Friday, May 31, 2013

Baby in child abuse case dies

Posted: May 16, 2013 3:59 PM Updated: May 16, 2013 9:13 PM

By Jackie Kent - email

By Barbara Grijalva - bio | email

Izayah Garcia (Source: Izayah Garcia's family)

Izayah Garcia (Source: Izayah Garcia's family)

Urbina (Source: TPD)

Urbina (Source: TPD)

TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) -

Tucson police are investigating a deadly case of child abuse in Midvale Park.

Tucson News Now has learned that three-month-old Izayah Garcia died this afternoon.

Police arrested Genaro Urbina, 29, on Wednesday and charged him with one count of child abuse. He is now facing second degree murder charges, police say.

Police say Child Protective Services removed Garcia from his parent's home and placed him with another family.

The baby was in the care of a woman in a house in the 5900 block of S. Woodcrest in Tucson's southwest side. Police say her live-in boyfriend, Urbina, got up early Monday because the baby was crying.

"The three month old baby was crying," said Sgt. Chris Widmer with the Tucson Police Department. "Mr. Urbina woke up to dress  the baby, change the diaper, give him a bottle.  During that time our investigation revealed that the baby received injuries, the baby received injuries of a non-accidental nature."

The woman woke up around 6 a.m., found the baby to be unresponsive and called 911. Garcia was taken to a local hospital's intensive care unit.

According to police, the hospital reported that the baby's injuries appeared to be non-accidental.

"Both of the caregivers in the house gave an explanation of what happened to this baby, so based on what they said and the injuries we were seeing initially, it didn't necessarily lead up to arrest at that time," Widmer said. "When more examination was done and the injuries were further looked into, that's when we went back and reinterviewed both of those people."

Urbina was booked into the Pima County Jail on $100,000 bond.

We went to the home where police say the child was injured.

We spoke with the woman who had been caring for the baby.  She declined to go on camera. She said the family is hiring an attorney.

However, she did say, "He was our baby and nobody loves him more than us."

Barbara Grijalva is learning more from TPD. Follow her on Twitter at @BGrijalvaKOLD for updates.

 

 

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22275976/baby-in-child-abuse-case-dies?t=2013-05-17T00%3A13%3A58Z

Montano found guilty of child abuse

 

Posted: May 31, 2013 5:19 PM Updated: May 31, 2013 5:54 PM

By Jackie Kent - email

By Tucson News Now Staff - email

TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) -

The fate of a Tucson mother accused of intentionally hurting her baby daughter has been decided.
Blanca Montano has been found guilty of child abuse.  

The jury just began deliberating around 2 p.m. Friday.

Authorities say Blanca Montano's baby daughter was hospitalized with life-threatening infections.

They believe it may be a case of Munchausen by Proxy where Montano harmed her child in order to get sympathy and attention from others.

Attorneys made their opening statements Wednesday.

The prosecutor, Ryan Schmidt, told jurors Montano hurt her child because she wanted to get the attention of the child's father.

On Friday, the prosecutor says Munchausen by Proxy is not a good defense.

It took three hours for the jury to make the decision. Her sentence will be decided on July 30 and she could face ten to 17 years in prison.

Attorneys say there will be an appeal.

Copyright 2013 Tucson News Now. All rights reserved.

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22473449/montano-found-guilty-of-child-abuse

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

25-409. Third party rights

25-409. Third party rights

A. Pursuant to section 25-402, subsection B, paragraph 2, a person other than a legal parent may petition the superior court for legal decision-making authority or placement of the child. The court shall summarily deny a petition unless it finds that the petitioner's initial pleading establishes that all of the following are true:

1. The person filing the petition stands in loco parentis to the child.

2. It would be significantly detrimental to the child to remain or be placed in the care of either legal parent who wishes to keep or acquire legal decision-making.

3. A court of competent jurisdiction has not entered or approved an order concerning legal decision-making or parenting time within one year before the person filed a petition pursuant to this section, unless there is reason to believe the child's present environment may seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health.

4. One of the following applies:

(a) One of the legal parents is deceased.

(b) The child's legal parents are not married to each other at the time the petition is filed.

(c) A proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the legal parents is pending at the time the petition is filed.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, it is a rebuttable presumption that awarding legal decision-making to a legal parent serves the child's best interests because of the physical, psychological and emotional needs of the child to be reared by a legal parent. A third party may rebut this presumption only with proof showing by clear and convincing evidence that awarding legal decision-making to a legal parent is not consistent with the child's best interests.

C. Pursuant to section 25-402, subsection B, paragraph 2, a person other than a legal parent may petition the superior court for visitation with a child. The superior court may grant visitation rights during the child's minority on a finding that the visitation is in the child's best interests and that any of the following is true:

1. One of the legal parents is deceased or has been missing at least three months. For the purposes of this paragraph, a parent is considered to be missing if the parent's location has not been determined and the parent has been reported as missing to a law enforcement agency.

2. The child was born out of wedlock and the child's legal parents are not married to each other at the time the petition is filed.

3. For grandparent or great-grandparent visitation, the marriage of the parents of the child has been dissolved for at least three months.

4. For in loco parentis visitation, a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the legal parents is pending at the time the petition is filed.

D. A petition filed under subsection A or C of this section must be verified or supported by affidavit and must include detailed facts supporting the petitioner's claim. The petitioner must also provide notice of this proceeding, including a copy of the petition and any affidavits or other attachments, and serve the notice pursuant to the Arizona rules of family law procedure to all of the following:

1. The child's legal parents.

2. A third party who possesses legal decision-making authority over the child or visitation rights.

3. The child's guardian or guardian ad litem.

4. A person or agency that possesses physical custody of the child or claims legal decision-making authority or visitation rights concerning the child.

5. Any other person or agency that has previously appeared in the action.

E. In deciding whether to grant visitation to a third party, the court shall give special weight to the legal parents' opinion of what serves their child's best interests and consider all relevant factors including:

1. The historical relationship, if any, between the child and the person seeking visitation.

2. The motivation of the requesting party seeking visitation.

3. The motivation of the person objecting to visitation.

4. The quantity of visitation time requested and the potential adverse impact that visitation will have on the child's customary activities.

5. If one or both of the child's parents are deceased, the benefit in maintaining an extended family relationship.

F. If logistically possible and appropriate, the court shall order visitation by a grandparent or great-grandparent if the child is residing or spending time with the parent through whom the grandparent or great-grandparent claims a right of access to the child.

G. A grandparent or great-grandparent seeking visitation rights under this section shall petition in the same action in which the family court previously decided legal decision-making and parenting time or, if no such case existed, by separate petition in the county of the child's home state, as defined in section 25-1002.

H. All visitation rights granted under this section automatically terminate if the child is adopted or placed for adoption. If the child is removed from an adoptive placement, the court may reinstate the visitation rights. This subsection does not apply if the child is adopted by the spouse of a natural parent after the natural parent remarries.

