one child was recorded missing from local authority care 64 times between 2009 and 2011.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council recorded 1,791 missing children reports since 2009 but did not carry out any return interviews between 2009 and 2010, nor any in the financial year 2011-12.

A total of 35 were conducted in 2010-11 and 74 between April and October last year, including with two children who had been harmed while they were missing.

Of the four children’s homes in Dudley, one recorded that children had gone missing on 1,157 separate occasions between 2009 and 2012.

Sandwell Borough Council said it did not hold information for the total number of missing children reports between 2009 and 2011.

Since the it has now recorded 343 runaways from care and home since January 2012. Sandwell Council said it had never carried out return interviews and claimed the police performed that duty.

But police conduct ‘safe and well’ checks while local authorities are required to complete return interviews.

In Walsall, just two children were recorded as going missing from foster care for a period of less than 24 hours in 2009, but that rocketed to 56 in 2011.

Nine kids went missing from residential care homes for less than 24 hours in 2009, rising to 33 the following year, before falling to 29 in 2011.

to view this article directly from Birmingham Mail’s online News Articles, you can click on the hyperlink below

Birmingham Mail | investigation into LA runaways exposes 50+ Care Home Kids left due to abuse

Doctor struck off for abusing boys

Wednesday September 26, 2012, [as reported] by TARIQ TAHIR

A FORMER doctor at Great Ormond Street children’s hospital has been struck off the medical register after being found guilty of molesting boys.

Prof Philipp Bonhoeffer was judged by a tribunal panel to have acted inappropriately towards children in Kenya and France.

He was dismissed by the London hospital in 2010.

A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel yesterday ruled his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and decided to strike his name from the register.

Bonhoeffer’s actions were ‘calculated, deplorable and an abuse of his special position of trust,’ the panel ruled.

The cardiologist sexually touched a boy in France in 1997 and abused youngsters for more than 15 years while carrying out medical work for a charity in Kenya, the panel heard. Bonhoeffer was employed by Great Ormond Street in 2001 as a consultant cardiologist. In 2002, he became head of cardiology until his dismissal.

Panel chairman David Kyle said: ‘Prof Bonhoeffer has been found to have persistently exploited vulnerable young boys over an extended period of time with sexual motivation.

‘The panel has concluded his conduct is not merely unacceptable — it is fundamentally incompatible with continued medical registration.’

The panel’s decision was welcomed by the General Medical Council.

The doctor did not attend the panel hearing in Manchester or submit any evidence, but a statement from his lawyers said he denied the allegations made against him.

It went on: ‘He has no intention of resuming the practice of medicine in the United Kingdom.’

Aussie Gov Apologises for Forced Adoptions

The TELEGRAPH (Australia)
Breaking National News

NSW govt to apologise over forced adoption
by: By Lema Samandar From: AAP August 21, 2012 4:27PM
NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell says an official apology to victims of forced adoption won’t change the past but it might ease the pain of mothers whose babies were taken.

An estimated 150,000 Australian babies born between the 1950s and 70s were taken from their mostly young and single mothers.

Mr O’Farrell told parliament it was hard to imagine the grief and trauma of the mothers.

“An apology for the women, the children, the fathers and the families of NSW, who were adversely affected by the practice of forced adoption, has been a long time coming,” he said during question time on Tuesday.

“It is time to face the past and reflect on those unlawful and unethical actions.

“It’s time to try and ease the pain of those affected.

“We can’t change what happened but we can recognise it did occur.”

The apology will be delivered during a joint sitting of NSW Parliament in September.

Advertisement

Labor has offered its bipartisan support for the apology.

“This is a significant step for the women and children who, in many cases, were put through unimaginable and lifelong trauma,” opposition leader John Robertson said in a statement.

Christine Cole, the convenor of Apology Alliance Australia, which represents survivors of forced adoption, said her baby was taken from her because she was unmarried.

“It left me scarred for the rest of my life,” she told ABC Radio.

