Karen and Maria's Plight: Struggling to Support Joe and Flora - Essay Sample

Introduction

The present discussion features the case of Joe and Flora, aged six and four, respectively, who are in a strained relationship with their parents. Their mother, Karen, is aged twenty-five years and has a limited social network to help her support the needs of her children. As a result, she has resorted to engaging in part-time sex to supplement her state benefit to meet the children's needs. Karen's mother, Maria, has indicated that she is willing to live with Joe and Flora on the condition that she does not keep on dipping in and out of parenting at her pleasure. On the other hand, Oliver, their father, has returned from Australia and has maintained that he wants to spend more time with them and be more involved in their lives. More intriguing, Oliver contends that Flora's surname to be changed to reflect that of his. What is more, Joe and Flora's headteacher has recently noted that they have been looking shaggy, undernourished, and overly uncared. As a result, he has contacted a social worker, Louise, who is based at the Kaplan Social Services to help intervene. However, Karen has informed the social worker that the children are staying with her mother, Maria and that they are in good health condition, which is untrue. Based on the above information, this discussion seeks to explore the legal advice that each mentioned party (Karen, Maria, Louise, and Oliver) can use to be involved in upbringing the children.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Louise’s Rights and Duties Towards the Children and How She May Best Plan For Their Future

As alluded in the case, Louise is a social worker from the Kaplan Social Services organization. The Flora and Joe's headteacher has contacted her over allegations that the two children appear to be dirty, undernourished, and overly uncared. Indeed, being a social worker, she has the right to initiate investigations over the matter in an endeavor to understand whether the claims being made are true or false. If the assertions raised are true, then she has the right to develop the best plan for their future, including adopting them.

Mostly, social service workers have a constitutional right to safeguard and champion the welfare of vulnerable children. Section 3 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 outlines the conditions that must be fulfilled before granting a social worker the right to adopt a child and promote his or her welfare. The first instance is if the child is emotionally being harmed at home, an act that could adversely affect the ways s(he) grows. This may include issues such as rejection, bullying, or witnessing cases of violence and abuse from the parents. The second instance is if the parent or someone else is physically harming the child, and the parents are not offering any form of protection. The third provision is if the child is sexually abused or if the parents are putting the child at risk of being sexually abused, and they are not protecting the child from such people. Finally, a social worker might intervene if there is evidence of child neglect, which includes not providing basic needs such as food, shelter, health, and education.

Based on the findings above, there is reasonable cause to believe that Joe and Flora are mentally harmed. Firstly, this is affirmed by the constant disagreements ensuing between their parents. For instance, Karen and Oliver have been embroiled in a case whereby the latter want the surname of the children to be changed to reflect his name against the wishes of their mother. Secondly, they have separated for more than three years, and hence, they have mentally been tormented due to the lack of full parental support. Often, they have found themselves in the hands of their grandmother, Maria. Secondly, the children are at risk of being sexually abused. This is based on the fact that recently, their mother has been engaging in part-time sex, a habit that they are likely to replicate. Also, Joe and Flora have been neglected as affirmed by the comments made by the head teacher-they wear dirty clothes, appear undernourished, and lack general care. Moreover, when Karen was contacted by Louise, she observed that the kids were staying with her mother, yet it was untrue. Thus, there is concrete evidence that will support Louise's decision to develop an action plan for the future.

Based on these findings, the first step Louise should espouse is to arrange a meeting with all involved stakeholders including parents, teachers, relatives, probation workers, and police officers to make plans on what they believe would best be done to protect and champion the welfare of the children. Once the meeting has been convened, the committee has the right to develop a Child Protection Plan. According to Section 1 (4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2017, the plan should outline

• The type of harm being suffered by the children,
• The mitigation measures that need to be adopted,
• The people that will oversee the implementation of the measures
• The time when the application will be done
• Any help that will be needed

Alternative Solutions if the Plan Fails

Under Section 8 (a) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, Louise has the right to assess the progress of the developed Child Protection Plan after three months and then every six months. If the plan works, the children can be taken off the plan. However, if the plan fails, she has the right to petition the court and request it to make orders allowing the Kaplan Social Service organization to take away to adopt the children and make alternative arrangements for their care.

