One of the specific objectives of the Children Act 1989 was to reduce the duration of care proceedings, since it was recognised that a long period of uncertainty was likely to be harmful to children. But care proceedings have in fact been increasing steadily in length since the Act was implemented in 1991. Chris Beckett presents the evidence for this, reviews the available literature on the possible reasons and suggests that further attention needs to be given to the effects on children of such delays, which could be considered a form of ‘system abuse’.
AllenN, Making Sense of the Children Act (3rd edition), Chichester: Wiley, 1998.
2.
BishopSMurphyMJellinekMQuinnSister DPoitrastJudge F, ‘Protecting seriously mistreated children: time delays in a court sample’, Journal of Child Abuse & Neglect16, pp 465–74, 1992.
3.
BoothDame M, ‘Delay in Public Law Children Act cases’, Representing Children8:4, pp 41–8, 1995.
4.
BoothDame M, Avoiding Delay in Children Act Cases, London: Lord Chancellor's Department, 1996.
5.
ButlerINoakesLDouglasGLowNPithouseA, ‘The Children Act and the issue of delay’, Family Law23, pp 412–14, 1993.
6.
Butler-SlossLord Justice E, Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland, London: HMSO, 1987.
7.
Children Act 1989, Chapter 41, London: HMSO.
8.
The Children Act Advisory Committee, Annual Report 1993/4, London: Children Act Advisory Committee, 1994.
9.
The Children Act Advisory Committee, Final Report, London: Children Act Advisory Committee, 1997.
10.
CohenP, ‘Silenced witnesses’, Community Care, 11–17 July, pp 22–3, 1996.
11.
Department of Health, An Introduction to the Children Act 1989, London: HMSO, 1989.
12.
Department of Health, The Children Act 1989: Guidance and Regulations, Vol 1: Court Orders, London, HMSO, 1991.
13.
House of Lords Debates, Vol 512, 8/11/89, col 720ff, cited by Butler, 1993, as above.
14.
HuntJ, ‘Care proceedings under the Children Act: the continuing problem of delay’, Childright129, pp 12–4, 1996.
15.
HuntJMacleodAThomasC, The Last Resort: Child protection, the courts and the 1989 Children Act, London: The Stationery Office, 1999.
16.
Judicial Statistics, Annual Reports (for 1992–98), London: Lord Chancellor's Department.
17.
MurchMMillsL, 1987, The Length of Care Proceedings, Bristol: Socio-Legal Centre for Family Studies, Bristol, cited by Thomas, 1993, see below.
18.
NightingaleG, ‘The scandal of delays in the Juvenile Court’, Justice of the Peace, March 1979, cited by Thomas, see below.
19.
PackmanJJordanB, ‘The Children Act: Looking forwards, looking back’, British Journal of Social Work21:4, pp 315–27, 1991.
20.
ParkesN, A Study of Delay in Care Proceedings and its Relationship to the Use of Expert Witnesses, Unpublished MSc dissertation, University of Bristol, 1999.
21.
PlotnikoffJWoolfsonR, Timetabling of Interim Care Orders Study, London: Department of Health, 1994, cited by Parkes, as above.
22.
RoweJLambertL, Children Who Wait: A study of children needing substitute families, London: BAAF, 1973.
23.
ThomasCMurchMHuntJ, The Duration of Care Proceedings: Replication study, London: HMSO, 1993.
24.
Williams (Lord Williams of Mostyn, Chair), Report of the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, Vol. 1: The Report, London: Stationery Office, 1996.