A federal Senate report, released in February, recommended that Australian governments formally apologise to mothers and children who were victims of past forced adoption practices.

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill issued a parliamentary apology in July while his Victorian counterpart Ted Baillieu earlier this month flagged an apology for past injustices.

The Western Australian government has already apologised and the Commonwealth is planning a similar parliamentary motion.

A NSW parliamentary inquiry into forced adoptions was held in 1998.

Posted using Tinydesk Writer iPhone app

Child abuse loophole to be closed

Child abuse loophole to be closed.

Ministry of Justice

Child abuse loophole to be closed

22 June 2011

A legal loophole that could allow those who physically abuse children or vulnerable adults to escape justice is to be closed, the Government announced today.

There is already an offence (Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004) which makes it a criminal offence to cause or allow the death of a child or vulnerable adult. It was used successfully to prosecute Baby P’s mother, boyfriend and lodger – where it was clear one of them caused Peter’s death, but police could not prove which of them was directly responsible. As a result they were all found guilty of causing or allowing his death.

However, causing serious physical harm, short of death, is not covered by this offence- meaning that those responsible could evade justice. That is why the Government has announced that it is backing Sir Paul Beresford’s Private Members’ Bill which will fill this gap in the law and help to ensure that some of the most vulnerable members of society are kept safe.

Justice Minister Crispin Blunt said:

‘The Government intends to close the gap in the law which allows those who harm children and vulnerable adults to escape unpunished. We want to do everything possible to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society are kept safe in their homes and those that abuse their power do not evade justice.

‘This is why we are giving Sir Paul Beresford’s Bill our backing.’

The new offence will be used in cases where a child or vulnerable adult is deliberately seriously harmed and it is clear that one of a closed group of people has inflicted the injuries, but there is not enough evidence to prove who is responsible. This loophole in the law has enabled those who injure a child or vulnerable adult to escape justice by remaining silent or by blaming or lying for each other.

CPS data suggests there were more than 20 cases in 2010 where children and vulnerable adults have been seriously injured – broken bones, brain injuries – while their attacker has walked free. This new legislation will stop this injustice.

Notes to editors

1.  For more information, please contact the Ministry of Justice press office on 02033343528.

Case study

Below is information from the CPS regarding cases where children were seriously harmed but no successful prosecution could be brought. We believe the proposed new offence would have allowed the CPS to prosecute these cases.

No one has been charged with causing the injuries in these cases, which are believed to be non-accidental.

• The injuries inflicted on a two-week-old baby were:
• • Multiple fractures to left clavicle, left tibia, 6th, 7th, and 8th ribs;
  • Multiple bruises to left side of the upper neck, left cheek;  left side of the face, left side of forehead;  upper and lower eyelid;
  • Swelling/redness/ tenderness to the left clavicle region, lower leg;
  • Haemangioma on the back of the head.
• The injuries discovered to a six month old child were:
• • An arm fractured in two places, one is a displaced fracture;
  • Fractured clavicle; and
  • Two ribs fractured.

Facts and figures

• Sir Paul Beresford’s Private Members’ Bill which would extend the existing offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult (in section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004) to cover cases of causing or allowing serious harm (equivalent to grievous bodily harm) to a child or vulnerable adult.
• The committee stage of this Bill will take place today (Wednesday 22 June).
• CPS data suggests there is a real gap in the law in serious injury cases.  Chief Crown Prosecutors in six CPS areas identified 20 potential cases involving children and three involving vulnerable adults in 2010 which could not be prosecuted under existing legislation but which they believe could have been prosecuted under the proposed new offence.
• Between 2005-2008, the existing offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult has seen 17 people successfully prosecuted.
• To ensure that the maximum penalty for causing or allowing serious harm is proportionate when considered against both the maximum penalties for causing or allowing death and against other offences of serious harm, the Government is proposing a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

Violence against young children rises by 20 per cent | Children & Young People Now

Violence against young children rises by 20 per cent | Children & Young People Now.</p>

By Joe Lepper Tuesday, 19 April 2011

The number of children under 11 who are treated in hospital after being assaulted has risen by 20 per cent in the past year, according to latest research. A rising number of assaults on young children comes in contrast to other age groups, where the number of incidents fell. Image: Morgue File A rising number of assaults on young children comes in contrast to other age groups, where the number of incidents fell.