 

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/25/00409.htm

Grandparent Rights in Arizona

 

May 15, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Grandparent Rights in Arizona
Article provided by Cates, Hanson, Sargeant & Rakestraw, P.L.C. Please visit our Web site at www.scottsdaleazdivorcelaw.com.
Arizona provides limited rights to grandparents seeking visitation, custody and adoption of their grandchildren. In our society, grandparents often fill important roles in the upbringing and care of their grandchildren. Further, in the current economy, grandparents may be in a better position financially to meet the basic needs and provide the necessary comforts to their grandchildren.
Visitation Rights
In 1983, the Arizona legislature amended the state's laws to create a legal right to visitation for grandparents and great-grandparents. Under ARS §25-409, grandparents may petition the court for visitation rights so long as it is in the child's best interests to have visitation with the grandparent and one of the following is true:
• The child's parents have been divorced for at least 3 months and the grandparent is the parent of the child's non-custodial parent
• One of the child's parents has been deceased or missing for at least 3 months and the grandparent is the parent of the child's deceased or missing parent
• The child's parents were never married
In determining the best interests of the child, Arizona law requires the court to consider all "relevant factors," including five statutory ones:
• The historical relationship between the grandparent and child
• The motivation of the grandparent in seeking visitation rights
• The motivation of the parent in denying visitation
• The amount of visitation sought by the grandparent and any impact this may have on the child's life and activities
• The benefit of maintaining visitation with extended family members in cases where one or both parents are deceased
Grandparents seeking visitation rights should petition the court as part of the divorce proceeding or paternity proceeding, if either is held. Otherwise, the grandparents can petition the court separately for visitation.
Adoption
Grandparents also have the right to adopt a grandchild, so long as they meet the requirements under Arizona's adoption laws. Generally, the grandparent will seek temporary custody of the child first, if they do not already have it, while the adoption is pending.
However, if another party adopts the child, the grandparent's visitation rights may be terminated. Under state law, once a child is adopted or placed for adoption all visitation rights end. The only exception is in cases of step-parent adoption. Grandparents with visitation rights may not even be notified that an adoption of their grandchild is pending and can have their visitation rights terminated without receiving any type of notice of the adoption.
Custody Rights & Best Interest of the Child
In order to petition for custody, the grandparent first must be able to meet the following considerations as provided under ARS §25-415:
• The grandparent must stand in loco parentis to the child (i.e., acting as a parent by providing all or some of the care for the child)
• It must be detrimental to the best interests of the child to remain in the parent's custody
• The child's custody must not have been decided within the previous year, except in cases where there is potential harm to the child
• The child's legal parents were never married, are in the process of getting divorced or separated; or one of the parents is deceased
If the grandparent cannot meet one of these requirements, then the Family Court will dismiss the custody petition.
In any child custody case in Arizona, the court's number one consideration is the best interests of the child. There is a presumption that it is in the child's best interests to remain with their legal parent.
Further, under state and federal law, parents have the constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit. There is a presumption in custody cases that fit parents will act in the best interests of their children. This means that a grandparent or other third-party who wishes to gain custody rights must be able to overcome the presumption that it is in the child's best interest to remain with the parent.
To overcome this presumption in Arizona, the grandparent must be able to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would be significantly detrimental to the child to remain in the parent's custody. "Clear and convincing" means that it is highly probable or reasonably certain that it is not in the child's best interests to be with the parent.
Downs v Scheffler
In Downs v Scheffler (App. Div.1 2003) 206 Ariz. 496, 80 P.3d 775, the court discussed how to define a parent's constitutional rights. The court stated that the parent's wishes concerning child custody "are entitled, at a minimum, to special weight" but that the "extent of a parent's constitutional rights can only be determined by weighing that right against countervailing factors...pertaining to the best interest of the child." Thus, while parents do have constitutional rights to raise their children, these rights must be balanced against the best interests of the child. If it is not in the child's best interests to remain with the parent, then the parent's constitutional rights to raise their children may be limited.
In Downs, the maternal grandparent was seeking custody -- or in the alternative, visitation rights -- to her 11-year-old granddaughter. While the child's mother retained sole legal custody, the child had lived most of her life with the grandmother, who had taken care of her and provided for her in the mother's absence. The Family Court, however, determined that the mother should retain custody over the child. The issue of visitation was never determined. On appeal, the case was sent back to the family court with directions for the court to make factual findings concerning the reasons for denying custody to the grandparent, to permit the grandparent to cross-examine the expert witness and to decide on the issue of visitation rights if the mother's custody was upheld.
Factors to Determine Best Interests of the Child
ARS §25-403 sets out the factors the court must consider in determining the best interests of the child in custody cases. In Downs, the court stated that these factors apply equally in cases of custody between parents and between a parent and grandparent or other third party. These factors include:
• The wishes of the child's parent or parents
• The child's wishes
• The child's interaction and interrelationship with his or her parent or parents, siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest
• The child's adjustment to home, school and community
• The mental and physical health of all parties involved in the custody case
• The party more likely to allow the child frequent and meaningful continuing contact with the other party
• Who has provided primary care of the child
• The nature and extent of coercion or duress used by one of the party's to obtain a custody agreement
• Whether either party has been convicted of an act of false reporting of child abuse or neglect

 

 

 

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/grandparent-rights-in-arizona-100232.php

Friday, May 24, 2013

Woman accused of contaminating daughter's IV tubes

Posted: May 23, 2013 10:31 AM Updated: May 23, 2013 10:55 AM

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - A prosecutor says a woman on trial in Tucson contaminated her hospitalized infant daughter's intravenous lines in an attempt to get attention from the girl's father.

The Arizona Daily Star (http://bit.ly/12xG3Qo ) reports that 23-year-old Blanca Reneis Montano is charged with attempted murder and child abuse.

Prosecutor Ryan Schmidt told jurors during opening statements Wednesday there's evidence that the daughter contracted multiple bacteria diseases such as E. coli because of contamination introduced by Montano.

Schmidt said a hidden camera placed by the hospital in the child's room showed Montano manipulating her daughter's IV tubes and covering the camera.

Defense lawyer Paul Skitzki said there's no evidence that Montano intentionally made her daughter ill.

He said Montano is a devoted mother who stayed at her daughter's bed side.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22407480/woman-accused-of-contaminated-daughters-iv-tubes

Bullhead City man arrested in son's abduction

 

 

Posted: May 24, 2013 10:20 AM Updated: May 24, 2013 10:20 AM

BULLHEAD CITY, Ariz. (AP) - Bullhead City police have arrested a 38-year-old man in the abduction of his 13-year-old son from the home of the boy's custodial mother.

According to the Mohave Daily News (http://bit.ly/170Q2EE ), a police spokeswoman said Michael Darold Brewer was apprehended late Thursday at a residence after police got an anonymous tip.

