Tag Archives: children act

The Children App

Some time ago I was playing with my iPhone, wondering what apps I could justifiably claim as tax deductable, when I chanced across the Child Law App published by Stroika and subtitled ‘The Pocket Lawyer Guide to Child Law‘  (at the time of my download this pocket lawyer guide was listed on cantaffordalawyer.com as one of their ‘Pocket Lawyer’ series, created on their behalves by pixidapps.co.uk, but it has now mysteriously disappeared from both websites). Since it came at the negligible price of 59p I thought I would install it on my phone for the purposes of reviewing it at some later date. Finally, I have got round to posting about this.

.

Contrary to the pre-download blurb, my opinion is that the Child Law App is difficult to navigate and not at all intuitive (which I have to say is an impressive achievement for an iPhone app). It seems to be essentially based on a relatively dense paper format, using chapter headings and sub headings as navigation and indexing and adding a pretty basic  search function. It has dimensions which would be more appropriate for a book than the shape of an iPhone screen meaning that by the time the text is large enough to read it is running off the side of the screen, even when in landscape mode.

.

The pre-download info suggests this app contains ‘invaluable information for every parent’ and that it will be ‘of great assistance to anyone working with children, family lawyers and law students’.  But having looked at it I don’t really know who this app would genuinely benefit. Not legal professionals who one would hope had learnt all the basic information in it before resorting to desperately scrolling through an iPhone app in the court toilets for salvation. Not litigants in person, who would find it inaccessible and not easy to apply to their own circumstances. This type of information has it’s place, but it’s not the sort of practical information you’d want at your fingertips in mobile format for quick reference. But then that’s the trick with apps – you pays your 59p you takes your chances.

.

I noticed that at the head of each page there is the heading ‘The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations – Volume 1 – Court Orders’ which did not correspond to the title of the app, and I wondered to myself if this was simply a scanned version of a printed publication available elsewhere? I did not see it at the time I downloaded, but the pre-download information now says that this application ‘draws directly upon the guidance published by the DCSF – The Children Act 1989, Guidance and Regulations – Volume 1 – Court Orders‘. However a quick search on Amazon had already revealed as much when a quick go on this app left me with the distinct impression that this was no more than a pdf version of the some hard copy publication viewable on a very teeny weeny scale. What is noteworthy from Amazon is that the chapter headings in the table of contents are identical to those in the app, with the exception of chapters 4 and 5 which appear in reverse order. However the numbering used in the app is identical to the numbering in the original publication, albeit that the numbers appear out of sequence (i.e. the fourth chapter in the app is called ‘Chapter 5 – Secure’ which corresponds with Chapter 5 in the DCSF publication). Which rather suggests that this app does more than ‘draw directly’ upon the guidance. However, I’m not going to waste another £15 on buying the DCSF publication and comparing it word for word just to make a point (even if it is tax deductable) – even at 59p I don’t really think this one is value for money. I certainly can’t see anything in this app that one couldn’t get from the original DCSF book (probably in your local library) or free off the internet.

.

It isn’t even an accurate statement of the current law (probably because it draws directly on a publication that is 2 years old), stating incorrectly that the route of appeal from the family proceedings court (magistrates court) is to the High Court, when an appeal now lies to the County Court (as of April 2009, 2 months before this app was even published). Routes of appeal might have been the one thing that inexperienced advocates or litigants in person might have wanted to quickly look up whilst at court, and it isn’t even accurate. Which for what purports to be a legal guide is a pretty fundamental flaw.

.

Although this app is still for sale (search the apps store for ‘child law’) it is no longer showing as a product on cantaffordalawyer.com or on pixidapps.co.uk. I wonder if this is because they have run into copyright problems or for some other reason. Whatever the reason I wouldn’t waste your 59p on this. Beware of this app – or of any lawyer you see relying on an iPhone app for legal research!

.

Best iPhone apps at AppStoreHQ

Reporting the Reporter

I have a current bugbear, but don’t get me wrong: I don’t want to add to the mass of negativity surrounding the dread word ‘social worker’. This post really only concerns the cases where the quality of s7 reports prepared by social workers in private proceedings falls far short of the expected standard. Most reports are adequate, many are much more than adequate. But there is a certain (how shall I say it?) patchiness.

.

Even Forrest Gump knows that s7 reports are like a box of chocolates (you never know whatchu gonna git – are you going to get the truffle, or the orange creme nobody wants? Apologies for the naff analogy but it’s nearly time to knock off for the hols and a big tin of Christmas chocs is beckoning…) As for s7 reports, I’ve had a few orange cremes lately, and whilst I am the kind of social outcast who is happy to scoff all the orange cremes at the bottom of the tin (I love ’em), when it comes to duff s7 reports there is an important point of policy beneath that sparkly foil wrapping (Okay, enough of the analogy it’s making my teeth hurt).