This follows an increase of eight per cent in violence-related injuries among this age group recorded between 2008 and 2009. The figures are released annually by Cardiff University’s Violence and Society Research Group and are based on data from 59 emergency departments and minor injury units in England and Wales. The group’s director Professor Jonathan Shepherd said the latest figures show a “disturbing upward trend in violence against children”. He said: “The figures highlight the need for child safeguarding to remain a national priority.” He also hopes that the Munro Review into child protection ensures action is taken to improve the quality of safeguarding services. The increase in violence-related injuries against young children comes in contrast to other age groups, where the number of incidents fell. During 2010, 313,033 people in England and Wales needed treatment following an assault, a 10.8 per cent drop on figures released in 2009. There were particularly large falls among teenagers and young adults, although those in the 18 to 30 age group continue to be the most likely victims. Violence-related injuries sustained by 11- to 17-year-olds dropped by 16.5 per cent between 2009 and 2010. Professor Shepherd added that this decrease in violence against teenagers has been happening for several years. More targeted policing and the creation of crime prevention partnerships have been key factors in this decline, he added.

Children in care – The Department for Education

Children in care – The Department for Education.

About children in care

Children in the care of local authorities are one of the most vulnerable groups in society. The majority of children in care are there because they have suffered abuse or neglect. At any one time around 60,000 children are looked after in England (of whom some 59 per cent are subject to care orders). Some 90,000 children are looked after at some point in any one year.

The Government wants every child in care to grow up safe, happy, healthy, secure and loved. This is the only way they will be able to fulfill their potential.

The term ‘looked after children’ includes:

• Those children who are in care through a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989
• Those accommodated on a voluntary basis through an agreement with their parents under section 20 of that Act, or agreement with of the child if they are over 16.
• Children placed away from home under an emergency protection order
• Children on police protection/remand/detention (section 21 of the Children Act)

How are they cared for?

• Most looked after children are in foster care (73 per cent)
• Some 10 per cent are in children’s homes
• The rest are cared for in a number of different settings including residential schools and placement with parents.

Young Person’s Guide to Being in Care

The Who Cares? Trust, working with the Department, has produced a guide for young people on being in care.

This is available as a series of pages on Who Cares? Trust, a website for young people

What is the difference between safeguarding and child protection?

General article

Updated: 22 March 2011               [click on title above for direct link]

Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is defined as:

• protecting children from maltreatment
• preventing impairment of children’s health or development
• ensuring children are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care.

Child protection is a part of safeguarding and promoting welfare. It refers to the activity that is undertaken to protect specific children who are suffering, or are likely to suffer, significant harm.

Effective child protection is essential as part of wider work to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However, all agencies and individuals should aim to proactively safeguard and promote the welfare of children so that the need for action to protect children from harm is reduced.

Child protection: Role of LA Children’s Social Care

[click on title above for direct link]

The Director of Children’s Services, under section 18 of the Children Act 2004 has responsibility for ensuring that a local authority meets their specific duties to organise and plan services and to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Each local authority is responsible for establishing a Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) in their area and ensuring it is run effectively. An LSCB can cover more than one local authority area.

Social workers take a lead role in:

• responding to children and families in need of support and help
• undertaking enquiries following allegations or suspicion of abuse
• undertaking initial assessments and core assessments as part of the Assessment Framework
• convening strategy meetings and initial and subsequent child-protection conferences
• court action to safeguard and protect children
• coordinating the implementation of the child protection plan for children on the child protection register
• looking after and planning for children in the care of the council
• ensuring that looked-after children are safeguarded in a foster family, children’s home or other placement.

