This concern that there was
no remedy for divergence from a care plan was what led to the Court of Appeal
devising their ill-starred 'starred care plan' approach – but that was reversed
by the House of Lords in Re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan); Re W (Minors) (Care Order: Adequacy of Care Plan)
 UKHL 10,  1 FLR 815
The alleged remedy is the
provision of Independent Reviewing Officers and their power to make referrals
to Cafcass, who in turn can make an application to the Court under the Human
Rights Act 2002 where they consider that the child’s human rights are being
infringed by the change in care plan.
You can count the number of those referrals and those applications on
less fingers than you could count the number of genuinely popular politicians.
Given the difficulties in
making pledges that might never come to fruition, and predictions that rely on
a future being stable, it is little surprise that fairly careful use of wording
is popular in manifestos. They talk
about intentions and desires and ‘should the opportunity arise’ about popular
things and ‘we have no plans’ about things that might happen but that would be
As we have seen from
political parties of all colours, 'I have no plans' does not necessarily
prevent those plans being made and the policy enacted at a later occasion.
The only safe form of wording
for such pledges is something like a Shermanesque statement.
When General Sherman was
asked if he would run in the 1884 election, he said 'If nominated, I will not
accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.' That is pretty much the closest a
politician can ever come to a cast-iron guarantee (although
Alex Salmond said much the same about the leadership of the SNP in 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3895575.stm)
Where do we see woolly remarks
in care plans that fall short of a Sherman statement? Well, most often, in
passages about the possibility of post adoption contact.
It isn’t that uncommon to see
something along the lines of 'Direct contact post adoption will be considered
if (a) it is in the child’s interests (b) the carers are supportive of such
contact and it would not destabilise the placement (c) the parents are able to
support the placement and not undermine it and (d) indirect contact has taken
place without difficulties.'
Those are all very sensible
caveats and on the face of it, are hard to argue against. Nobody is going to
suggest that contact should happen if the parents are committed to making the
placement break down and would use the contact to undermine the carers.
But in totality, they amount
to a pledge on direct contact that has about the same weight as a mother’s
response to 'Mum can we have a rabbit?'
– this sort of wording is not a ‘yes, of course’, it is a ‘we’ll see’.
Could you write a care plan
about direct contact that was less 'Mum, can we have a rabbit?' and more
You might start with a view
from the social worker that direct contact, if it can be managed properly,
would be beneficial for the child; that the local authority would want carers
who favoured direct contact or at worst had an open mind and that the local
authority would in the matching and supporting process be promoting the
positive benefits of contact for the child.
At the very least, you might
now be able to spot the difference between a Shermanesque commitment and a 'mum
can we have a rabbit' commitment.
A final similarity between
manifestos and care plans is that whilst people know the gist of what they say,
and may even have read key passages in detail, nobody really reads the whole
thing from cover to cover.
'Shame on you!' I hear you
cry, 'of course we read the whole thing, we read every word'.
If you do, and don’t just
read the three key bits (where is the child going to be, what’s the contact,
what’s the plan B?) then all credit to you.
as a mental check on that, without a care plan in front of you and without
reaching to check one – what is the second section in a care plan about?
Andrew Pack is the winner of the 2014 Family Law Commentator of the Year award.The views expressed by contributing authors are not necessarily those of Family Law or Jordan Publishing and should not be considered as legal advice.