The boy was abducted Thursday morning but later in the day was found unharmed in a vehicle driven by Brewer, who fled on foot when it was stopped by police.

A loaded gun was found in the vehicle.

Police spokeswoman Emily Fromelt says had an active order of protection against Brewer.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22416982/bullhead-city-man-arrested-in-sons-abduction

No bail for Pa. parents in faith-healing death

Posted: May 24, 2013 2:39 PM Updated: May 24, 2013 5:18 PM

(AP Photo/Philadelphia Police Department, File). FILE - This undated file photo combination provided by the Philadelphia Police Department shows Herbert and Catherine Schaible.

(AP Photo/Philadelphia Police Department, File). FILE - This undated file photo combination provided by the Philadelphia Police Department shows Herbert and Catherine Schaible.

(AP Photo/Philadelphia Daily News, David Maialetti). Catherine, left, and Herbert Schaible arrive to turn themselves in at police headquarters in Philadelphia on Wednesday, May 22, 2013.

(AP Photo/Philadelphia Daily News, David Maialetti). Catherine, left, and Herbert Schaible arrive to turn themselves in at police headquarters in Philadelphia on Wednesday, May 22, 2013.

By MARYCLAIRE DALE
Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - After their 2-year-old son died of untreated pneumonia in 2009, faith-healing advocates Herbert and Catherine Schaible promised a judge they would not let another sick child go without medical care.

But now they've lost an 8-month-old to what a prosecutor called "eerily similar" circumstances. And instead of another involuntary manslaughter charge, they're now charged with third-degree murder.

"We believe in divine healing, that Jesus shed blood for our healing and that he died on the cross to break the devil's power," Herbert Schaible, 44, told Philadelphia homicide detectives after their ninth child, Brandon, died in April. Medicine, he said, "is against our religious beliefs."

The Schaibles were ordered held without bail Friday, two days after their arrest, although defense lawyers argued that they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.

"He is incarcerated because of his faith," said lawyer Bobby Hoof, who described client Herbert Schaible's mindset as resolute.

"He's strong willed," Hoof said. "(Yet) he's mourning this son. He's hurting as any dad would."

The only people theoretically at risk are the couple's seven surviving children, who are now in foster care, the lawyers said.

A judge acknowledged that the couple had never missed a court date in the first case but said he worried that might change amid the more serious charges. And he feared they may have supporters who would harbor them.

"Throughout this country ... there are churches like the Schaibles' whose members and leaders probably don't think they did anything wrong, and might be willing - to paraphrase the Schaibles' pastor - to put their interpretation of God's will above the law," Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner said.

About a dozen children die each year in the U.S. when parents turn to faith healing instead of medicine, typically from highly treatable problems, said Shawn Francis Peters, a University of Wisconsin lecturer who has studied faith-healing deaths.

In Oregon, four couples from a faith-healing church have been prosecuted, the most recent in 2011 when a couple was sentenced to more than six years in prison for manslaughter in the death of their newborn son.

The state legislature that year removed faith healing as a defense to murder charges. Members of the Followers of Christ have consistently refused to speak with journalists.

Defense lawyer Mark Cogan declined to comment Friday on whether the legal actions have changed the practice of any church members. Some testified at the 2011 trial that they do get medical care.

At the Schaibles' sentencing in February 2011 in their son Kent's death, they agreed to follow terms of the 10-year probation, which included an order to get their children regular checkups and sick visits as needed. Catherine Schaible, 43, let her husband speak for her and never addressed the judge.

"It's very clear that the law says that religious freedom is trumped by the safety of a child," Common Pleas Judge Carolyn Engel Temin explained.

But a transcript of a later probation hearing that year shows probation officers were confused by their mandate to oversee the required medical care and felt powerless to carry it out. The family was not being monitored by child-welfare workers, who are more accustomed to dealing with medical compliance.

"I think that we all on the jury thought that it would not happen again, that whatever social and legal institutions needed to be involved in their situation would just take over ... and that the mandated visits would be robust enough that they would not be able to do this again," Vincent Bertolini, 51, a former college professor who served as jury foreman at the Schaibles' first trial, said Friday. That jury convicted the couple of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment.

Like other cases Peters has studied, the Schaibles belong to a small, insular circle of believers. Both are third-generation members and former teachers at their fundamentalist Christian church, the First Century Gospel Church in northeast Philadelphia.

Their pastor, Nelson Clark, has said the Schaibles lost their sons because of a "spiritual lack" in their lives and insisted they would not seek medical care even if another child appeared near death. He did not return phone messages this month, but he told The Associated Press in 2011 that his church is not a cult, and he faulted officials for trying to force his members into "the flawed medical system," which he blamed for 100,000 deaths a year.

"These are people who have been brought up in these communities; their beliefs are reinforced every day," Peters said. "They're not trained intellectually to question these doctrines, where the rest of us might engage in critical inquiry, weighing the benefits of medicine versus the benefits of prayer."

A handful of families, including one in western Pennsylvania, have lost two children after attempts at faith healing, according to Peters, who wrote "When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law."

Peters isn't sure that courts have the means to prevent the problem, since such people don't fear legal punishment, only Judgment Day. Some believe death "is a good outcome," given their belief in the afterlife, he said.

"They don't want to harm their children. They're just in this particularly narrow - and very, very dangerous - way misguided about the potential of medical science," he said.

He believes that "empathetic" intervention, through dialogue between church and public health educators, could help some "get to a point where they allow their beliefs and practices to evolve."

But there's a risk that could backfire, and drive these communities further underground, he said.

For the Schaibles, a third-degree murder conviction could bring seven to 14 years in prison or more.

Said Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore: "Somebody is dead now as a result of what they did - or didn't do."

Associated Press writer Tim Fought in Portland, Ore., contributed to this report.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

 

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22419318/no-bail-for-pa-parents-in-faith-healing-death

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Mississippi Could Soon Jail Women for Stillbirths, Miscarriages

The state's manslaughter laws weren't supposed to apply to women who lose pregnancies. Prosecutors don't seem to care.

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu May. 23, 2013 3:00 AM PDT

undefined

 

On March 14, 2009, 31 weeks into her pregnancy, Nina Buckhalter gave birth to a stillborn baby girl. She named the child Hayley Jade. Two months later, a grand jury in Lamar County, Mississippi, indicted Buckhalter for manslaughter, claiming that the then-29-year-old woman "did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, kill Hayley Jade Buckhalter, a human being, by culpable negligence."

The district attorney argued that methamphetamine detected in Buckhalter's system caused Hayley Jade's death. The state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case on April 2, is expected to rule soon on whether the prosecution can move forward.

If prosecutors prevail in this case, the state would be setting a "dangerous precedent" that "unintentional pregnancy loss can be treated as a form of homicide," says Farah Diaz-Tello, a staff attorney with National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a nonprofit legal organization that has joined with Robert McDuff, a Mississippi civil rights lawyer, to defend Buckhalter. If Buckhalter's case goes forward, NAPW fears it could spur a wave of similar prosecutions in Mississippi and other states.

