Report comment

Anon 11:54, your point regarding state-funded opposition is absolutely correct, but has one challenging caveat... They DO have to produce a plan to keep the family together at first instance, which did occur in this case. The problem however is when the care provision within that plan is wholly inadequate in the situation. There needs to be a family-centric arbiter ensuring the ongoing suitability of the care plan, rather than what we currently have which is a budget-centric arbiter awaiting the instance where cost hits a threshold that justifies ruining three lives to avoid using a few extra social worker hours per week.

You raise an interesting point on personal disputes, and I tend to agree that the preferred outcome is a level playing field. I am not sure that the abolishment of legal aid provides that though. Whether it has occurred or even could, if this situation being discussed here is possible, is it not equally possible that with one parent with capacity and one without, the one without is at a decided disadvantage if both are unable to receive legal aid, meanwhile if the one without capacity does receive legal aid, the parent who has capacity to act as a LIP but no receipt of legal aid is surely now at a disadvantage again? It may happen less often than with the previous system, but that does not make it happening at all pallatable.