.

Occasionally a Judge will decide that a s7 report is flawed or that there is some other good reason to depart from a recommendation contained in it. Usually they do so politely and without hurting anybody’s feelings. Very occasionally a Judge will decide that a s7 report is so badly flawed that it warrants being spelt out in the judgment in terms which are quite strongly critical of the report writer. I have dealt with perhaps 3 or 4 of these in the last couple of years. Very very occasionally the Judge will be so unhappy with the quality of the s7 report that they will order a copy of the judgment be sent to social services to ensure that they are aware of the court’s concern (this can only happen with the court’s permission – parties cannot disclose the judgment themselves without permission). Incidentally, I’ve yet to deal with one of these cases where the media has been present, but I suppose it is only a matter of time before a similar case is identified by the media and permission given for it to be reported.

.

In most of the cases that I have dealt with where a judgment has been highly critical of an unsatisfactory s7 report that report has been prepared by social services: by a social worker who may or may not be experienced but who has very little experience of private law work or of s7 reports (in one case a CAFCASS report was prepared by a sandwich year social work undergraduate on a work placement at CAFCASS). Clearly this is nothing like a statistically valid sample, but my sense is that (for better or for worse) the organisational quality checks on reports may tend to be more rigorous within CAFCASS than elsewhere. Big generalisation, but that’s my sense. In some respects this should come as no surprise since it used to be the expectation (not so any more since CAFCASS has ground to a halt) that most s7 reports were produced by CAFCASS as a matter of course – its what CAFCASS DO, and its more of a sideline for social services. In recent times of course the courts have been forced to fall back on social services to prepare s7 reports where CAFCASS cannot, and no doubt this is an additional pressure on often reluctant Local Authorities who would frankly rather be focussing their resources on child protection and on actual or potential care cases.

.

Continue Reading…

Soundbitten

In June I posted a short entry on the family law week blog about some research commissioned by solicitors Mischcon De Reya into the impact of the Children Act 1989 on children who had been involved in proceedings in the 20 years since its implementation. My source was a press release from the solicitors’ firm, summarising the research findings. I noted that the research itself had not yet been published, and that I would post a link to the full research when it was published. In fact I never had time to chase this up but it is now clear that the research behind the press release has not been published.

.

Last week a further press release was issued stating that Mischon De Reya had commissioned a ‘landmark’ study of 4,000 people (in fact the figure of 4,000 is made up of the original survey of 2,000 former subject children plus a subsequent and separate survey of 2,000 parents) which produced some ‘staggering’ results. The story made it onto Today programme, where Mischon De Reya were given a 3 minute slot during which the contents of the press release were rehearsed. The press release contained a summary of the findings of the research (although the findings set out related only to the to the second ‘adult’ survey and therefore the percentage figures were of a smaller sample than was at first glance apparent). By lunch time the press release had reached the judiciary – I know this because the judge in my hearing quoted it as ‘new research’ and handed me a copy.

.

The findings set out in the press release are, to adopt the author’s own terminology ‘staggering’. I won’t bother to set them out in this post, you can find the press release regurgitated almost verbatim by the BBC here. My initial reaction to these findings was to wonder what on earth the participants were asked and in what context in order to elicit the responses attributed to them – surely the ‘staggering 20% of separated parents’ who ‘admitted that they had actively set out to make their partners experience ‘as unpleasant as possible’ regardless of the effect this had on their children’s feelings‘ had not been asked ‘Have you actively set out to make your partner’s experience a unpleasant as possible regardless of the effect this had on your children’s feelings?’ – but if not, what were they asked and how were these statistical results reached? The Government itself responded to the survey with the (fair) comment that the study appeared to include those involved in Children Act proceedings over a very long period, partially prior to the implementation of recent innovations, and that it may therefore be out of date.

.

I think that it is legitimate to want to probe these assertions and the studies’ methodology in order to form a view about how reliable they are or what value they have in helping us to formulate policy. And rather than simply report the press release as I did in June, I wanted to be able to report and comment on this research in rather more depth.

.

So I sent a request to Mischon De Reya’s PR department asking for a copy of the study that had been trailed so extensively. For my trouble I was sent a copy of the press release along with the following – enlightening – response from Sean at Consolidated PR [my italics]: ‘Many thanks for the interest shown with regard to Mishcon de Reya’s story out yesterday. I have attached the press release which contains all the findings from the research conducted as part of the campaign.’ Focus Sean: I didn’t ask about the story, and I’m not interested in the campaign. I asked about the research.

Continue Reading…