Mississippi's manslaughter laws were not intended to apply in cases of stillbirths and miscarriages. Four times between 1998 through 2002, Mississippi lawmakers rejected proposals that would have set specific penalties for damaging a fetus by using illegal drugs during pregnancy. But Mississippi prosecutors say that two other state laws allow them to charge Buckhalter. One defines of manslaughter as the "killing of a human being, by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another"; another includes "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth" in the state's definition of human beings.

The cause of any given miscarriage or stillbirth is difficult to determine, and many experts believe there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to drugs in utero can cause a miscarriage or stillbirth. Because of this, prosecuting Buckhalter opens the door to investigating and prosecuting women for any number of other potential causes of a miscarriage or stillbirth, her lawyers argued in a filing to the state Supreme Court—"smoking, drinking alcohol, using drugs, exercising against doctor's orders, or failing to follow advice regarding conditions such as obesity or hypertension." Supreme Court Justice Leslie D. King also raised this question in the oral arguments last month: "Doctors say women should avoid herbal tea, things like unpasteurized cheese, lunch meats. Exactly what are the boundaries?"

Laws that criminalize hurting or killing fetuses are pitched as ways to protect pregnant women from abuse but are often used to prosecute those same women, NAPW says. The group has documented more than 400 cases across the country in which these laws have been used to detain or jail pregnant women. Earlier this year, Mississippi's neighbor to the east, Alabama, set its own precedent for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use. In January, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld convictions against two women—Amanda Kimbrough and Hope Ankrom—for "chemical endangerment" of a child, under a 2006 law that was written to punish people who expose children—not fetuses—to illegal drugs. Kimbrough gave birth prematurely to a baby boy who died shortly thereafter; she was charged after testing positive for meth. Ankrom gave birth to a healthy baby boy, but she was charged after he was found to have marijuana and cocaine in his system.

In Mississippi, Diaz-Tello says, "we're trying to avoid another ruling like Alabama." The decision in Buckhalter's case is expected to influence a second pending case in the state against Rennie Gibbs, a young woman charged with "depraved heart murder" after a experiencing a stillbirth in 2006, at age 16. A medical examiner claimed a small amount of cocaine, found during the autopsy, caused the death. Gibbs' case is supposed to go before a trial court later this year.

Buckhalter's lawyers contend that both Buckhalter and Gibbs are collateral damage in the abortion wars in Mississippi, one of the most anti-abortion states in the country. A 2011 state ballot measure there would have granted full rights to fertilized eggs, making all abortions illegal all the time. That measure failed, but abortion foes have pledged to try again in 2015, and lawmakers are working hard to close the state's last remaining abortion clinic. Charging a woman with manslaughter for using drugs while pregnant is just a backdoor way of establishing legal "personhood" for fetuses, says Diaz-Tello.

But as McDuff pointed out in oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, even the state's law defining homicide as including the killing of a child at "every stage of gestation" includes a specific exemption for women seeking a legal abortion. If a woman can legally terminate an unwanted pregnancy, he argued, how can she be jailed for unintentionally ending a wanted one?

Perhaps the most perverse impact of prosecuting Buckhalter, her lawyers say, is that it could lead to more abortions. Fear of prosecution "may cause a mother to seek an abortion that she might not have otherwise have sought," particularly if she is dealing with drug or alcohol addiction, Buckhalter's lawyers argued in a court filing.

A dozen medical and public health groups—including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—made the same argument in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the Buckhalter case. And even for women who want to continue their pregnancy, the medical groups contended, the threat of prosecution could actually deter them from seeking prenatal care or drug addiction treatment, or from sharing important information with their doctors, for fear they may be reported.

As for Buckhalter, her lawyers say she's gotten the help she needed since losing Hayley Jade. She became pregnant again, completed a residential drug treatment program, and gave birth to a healthy baby. She also finished an associate's degree at Hinds Community College, where she was inducted into the honor society. She's a testament to the fact that women in her situation need help, McDuff says, not jail time.

"Obviously, you shouldn't be taking drugs while you're pregnant," McDuff says. "But the notion of prosecuting somebody for murder or manslaughter, trying to send them to prison, is just crazy."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/buckhalter-mississippi-stillbirth-manslaughter

Tucson mother on trial for child abuse

Posted: May 22, 2013 6:39 PM Updated: May 22, 2013 8:13 PM
TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) -

Trial is getting underway for a Tucson mother accused of abusing her child.

Authorities say Blanca Montano's baby daughter was hospitalized with life-threatening infections.

They believe it may be a case of Munchausen by Proxy where Montano harmed her child in order to get sympathy and attention from others.

Attorneys made their opening statements Wednesday.

The prosecutor, Ryan Schmidt, told jurors Montano hurt her child because she wanted to get the attention of the child's father.

The defense attorney, Paul Skitzki, said the child's father probably will testify that Montano was a very good mother.

The prosecutor said, in early 2011, while her then-five-month-old daughter was at University of Arizona Medical Center (UAMC), Montano deliberately infected the child.

He said, as the baby suffered infection after infection, she was put through numerous tests and treatments.

She was in the intensive care unit.

The infections confounded the doctors who decided to put a camera in the baby's hospital room to try to see what was going on.

Skitzki, opened by saying Montano was a good, attentive mother who did not harm her child.

He said an expert will testify about how illnesses can be spread in hospitals.

"Pay attention because you've got to ask yourself--and we're going to ask you at the end of this case--why? Why would Blanca--why would Blanca want to make her child sick," Skitzki told the jurors.

"Sometimes things happen. Sometimes there's no explanation for it. And certainly in this case, there is no explanation that would say that Blanca Montano was guilty of doing anything other than loving her daughter the best that she could," Skitzki said.

Prosecutor Schmidt brought up Munchausen by Proxy, telling the jurors, "What you won't hear is that Miss Montano was ever diagnosed having Munchausen by Proxy. And most importantly, what you won't hear is that it's any kind of defense for intentionally infecting your child with life-threatening diseases."

Referring to the camera installed in the baby's UAMC room, Schmidt said, "There are a couple of times where Miss Montano clearly sees that there's a camera in her room and intentionally went over and covered up the lens of that camera. You're going to see one time where she--or at least appears--that she is putting her daughter's IV tubes in her mouth."

The trial is expected to last about eight days.

Montano is free on $50,000 bond

Copyright 2013 Tucson News Now All rights reserved.

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22401428/tucson-mother-on-trial-for-child-abuse

Phoenix standoff ends when man kills himself

Posted: May 21, 2013 6:53 AM Updated: May 21, 2013 11:37 AM

PHOENIX (AP) - Phoenix police say a 32-year-old man sought in the abduction of his son has killed himself, ending a 12-hour barricade at a house in which six other people were held captive for varying lengths of time.