Moreover, Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child notes that all states parties shall adopt appropriate administrative, legislative, educational, and social measures to protect the child from all forms of physical violence, mental harm, injury, abuse, neglect, exploitation, and sexual abuse, while in the care of the parents or guardians. According to the present UN, a child refers to all human being aged below eighteen years. Markedly, the UK is a founder and permanent member of the UN. The UN recommends that states develop effective procedures such as the establishment of social programs to provide child care support.

How Karen Can Challenge Any Decision Taken By the Local Authority If She Does Not Agree With It

Nonetheless, the UK law provides provisions that Karen can utilize to challenge any ruling made by the court concerning the case of Louise adopting the children. Markedly, the process of placing a child for adoption must procedurally be fair Re F (A Child) (Placement Order). Karen can petition the court over the ruling made allowing Louise to adopt the two children. This must be done within 21 days after the verdict. She will have to notify the court about her decision to appeal against the placement order. Markedly, if the court permits her to appeal, the full hearing will have to be fast-tracked to minimize any delays on who would have the rights to live with the child. Karen's legal representative would appeal through expediting the transcript of the judgment while providing a copy to the court. The appeal court should be served with the details of the child's schedule so that it can prioritize the issue of hearing, as appropriate. Most notably, she will have to prove to the court the decision that was made was unjust because of serious irregularity or procedural in the court proceedings. Thus, Karen can appeal against the court's ruling if she believes that the decision made was unfair.

Secondly, if Karen fails to seek an appeal against the adoption approval order, section 24(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 grants her the right to request the court to allow her to make an application that will revoke the placement order. Most notably, she will have to show the court that there is a "change of circumstance." Karen needs to demonstrate to the court what is different now and that the children are not at risk of being harmed. In this case, she can show she can cite the fact that her husband has just returned from a trip from Australia, and he is willing to be involved in supporting the children's needs. However, this will prompt the court to conduct, pre-screening of the changes (improved ability to care for the two children) that have been mentioned to verify whether it is true or not. Most importantly, the family court will always endeavor to make a ruling that will ensure that the child lives with the biological parents, if at all possible.

Essentially, Section 1(2) of the CSWA 2017 requires the court always to consider the "best interests of the child test" when making a decision. However, it is notable that during this stage of hearing the appeal, the court is not obliged to apply this condition although it is one of the factors that will be put into consideration when ascertaining whether there has been a "change in the circumstances." The reasoning for this assertion is that the adoption order was already made in the hearing that justifies granting permission that allowed the ruling to be revoked. Moreover, it should be underscored that it is not obligatory that the "change in circumstance" must be in the parent's situation. Thus, it could be the children's need have changed, or perhaps a family member has volunteered to offer support and care to the children. In essence, this works as a second way of challenging the placement order, especially if the court upholds the adoption order or if it has refused the parent to appeal. Thus, in this case, Karen can also cite the fact that her mother, Maria, has come forward to offer care to the children. As alluded in the case, Maria was willing to support Joe and Flora on the condition that Karen will not interfere with her parental role.

Moreover, under s.24(5) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the local authority is not allowed to place the children under the care of the adopter (Louise) once the parent has made an application to reverse the adoption order until the final hearing of the application is made. However, the local authority can make an urgent application to allow the adopters to develop a care plan for the children, once it has been notified that the court has revoked the placement order. The core purpose for this is to ensure that a court hearing is scheduled without delay. Notably, such a situation would arise if Karen has made an application to reverse the adoption order, but the permission to apply is yet to be granted. Thus, in such a context, there is no live application before the court to reverse the placement order.

In a recent case R (Application of EL) v Essex County Council, the judge ruled that when an application has been made seeking permission to reverse the adoption order, the local authority cannot continue with its adoption plan if there is no permission from the court. This is because there could be a delay in the parent getting legal advice to continue with their application to revoke the placement order. Importantly, it should also be noted that the impacts on the timescale outlined in the adoption plan can create anxiety for the child and the prospective adopters. Besides, it can also generate fretfulness among judges about how they will manage issues of delay while respecting the parents' right to pursue the revocation order.

Conclusion

Overall, the expectation is that Karen will notify the Kaplan Social Services organization of her intention to make the application seeking reversal of the adoption order through writing. The application should be made promptly to ensure she informs the social service worker about her intentions. At the same time, Karen's legal representative can ask the court not to place the children for adoption until the court hears the reversal application. Markedly, it is paramount for the parent, their legal representative, and the adopter to maintain effe...