Sophie Child Abuse

1859 Words4 Pages

Every parent is obliged to promote the welfare of their children in everyday basis. Unfortunately, not all families follow that, as a result to require the state to intervene, which is the last resort. It is accepted that parents are left alone to find solutions for their children, but if they do not, Local Authority (“LA”) will become involved if a child is suffering harm. On the scenario, Vicky does not promote the welfare of Sophie, and Melanie is required to intervene, if Sophie is suffering harm. One of the greatest powers that the state has, is to remove children from their families. The issue of child’ abuse is a major issue, after the scandal of ‘Baby Peter’ which the child was not properly protected by his abusive parents and died. …show more content…

By defining abuse, it is reasonable to be wide to include varied possible cases of child abuse. Otherwise, if it was narrow, it may weaken the protection to children. Child abuse is divided into physical, emotional, sexual and neglect. Sophie was observed to be neglected, meanwhile, she was attending the nursery without any breakfast. She was not playing and interacting with the other children which is part of an emotional condition. Similarly, Sophie observed to be physically abused as she has bruises. Therefore, CA gives specific circumstances in which LA must investigate child’s well-being and direct them to investigate. The court has no jurisdiction to prevent LA working on investigation duties, and not to contrast LA’s investigation. Conclusively, Melanie has the right to investigate Vicky’s house and identify whether Sophie is a child in need. If an investigation is successful, then she is allowed to apply to one of the possible short-term orders, which are Child Assessment Order (“CAO”), Emergency Protection Order (“EPO”), and Interim Care Order (“ICO”) for Sophie’s best …show more content…

ICO is appropriate on these sort of cases and applied after an EPO completed. An amendment to CA formed, therefore, the time period of eight weeks has been abolished and the child can remain in place until the care proceedings finished. This order can be made if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the threshold criteria and s.1 are met. LA must have reasonable grounds that the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. LA requires PR and may move the child with temporary foster parents or with relatives, if their safety demands it. A medical examination can be directed from the court, if it is necessary, and for those children who are Gillick competent and refuse the examination, LA can use warship to override child’s refusal. The aim of this order is to keep children safe until an application for full care order can be

Open Document