Sgt. Steve Martos says Israel Celis Sr. had a self-inflicted gunshot wound when officers entered a barricaded room upon hearing a gunshot and screams Tuesday.

A woman and an 8-year-old boy also in the room were OK.

Five other people were released or extracted from the house earlier.

Celis' 3-year-old son was among those released earlier. An Amber Alert said Celis abducted the boy Monday at gunpoint from his mother in Tolleson.

Police used an armored vehicle to smash open the front of the house to gain entry after Celis shot at officers.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22308013/standoff-at-phoenix-home-following-amber-alert

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

6 still missing, 10 children killed in Moore, OK tornado

Posted: May 22, 2013 8:58 AM Updated: May 22, 2013 11:56 AM

By Cecelia Hanley - email

Plaza Towers Elementary school took a direct hit from the EF-5 tornado that hit Moore, OK, on May 20. (Source: CNN)

Plaza Towers Elementary school took a direct hit from the EF-5 tornado that hit Moore, OK, on May 20. (Source: CNN)

 

 

(RNN) – Of the 24 killed in the EF-5 tornado that decimated Moore, OK, 10 are children - two of which are infants, according to a release by the Oklahoma City Medical Examiner's Office.

All the children have been identified. The ME's office is waiting to release the names of eight other people – with one yet to be positively identified – until next of kin can be notified.

However, an emergency management official says that six adults are still missing. Albert Ashwood, director of the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management, tells the Associated Press it is unknown if the missing could still be in the rubble or have walked away from their properties.

The ages of those killed rage in age from 4 months old to 65. Case Futrell, 4 months old, and 7-month-old Sydnee Vargyas died of blunt force trauma to the head. The other children ranged in age from 4 to 9 years old.

The news release from the medical examiner does not say if the children killed were found Plaza Towers Elementary school, which took a direct hit.

Of the other eight children, six suffocated and two died from traumatic injuries.

Many died from "blunt force injuries" around the head or torso.

About 10,000 people and 12,000 to 13,000 homes were affected by the tornado that cut across 17 miles of Oklahoma for 40 minutes, and ranged from half-mile to two miles wide. Winds were at least 200 mph.

The financial cost of the damage could exceed $2 billion, according to the Oklahoma Insurance Department.

Copyright 2013 Raycom News Network. All rights reserved.

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22392817/6-still-missing-10-children-killed-in-moore-ok-tornado

Mom killed while crossing Phoenix street with kids

 

Posted: May 13, 2013 5:53 PM Updated: May 13, 2013 5:53 PM

PHOENIX (AP) - A mother who was crossing a Phoenix street with her two children has died after being hit by a pickup truck.

Phoenix police Sgt. Steve Martos says 41-year-old Ahlam Awad's 3- and 8-year-old children sustained non-life-threatening injuries Sunday evening.

Detectives determined that the woman who was driving the pickup truck wasn't impaired at the time.

The investigation is ongoing.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22240197/mom-killed-while-crossing-phoenix-street-with-kids

Body of murdered teen boy found east of Ashfork

Posted: May 20, 2013 5:36 PM Updated: May 20, 2013 5:40 PM

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) - Authorities in northern Arizona say they're investigating the murder of a 17-year-old Ashfork boy.

Coconino County Sheriff's officials didn't immediately release the victim's name Monday and they say a suspect hasn't been identified yet.

The Sheriff's Office received a call Friday about a body found near Interstate 40 just east of Ashfork.

A gas company employee had pulled off the highway on a side road and discovered the body on the ground in a turnaround area.

Investigators say the teenage victim suffered trauma to his head.

An autopsy was conducted Monday and authorities say the cause and manner of death are pending.

Sheriff's detectives still are searching the area where the body was found for possible clues.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22303522/body-of-murdered-teen-boy-found-east-of-ashfork

No charges vs Gilbert teacher accused of assault

Posted: May 22, 2013 3:46 PM Updated: May 22, 2013 3:46 PM PHOENIX (AP) - Authorities say no criminal charges will be brought against a Gilbert High School math teacher accused of assaulting a student last month. Daniel A. Dunn was placed on administrative leave by the school after he allegedly slapped a 15-year-old student in the face with the back of his hand on April 17. The Arizona Republic (http://bit.ly/13JvvwY) says Dunn reportedly was yelling at another student about bad behavior and the alleged victim began to laugh. Gilbert police arrested Dunn and forwarded the report to Town Prosecutor Lynn Arouh. She announced Wednesday that the 67-year-old Dunn won't be charged in the case. There's no immediate word from Gilbert Public Schools as to whether Dunn was reinstated from his administrative leave. Dunn was Gilbert High's football coach from 2009 to 2011. Information from: The Arizona Republic, http://www.azcentral.com Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22400342/no-charges-vs-gilbert-teacher-accused-of-assault

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

More kids diagnosed with mental health disabilities

 

By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter

SUNDAY, May 5 (HealthDay News) -- Significantly more U.S. children have a neurodevelopmental or mental health disability than did a decade ago, according to new research.

Disabilities that impair a child's day-to-day living have risen 16 percent, with the greatest increase seen in richer families, according to the study. Conditions such as autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder appear to lie behind the increase, experts said.

But the surveys of parents in 2001-'02 and 2009-'10 also revealed some good news: The rate of disability due to physical conditions went down, according to the study, which is scheduled for presentation Sunday at the Pediatric Academic Societies' annual meeting in Washington D.C. Data and conclusions presented at meetings are typically considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

"This may mean there are differences in people getting early access to care," said study lead author Dr. Amy Houtrow, vice chairwoman of pediatric rehabilitation medicine at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. For example, medications for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, a potentially debilitating inflammatory arthritis, have improved significantly in recent years, she said.

"For some conditions, it may be that medical care has improved so much that children may have a diagnosis but not a disability," she said, adding that this particular example is from what she has seen in her practice, not from the study data.

For the study, Houtrow and colleagues reviewed data from two National Health Interview Surveys conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They included more than 102,000 parents of children from infancy through 17 years of age.

Parents were asked if their children had any limitations in play or activity, received special education services, needed help with personal care, had difficulty walking without supports, had trouble with memory or had any other limitation.

"It's not enough to just have something like ADHD," she said. "You have to be limited somehow by that diagnosis."

The researchers found that nearly 6 million children were considered disabled at the end of the study. Children living in poverty had the highest rates of disability, although poor children didn't experience the largest increases in the incidence of disability during the study period.

Families with incomes 300 percent above the federal poverty level -- around $66,000 for a family of four -- had a 28 percent increase in children with disabilities. Families whose income levels exceeded the poverty level by 400 percent -- about $88,000 -- saw a 24 percent increase in the number of children with disabilities.

Houtrow said it wasn't clear exactly why this was the case, and the researchers suspect increases in neurodevelopmental disorders may be behind the rise.

