“Sara Sharif died when she became invisible to local services. All the warning signs were missed – a history of domestic abuse, bruises on her body, being removed from school – because her circumstances did not warrant help or support from professionals in Surrey, despite having been known to the local authority since birth.
“As the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to Parliament, I urge Peers to support the proposed amendment to set national thresholds for triggering an assessment by social care, ending the postcode lottery in children’s social care that is putting young lives at risk. I also urge them to take this opportunity to give children equal protection from assault, which Sara was cruelly denied.
“My own research shows alarming variation in how and when different areas step in to protect and support a vulnerable child – no child’s safety should be determined by inconsistent local decisions. The time to act is now, and this amendment is a huge step forward in making sure no child slips through the net.”
Background:
- Lord Mohammed of Tinsley’s amendment 160 – due for debate today – would introduce national standards for accessing and receiving support through child in need plans and improve monitoring of their effectiveness.
- The amendment aligns with recommendations made by the Children’s Commissioner last year in two reports showing the impact and inconsistencies of child in need plans.
- Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, a child is classified as a child in need if they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of development without intervention, if their development is likely to be significantly impaired without intervention, or because they are disabled.
- A local authority is required to provide a multiagency plan that sets out the services available for a child and family – this is a Child in Need plan. There is a lack of clarity over the thresholds that are set locally, meaning that in one local authority, for example, a child with a parent struggling with substance abuse may be assessed as needing a plan, but in another they may only be eligible for lower levels of support.