 

You may also be interested in

[Click on title for link to to article]

• Safeguarding child performers
• Photographic images and the press
• Guidance on the use of images for publicity
• Child-protection policy example
• Professor Eileen Munro talks about child protection
• Interim report of Munro review published

MPs: Child welfare body not fit for purpose after Baby P

[London Evening Standard November 11 2010]

The body responsible for looking after the interests of vulnerable children in the family courts was exposed as “not fit for purpose” in the wake of a large rise in cases following the Baby P tragedy, MPs said today.

'Baby P' suffered unspeakable abuse prior to his death

Children suffered as the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) “failed to get to grips with fundamental weaknesses in its culture, management and performance” following a 34% increase in its caseload, leading to “chaos across the family justice system”.

“These problems have been to the detriment of children”, the report by the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found.

Margaret Hodge, the committee’s chairwoman, said: “Cafcass was ill-prepared for the very large increase in care cases in 2009-10 which followed the Baby Peter tragedy and caused chaos in the family justice system.

“This lack of readiness was a direct result of the organisation’s continued failure to get to grips with the fundamental weaknesses in its culture, management and performance.

“It is still dealing with a legacy of low morale, unacceptably high levels of sickness absence and under-performance by some staff.”

Baby P, now named as Peter Connelly, was 17 months old when he died in Tottenham, north London, at the hands of his mother Tracey Connelly, her violent partner Steven Barker and his brother, Jason Owen, in August 2007.

He suffered more than 50 injuries despite receiving 60 visits from social workers, doctors and police over an eight-month period.

The case prompted a 34% rise in cases for Cafcass in 2009/10, the MPs found, and the body was only able to respond to the demand through the use of measures “which allowed it to do less work or to delay work on cases”.

“Cafcass, as an organisation, is not fit for purpose”, the committee said.

While the specific impact of the Baby Peter tragedy was “hard to predict”, the possibility of a sustained increase in cases “was a scenario that Cafcass should have planned for”.

But “Cafcass did not see the crisis coming, nor did it have a contingency plan in the event of a significant increase in demand”, the committee said.

Cafcass has also taken “too long to secure essential changes, and much of the responsibility lies with top management”.

“It is shocking that Cafcass has not previously collected all the information it needs to manage its workload more effectively,” the committee said.

Low compliance by staff with important requirements was “a persistent problem” which undermined the body’s efforts to improve, the MPs added.

There was also a risk that the number of unallocated cases could return to the “unacceptable levels seen in summer 2009”.

Cafcass was still not providing a timely service, eight out of 10 Cafcass areas failed Ofsted inspections, and the committee “does not share the Department for Education’s confidence that all will be well by 2011”, Mrs Hodge said.

“The failure to provide an effective service cannot be blamed solely on the rise in public care cases since 2008,” she said.

“Top management must demonstrate and exercise strong and vigorous leadership if Cafcass is to meet the challenges it faces.”

The report added: “Cafcass also faces the challenge of dealing with the relentless rise in open cases that is putting pressure on all organisations working in the family justice system.

“Renewed energy and vigour are needed to sort this situation out if Cafcass is to become the world-class organisation it aspires to be.”

Cafcass took an average of 27 days to fully allocate a care case to a family court adviser, down from up to 40 days between September 2009 and June 2010, but “still well above what it should be”, the report found.

It added that data which Cafcass holds on cases centrally “contains inaccuracies”.

And sickness absence was “unacceptably high”, with an average of 11.6 days per staff member in 2009-10 and 16.1 days for family court advisers, compared with the public sector average of 8.3 days in 2009.

Cafcass said it had taken “robust action” to improve the service.

Chief executive Anthony Douglas said: “We will take heed of the PAC findings, and we will continue to defend the interests of the 140,000 children who we work with each year, each of whose cases is unique and many of whose lives we improve as a direct result of our involvement.”

He went on: “Cafcass is fit for purpose because we have absorbed a massive number of new cases in the last 12 months and have improved our productivity by 17%, which is a performance any organisation would be proud of.