In children under 6 years old, the trend was most evident, with almost double the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders -- 36 cases per 1,000 children up from 19 a decade earlier.

The increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorders is likely one of the explanations, said Dr. Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York, in New Hyde Park.

Autism spectrum disorders involve impaired communication, social interactions and repetitive behaviors, and can range from mild, as in Asperger's syndrome, to full-blown autism. The CDC estimates that one in 88 children now has a form of autism.

"Even though the study found some differences in disability rates for different socioeconomic status, I would urge any parent who has a concern about their children to discuss it with their child's pediatrician," Adesman said.

Houtrow agreed.

"The condition your child has matters, and how they function in their regular life matters," she said. "If they're having trouble doing things that other children do, reach out to health professionals or to community resources to optimize your child's life. We can help children adapt or get accommodations for them."

Houtrow said the overall rise in neurodevelopmental disorders suggests that there may be changes in what is considered socially acceptable.

More information

Learn more about children's disabilities from the National Dissemination Center for Children With Disabilities.

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22164466/more-kids-diagnosed-with-mental-health-disabilities-study-finds

Monday, May 6, 2013

Four year old boy rescued from pool

Posted: May 04, 2013 8:39 PM Updated: May 04, 2013 8:39 PM

Posted by Chris Holmstrom - email

A four year old boy was rescued from a pool in a near drowning accident, according to the Tucson Fire Department.

It happened on the 6100 block of East Pima Street, near Tanque Verde.

A call was made just before 6pm.

Captain Jeff Langejans said a resident from an apartment complex told dispatchers that it was a four year old boy.

The child was found unresponsive -- face down floating on top of the water.

Crews gave the boy CPR.  He then began to spit up water and breathe on his own.

He was transported to the hospital and we're told his condition has improved.

 

 

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22163619/four

Services 3-year-old girl drowns in Northwest swimming pool

Posted: May 05, 2013 9:50 AM Updated: May 05, 2013 3:29 PM

By Jessica Canchola - email

Posted by James Bennett - email

MARANA, AZ (Tucson News Now) -

A 3-year-old girl died Saturday after being found in a backyard swimming pool.

Northwest Fire District firefighters and paramedics received a call around midnight in the 8200 Block of North Equator Loop, indicating a small child was found in the backyard swimming pool, Capt. Adam Goldberg.

CPR was given to the child until Northwest Fire crews arrived. The girl was then transported to a local hospital, where efforts to revive her were unsuccessful.

The parents of child were at home for a gathering and there were a number of adults and older children in the backyard of the incident, Goldberg said.

The child was last seen 15 minutes before being discovered in the pool. The pool did not have any fence or barriers around it, he said.

The Pima County Sheriff's Deputy Tom Peine said the accident was tragic, not criminal.  

The incident was the first fatal water-related accident in the Pima County 2013 season.

Copyright 2013 Tucson News Now. All rights reserved.

Pool safety for parents after two pool tragedies

Posted: May 05, 2013 6:11 PM Updated: May 06, 2013 8:21 AM

By Matt Mendes - email

TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) -

As Summer months approach, first responders are reminding everyone to be extra cautious around swimming pools.

In the latest drowning, there was no gate. Fire officials are not calling it an accident but rather a preventable incident.

In this pool safety commercial, it happened in an instant. A child gets into the pool, moms not paying attention and seconds later the child drowns.

It's a message fire officials and pool safety advocates are hoping resonates with parents.

It's not even Summer but already we've seen two back to back pool tragedies.

"I had a tough time with it last night because I'm a parent," said Adam Goldberg, Northwest Fire Captain.

They got called to a house party near Cortaro and Old Father. A 3-year-old girl was missing for 15 minutes. They found her in the pool face down. Their efforts to perform CPR were unsuccessful.

And, just several hours before that, a 4-year-old boy almost drowned in a pool at an apartment complex near Pima and Swan. Luckily, someone saw him and rescued him.

"Drowning sometimes is a silent killer. Where children just fall in and they don't make a noise," said Goldberg. "They sink down very quickly.

Goldberg says to remember the ABC's. A-Adult supervision. B-Barriers around the pool. C-CPR.

"Really adult supervision is the key. That's the only one that's 100% you can make a difference," said Cheyenne Arreola, a child safety advocate.

Arreola's grandson Ethan almost drowned 4 years ago. He's now confined to a wheelchair.

"I guess it's kind of hard to say what's worse, someone passing away or someone nearly drowning. The after effects of a near drown are life long," said Arreola.

It's been tough on her family and through awareness, she hopes she can prevent other pool tragedies.

Copyright 2013 Tucson News Now All rights reserved.

 

 

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22166794/pool-safety-for-parents-after-two-pool-tragedies

TPD: Attempted kidnapping suspect arrested

Posted: May 05, 2013 9:20 PM Updated: May 06, 2013 9:05 AM

By Chris Holmstrom - email

Alberto Martinez (Source: Tucson Police Department)

Alberto Martinez (Source: Tucson Police Department)

Tucson Police have arrested a man for trying to kidnap a teenage girl in Tucson.

The incident happened Sunday afternoon along Wilmot just North of Speedway.

Officers say a 15-year-old girl was walking when a man cam up behind her and grabbed her. The girl fought and was able to get away.

Police also received a report around the same time of a man behaving erratically nearby.

The suspect descriptions were similar and officers were able to make contact with him at his residence.

He's been identified as 22-year-old Alberto Martinez.

He's charged on one count of attempted kidnapping and aggravated assault.

Copyright 2013 Tucson News Now All rights reserved

 

 

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/22167247/tpd-attempted-kidnapping-suspect-arrest

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Dov Fox Academic Fellow, Georgetown University Law Center GET UPDATES FROM Dov Fox Like 1 DNA Forensic Error and the Execution of Innocents

crime

 

Willie Jerome Manning, a 44-year-old black man, is scheduled to die by lethal injection on Tuesday for the 1992 kidnapping and murder of white college students Jon Steckler and Tiffany Miller in Mississippi. No physical evidence has ever linked Manning to the crime. And the Justice Department has just come clean that the FBI's forensic science used to prosecute
Manning was fundamentally flawed.

A jury convicted Manning almost 20 years ago based on three kinds of circumstantial evidence. First was the testimony of his cousin and a jailhouse informant who claimed that he confessed the crime to them. The cousin had accused two other men before Manning, however, and the informant has since recanted altogether. Second were Steckler's jacket, ring, and CD player from his car that Manning was arrested for trying to sell. Manning told police from the beginning that he had acquired the stolen property from someone he didn't know.

Critical to the prosecution's case was the last piece of evidence against Manning: expert testimony by an FBI agent that African American hair fragments were found in Miller's car. Not only did DNA and fingerprints found at the crime scene never incriminate Manning himself, however. Two days ago, the Justice Department notified Manning's lawyer and the County District Attorney that "testimony containing erroneous statements regarding microscopic hair comparison analysis was used in this case." Federal officials have yet to detail the precise errors involved, but made clear in their letter that the FBI's forensic evidence was unsound not least because it "exceeded the limits of science" at the time.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Justice Department discovered the errors "as part of a broad review of the FBI's handling of . . . forensic hair examinations before 2000 -- at least 21,000 cases -- to determine whether agents exaggerated the significance of purported hair 'matches' in lab reports or trial testimony." This admission comes days after a 5-4 majority of the Mississippi Supreme Court denied a request by Manning's lawyers to reexamine the forensic evidence in his case on the ground that "conclusive, overwhelming evidence of guilt was presented to the jury."

Justice Kagan warned in last year's Supreme Court case of Williams v. Illinois that the current state of DNA forensics poses a wide range of serious risks of error. These include, as I have explained elsewhere, "contamination of genetic samples during collection, handling, or testing; clerical mistakes during computer data entry; and misinterpretation by laboratory personnel." Justice Kagan admonished that by denying Sandy Williams the right to confront the analyst who performed the incriminating DNA test, the state court and four-Justice plurality that affirmed its judgment made it so that his "attorney could not ask about that analyst's proficiency, the care he took in performing his work, and his veracity. He could not probe whether the analyst had tested the wrong vial, inverted the labels on the samples, committed some more technical error, or simply made up the results."

Now federal officials have for the first time ever acknowledged such errors in the FBI's forensic analysis -- errors that cut to the heart of the capital case against Willie Jerome Manning, for which he is sentenced to die on Tuesday. With the Justice Department's unprecedented admission, the Mississippi governor must stay Manning's pending execution and the state courts must forbid law enforcement from destroying retestable DNA evidence that could exonerate him. The stakes are high and urgent. Failure to act in time could result in the execution of an innocent man and would strike a grave blow to our criminal justice system.

Dov Fox will join the University of San Diego as an Assistant Professor of Law in August 2013. Among his publications on topics in criminal law and forensic science is The Second Generation of Racial Profiling.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dov-fox/dna-forensic-error-and-th_b_3215504.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

What Every Parent Should Know -Introducing the Law and Child Protection Services: Jessica Lynn Hepner: Amazon.com: Books

What Every Parent Should Know -Introducing the Law and Child Protection Services: Jessica Lynn Hepner: Amazon.com: Books

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Standards for Child Protection Services June


Preface
A multi-disciplinary, interagency approach to child
protection work is essential. It is a difficult and
complex area of work which requires a shared
commitment, effective communication and a focus
on achieving the best outcomes for children.
The Standards for Child Protection Services are
grounded in the rights of the child and were
developed to enhance the multi-disciplinary,
interagency approach to child protection. The
standards are a result of widespread consultation
and apply to all public bodies, organisations,
professionals and persons who provide statutory
services to children. They also establish a
framework of best practice in child protection for
voluntary, community and independent sector
organisations and practitioners (including
counsellors and therapists working in a private
capacity) who work with or have significant
contact with children and young people.
The standards are an important part of the overall
framework to deliver continuous improvement in,
and strengthening of, child protection services in
Northern Ireland and their associated
accountability arrangements. They should also
help families and members of the public
understand how services work to protect children
and the important contribution they themselves
can make to the safeguarding of children and
young people.
Paul Martin
Chief Social Services Officer
Department of Health, Social Services and
Public Safety

STANDARDS FOR CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
- How the standards will be used
- The format of the standards
1
Values and Principles 4
The Standards:
1. Planning, Commissioning, Providing, Quality Assuring and
Auditing Services
6
2. The Purpose of and Access to Services 10
3. Assessment, Case Planning, Case Management and
Record Keeping
13
4. Protecting Vulnerable Children in Specific Circumstances 18
5. The Establishment and Operation of Area Child Protection
Committees (ACPCs) and Trust Child Protection Panels
(CPPs)1
20
6. Case Management Reviews2 22
7. The Interfaces and Joint Working Arrangements for
Children in Need of Residential Care, across Fieldwork,
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS),
Adult Mental Health and other Agencies
24
8. Equality and Human Rights 27
1 Work is underway to establish a Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) and a
Safeguarding Panel (SP) within each HSC Trust which will support the work of the SBNI. It is
anticipated that the new structures will be introduced during 2008 and will ultimately replace
ACPCs and CPPs. It will be necessary to revisit this standard prior to the SBNI and SPs
becoming operational
2 In line with establishing the SBNI, DHSSPS has commissioned a review of the current Case
Management Review process. It will be necessary to revisit this standard when this process
is completed