“We have improved on every measure considered by the PAC and the National Audit Office, including falling staff sickness, faster filing times of court reports and quicker allocation of cases.”

Related Articles

• Social services took my children (telegraph.co.uk)
• Fathers’ Rights in the United States (parenting-success.com)
• The most violent act of state kidnapping? 13-months-baby torn from mother’s breast at 4.30am Sunday morning (edm1297.info)
• 13 Week Old Baby Wrenched From Breast of South Wales Mother at 0430 Sunday Morning by Swansea Social Services in Ammonford Police Station (alisonsgypt.wordpress.com)
• Children’s Human Rights (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)

Practice Direction: Allocation & Transfer of Proceedings

Practice Direction: Allocation & Transfer of proceedings issued on 3 November 2008

1.1 This Practice Direction is given by the President of the Family Division under the powers delegated to him by the Lord Chief Justice under paragraph 2(2) of part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and is agreed by the Lord Chancellor.

1.2 The objective of this Practice Direction is to ensure that the criteria for the transfer of proceedings are applied in such a way that proceedings are heard at the appropriate level of court, that the capacity of magistrates’ courts is properly utilised and that proceedings are only dealt with in the High Court if the relevant criteria are met.

1.3 This Practice Direction will come into effect on 25 November 2008. Where practicable, it applies to proceedings started before but not concluded by 25 November. The Practice Directions of 5 June 1992 (distribution of business) and 22 February 1993 (applications under the Children Act 1989 by children) are revoked except that they will continue to apply to any proceedings to which it is not practicable to apply this Practice Direction.

1.4 A reference to an article is a reference to the article so numbered in the Allocation and Transfer of Proceedings Order 2008.

Part 1
2 This Part of this Practice Direction applies to all family proceedings (whether or not the Allocation and Transfer of Proceedings Order 2008 applies to such proceedings).

Timing and continuing review of decision on appropriate venue
3.1 The issue as to which court is the most appropriate hearing venue must be addressed by the court speedily as soon as there is sufficient information to determine whether the case meets the criteria for hearing in that court. This information may come to light before, during or after the first hearing. It must then be kept under effective review at all times; it should not be assumed that proceedings will necessarily remain in the court in which they were started or to which they have been transferred. For example proceedings that have been transferred to a county court because one or more of the criteria in article 15 applies should be transferred back to the magistrates’ court if the reason for transfer falls away. Conversely, an unforeseen late complication may require a transfer from a magistrates’ court to a county court.

3.2 Where a court is determining where the proceedings ought to be heard it will consider all relevant information including that given by the applicant either in the application form or otherwise, for example in any request for proceedings to be transferred to another magistrates’ court or to a county court under rule 6 of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991.

Timeliness
4.1 Article 13 and paragraph 12.1 require the court to have regard to delay. Therefore the listing availability of the court in which the proceedings have been started and in neighbouring magistrates’ courts and county courts must always be ascertained before deciding where proceedings should be heard.

4.2 If a magistrates’ court is considering transferring proceedings to a county court or a county court is considering transferring proceedings to the High Court but that decision is finely balanced, the proceedings should not be transferred if the transfer would lead to delay. Conversely, if the High Court is considering transferring proceedings to a county court or a county court is considering transferring proceedings to a magistrates’ court but that decision is finely balanced, the proceedings should be transferred if retaining them would lead to delay.

4.3 Transferring proceedings may mean that there will be a short delay in the proceedings being heard since the papers may need to be sent to the court to which they are being transferred. The court will determine whether the delay is significant, taking into account the circumstances of the case and with reference to the interests of the child.

4.4 While there is no express reference in the Allocation and Transfer of Proceedings Order 2008 or in Part 3 of this Practice Direction to the length of the hearing or to judicial continuity such issues may be relevant.

Transfer of proceedings to or from the High Court
5.1 A court will take into account the following factors (which are not exhaustive) when considering whether the criteria in articles 7 or 18 or paragraph 11.2 or 12.3 apply, such that the proceedings ought to be heard in the High Court-

(1) there is alleged to be a risk that a child concerned in the proceedings will suffer
serious physical or emotional harm in the light of –

(a) the death of another child in the family, a parent or any other material person; or
(b) the fact that a parent or other material person may have committed a grave crime, for example, murder, manslaughter or rape,
in particular where the essential factual framework is in dispute or there are issues over the causation of injuries or a material conflict of expert evidence;

(2) the application concerns medical treatment for a child which involves a risk to the child’s physical or emotional health which goes beyond the normal risks of routine medical treatment;

(3) an adoption order is sought in relation to a child who has been adopted abroad in a country whose adoption orders are not recognised in England and Wales;

(4) an adoption order is sought in relation to a child who has been brought into the United Kingdom in circumstances where section 83 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 applies and

(a) the person bringing the child, or causing the child to be brought-
(i) has not complied with any requirement imposed by regulations made under section 83(4); or
(ii) has not met any condition required to be met by regulations made under section 83(5) within the required time; or
(b) there are complicating features in relation to the application;

(5) it is likely that the proceedings will set a significant new precedent or alter existing principles of common law;

(6) where periodical payments, a lump sum or transfer of property are an issue-

(a) the capital value of the assets involved and the extent to which they are
available for, or susceptible to, distribution or adjustment;
(b) any substantial allegations of fraud or deception or non-disclosure;
(c) any substantial contested allegations of conduct.

5.2 The following proceedings are likely to fall within the criteria for hearing in the High Court unless the nature of the issues of fact or law raised in the proceedings may make them more suitable to be dealt with in a county court-

(1) proceedings involving a contested issue of domicile;

(2) applications to restrain a respondent from taking or continuing with foreign proceedings;

(3) suits in which the Queen’s Proctor intervenes or shows cause and elects trial in the High Court;

(4) proceedings in which an application is opposed on the grounds of want of jurisdiction;

(5) proceedings in which there is a complex foreign element or where the court has invited submissions to be made under Article 11 (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility;

(6) proceedings in which there is an application to remove a child permanently or temporarily from the jurisdiction to a non-Hague Convention country.

(7) interlocutory applications involving-

(a) search orders; or
(b) directions as to dealing with assets out of the jurisdiction.

5.3 Proceedings will not normally be suitable to be dealt with in the High Court merely because of any of the following-

(1) intractable problems with regard to contact;

(2) sexual abuse;

(3) injury to a child which is neither life-threatening nor permanently disabling;

(4) routine neglect, even if it spans many years and there is copious documentation;

(5) temporary or permanent removal to a Hague Convention country;

(6) standard human rights issues;

(7) uncertainty as to immigration status;

(8) the celebrity of the parties;

(9) the anticipated length of the hearing;

(10) the quantity of evidence;

(11) the number of experts;

(12) the possible availability of a speedier hearing.

5.4 A substantial reason for starting proceedings in the High Court will only exist where the nature of the proceedings or the issues raised are such that they ought to be heard in the High Court. Where proceedings have been started in the High Court under article 7(c) or paragraph 11.2(4) and the High Court considers that there is no substantial reason for them to have been started there, the High Court will transfer the proceedings to a county court or a magistrates’ court and may make any orders about costs which it considers appropriate.

Part 2
6 This Part of this Practice Direction applies to family proceedings to which the Allocation and Transfer of Proceedings Order 2008 applies.

Transfer of proceedings from one magistrates’ court to another or from one county court to another
7 Where a magistrates’ court is considering transferring proceedings to another magistrates’ court or a county court is considering transferring proceedings to another county court, the court will take into account the following factors (which are not exhaustive) when considering whether it would be more convenient for the parties for the proceedings to be dealt with by the other court-

(1) the fact that a party is ill or suffers a disability which could make it inconvenient to attend at a particular court;
(2) the fact that the child lives in the area of the other court;
(3) the need to avoid delay.

Transfer of proceedings from a magistrates’ court to a county court
8.1 Where a magistrates’ court is considering whether one or more of the criteria in article 15(1) (except article 15(1)(g) and (h)) apply such that the proceedings ought to be heard in the county court, the magistrates’ court will first consider whether another magistrates’ court would have suitable experience to deal with the issues which have given rise to consideration of article 15. If so, the magistrates’ court will then consider whether the proceedings could be dealt with more quickly or within the same time if they were transferred to the other magistrates’ court rather than a county court. If so, the magistrates’ court will transfer the proceedings to the other magistrates’ court rather than a county court.

8.2 A magistrates’ court may only transfer proceedings to a county court under article 15(1 )(a) if it considers that the transfer will significantly accelerate the determination of the proceedings. Before considering a transfer on this ground, the magistrates’ court must obtain information about the hearing dates available in other magistrates’ courts and in the relevant county court. The fact that a hearing could be arranged in a county court at an earlier date than in any appropriate magistrates’ court does not by itself justify the transfer of proceedings under article 15(1 )(a); the question of whether
the determination of the proceedings would be significantly accelerated must be considered in the light of all the circumstances.

Transfer of proceedings from a county court to a magistrates’ court
9.1 A county court must transfer to a magistrates’ court under article 16(1) proceedings that have previously been transferred under article 15(1) where the county court considers that none of the criteria in article 15(1) apply. In particular, proceedings transferred to a county court by a magistrates’ court for resolution of a single issue, for example, use of the inherent powers of the High Court in respect of medical testing of a child or disclosure of information by HM Revenue and Customs, should be transferred back to the magistrates’ court once the issue has been resolved.

9.2 Subject to articles 5(3), 6, 8 and 13 and paragraphs 4 and 12.1, straightforward proceedings for-

(1) a residence order;
(2) a contact order;
(3) a prohibited steps order;
(4) a specific issue order;
(5) a special guardianship order; or
(6) an order under Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 which are started in a county court should be transferred to a magistrates’ court if the county court considers that none of the criteria in article 15(1 )(b) to (i) apply to those proceedings.

Part 3
10 This Part of this Practice Direction applies to any family proceedings to which the Allocation and Transfer of Proceedings Order 2008 does not apply.

Starting proceedings
11.1 Subject to paragraph 11.2, family proceedings must be started in a county court.

11.2 Family proceedings may be started in the High Court only if-

(1) the proceedings are exceptionally complex;
(2) the outcome of the proceedings is important to the public in general;
(3) an enactment or rule requires the proceedings to be started in the High Court; or
(4) there is another substantial reason for starting the proceedings in the High Court.

Transferring proceedings
12.1 When making any decision about the transfer of proceedings the court must have regard to the need to avoid delay in the proceedings.

12.2 A county court will take into account the following factors (which are not exhaustive) when considering whether to transfer proceedings to another county court-

(1) whether the transfer will significantly accelerate the determination of the proceedings;
(2) whether it is more convenient for the parties for the proceedings to be dealt with by another county court; and
(3) whether there is another good reason for the proceedings to be transferred.

12.3 A county court will take into account the following factors (which are not exhaustive) when considering whether to transfer proceedings to the High Court-

(1) whether the proceedings are exceptionally complex;
(2) whether the outcome of the proceedings is important to the public in general;
(3) whether an enactment or rule requires the proceedings to be dealt with in the High Court; and
(4) whether there is another substantial reason for the proceedings to be transferred.

12.4 The High Court will also take into account the factors in paragraph 12.3 when considering whether to transfer proceedings to a county court.

Mark Potter
The Right Honourable
Sir Mark Potter
The President of the Family Division

By authority of the Lord Chancellor
Bridget Prentice MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice

Issued on 3 November 2008

See originating website: to visit my other page, just click link below

Related Articles

• Family lawyers hail new code – Thursday January 13, 2011 (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)
• *NEW* Family Law Procedure 2010 (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)