1
INTRODUCTION
The standards for child protection services were originally developed in draft form as
‘inspection standards’ to assist the process of the regional multi-disciplinary,
interagency inspection of child protection services, whose overview report “Our
Children and Young People – Our Shared Responsibility”3 was published by the
Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) in 2006. The
inspection standards were drawn up by a reference group led by DHSSPS, with
representation from Health and Social Services Boards (HSS Boards) and HSS
Trusts, Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs), Child Protection Panels (CPPs),
the Department of Education (DE), the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), the
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY), the
Regulation and Quality and Improvement Authority (RQIA) and relevant agencies
within the voluntary sector. The standards were subject to widespread consultation
and were also shaped by the views of young people who had experienced child
protection services.
The inspection standards were influenced by:
• a review of existing standards in the area of child protection;
• a review of a wide body of literature and research on child protection;
• the recommendations contained in The Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report.4 This
report made many far-reaching and challenging recommendations for all
engaged in the governance, planning, management and delivery of child
protection services, which are still applicable;
• “Co-operating to Safeguard Children” (CtSC),5 is the current DHSSPS child
protection guidance. This will be periodically updated and amended to reflect
changing practice in the field of child protection;
• the learning from inspection and Case Management Reviews (CMRs) in
Northern Ireland; and
• a series of workshops and wide consultation with the range of disciplines and
agencies involved in child protection work in Northern Ireland.
In light of the learning derived from the regional inspection experience, the inspection
standards have now been reviewed, in collaboration with relevant agencies, whose
roles and responsibilities include the safeguarding of children and young people.
The standards are now produced in final form as “the child protection standards” and
3 “Our Children and Young People - Our Shared Responsibility” can be accessed through:
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/index/ssi/oss-child-protection.htm
4 Laming (2003) Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report. The Report can be accessed at:
http://www.victoria-climbie-inquiry.org.uk/finreport/finreport.htm
5 “Co-operating to Safeguard Children”, DHSSPS (2003), can be accessed at:
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/show_publications?txtid=14022
2
are applicable to all public bodies, organisations, professionals and other persons
who provide statutory services to children. These standards also establish a
framework of best child protection practice for voluntary, community and independent
sector organisations and practitioners (including counsellors and therapists working
in a private capacity) who work with or have significant contact with children and
young people and should be made widely available to such organisations and
practitioners. A requirement to comply with the child protection standards and other
DHSSPS, HSS Boards’ and Health and Social Care (HSC) Trusts’ guidance in
relation to safeguarding children and young people should form part of service level
agreements and/or contractual arrangements for services to children and young
people between statutory agencies and non-statutory organisations or individuals
working in a private capacity. The standards should also help families and members
of the public understand how services work to protect children and the important
contribution they themselves can make to safeguard children and young people.
How the standards will be used
The implementation of the standards will assist the planning, delivery, audit, review
and inspection of child protection services across the region and provide the
foundation for informing practice and improving the services to children, young
people and their families.
The standards will be used by:
• HSC commissioners for the planning, commissioning, quality assuring and
auditing of services;
• organisations, professionals and other persons who provide statutory
services to children for the planning, commissioning, provision and review of
services; provision of information; individual care planning and review;
protection of vulnerable children; important service interfaces and equality and
human rights;
• children, young people and families and their representative groups to
inform them of what they can and should reasonably expect from child
protection services and from the organisations and practitioners commissioning
and providing them;
• practitioners to inform them of the requirements of care planning, service
delivery and review and of what they can and should reasonably expect from
the organisations employing them;
• regulatory and professional bodies and training providers in their
inspection and governance reviews and work to ensure that professional, postqualifying
and in-service training fully prepares and equips staff to work
effectively with regard to the provision of child protection services; and
• members of the public to understand how services work to protect children
and the important contribution they can make to safeguard children and young
people.
3
The format of the standards
The 8 standard statements for Child Protection Services are set out under the
following headings:
1. Planning, Commissioning, Providing, Quality Assuring and Auditing Services;
2. The Purpose of and Access to Services;
3. Assessment, Case Planning, Case Management and Record Keeping;
4. Protecting Vulnerable Children in Specific Circumstances;
5. The Establishment and Operation of Area Child Protection Committees
(ACPCs) and Trust Child Protection Panels (CPPs);
6. Case Management Reviews;
7. The Interfaces and Joint Working Arrangements for Children in Need of
Residential Care, across Fieldwork, Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Services (CAMHS), Adult Mental Health and other Agencies; and
8. Equality and Human Rights.
Under each of these headings, there is a standard statement which explains the
level of performance to be achieved. The standard statement is supported by
criteria which provide further detail of the areas to be considered in the application of
the standard to professional practice, service provision, governance and workforce
issues.
Work is underway to establish a Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) and
a Safeguarding Panel (SP) within each HSC Trust which will support the work of the
SBNI. It is anticipated that the new structures will be introduced during 2008 and will
ultimately replace ACPCs and CPPs. It will be necessary to revisit Standard 5 prior
to the SBNI and SPs becoming operational. Similarly, in line with establishing the
SBNI, DHSSPS has commissioned a review of the current Case Management
Review process. It will be necessary to revisit Standard 6 when this process is
completed.
4
Values and Principles
Legislation and international agreements concerned with the welfare and rights of
children enshrine a number of important themes which have informed the
development of the child protection standards. The Children (Northern Ireland) Order
1995 (the Children Order)6 established the overriding principle that when the ultimate
authority of a court is required to determine any question regarding a child, then “the
child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”. This principle must
therefore direct the work of each HSC Trust in its general duty under the Children
Order to “safeguard and promote the welfare of children within its area who are in
need” and should also direct the decisions and actions of other agencies and
individuals who provide services to children.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)7 is an
international treaty that grants all children and young people a comprehensive set of
human rights. These include the right to grow up in an environment of happiness,
love and understanding and the right to develop their personalities, abilities and
talents to the fullest potential. The Northern Ireland Government’s 10 year strategy
for children and young people “Our Children and Young People - Our Pledge”8
published in 2006 reflects these rights and identifies “living in safety and with
stability” as a key outcome to be promoted and achieved for all children in Northern
Ireland over the period of the strategy.
The child protection standards are underpinned by the following values and
principles which build on the inspection standards to further reflect the paramountcy
principle of the Children Order, the rights of children under the UNCRC and the
findings and recommendations of “Our Children and Young People - Our Shared
Responsibility”.
These values and principles should always be promoted, where they are
commensurate with the primary duty to safeguard the child.
1. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children who are abused or at risk of
abuse or neglect is a priority when decisions are made about access to and
eligibility for services.
6 The Children Order can be accessed at:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/UKsi_19950755_en_1.htm#tcon
The Explanatory Note to the Children Order can be accessed at:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/UKsi_19950755_en_55.htm#exnote
7 In 1980, the United Nations General Council adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child (UNCRC). The United Kingdom (UK) government signed the UNCRC on 19 April 1990
and ratified it on 16 December 1991 with some reservations. It entered into force for the UK on
15 January 1992. The current reservations in force are immigration and citizenship and children in
adult offender institutions. The UNCRC can be accessed through:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/WelcomePage.aspx
8 “Our Children and Young People - Our Pledge” was launched by the Office of the First and Deputy
First Minister in June 2006 and can be accessed at:
http://www.allchildrenni.gov.uk/ten-year-strategy.pdf
5
2. Listening to and engaging children and their families is a crucial element to
ensuring their full participation in discussions, where decisions are being made
that affect them.
3. Children and their families receive responses and services which engage them
as partners in problem solving, avoiding where possible family breakdown,
preventing harm and promoting children’s development and life chances.
4. Some children are particularly vulnerable due to their circumstances and the
design and delivery of services should promote and safeguard their wellbeing.
5. Child Protection Services promote the inclusion and citizenship of children, are
provided within an ethos that maximises protection, access to appropriate
education, life chances, opportunities and independence and accommodates
religious, linguistic, ethnic, social and cultural backgrounds, individual
circumstances and children and families rights to privacy.
6. Services are planned and delivered in a way which empowers children
requiring to be safeguarded, respects their dignity and assists them to lead as
full a life as possible, while ensuring that professionals discharge their
responsibilities for safeguarding children.
7. Children and their families are involved in the assessments of their needs and
in the co-ordinated approaches designed to meeting these.
8. Children have a right to equality of access to services, which are developed/
tailored to best meet their assessed need.
Definition of a Child
For the purpose of these standards, and in accordance with the definition of a child
under relevant Parts of the Children Order, “child” means a person under the age of
18 years.
6
1. Planning, Commissioning, Providing, Quality Assuring and Auditing
Services
STANDARD 1
There are arrangements in place for planning, commissioning, providing,
quality assuring and auditing child protection services across relevant
disciplines and agencies, which meet the legislative, statutory duty of quality
and clinical and social care governance requirements. These arrangements
take account of the assessed needs of children and families, service options
and choice, the resources available, including education, and value for money.
Criteria
Planning and Commissioning
1.1 Arrangements have been established across the range of appropriate
disciplines, agencies and communities for planning, commissioning, providing,
quality assuring and auditing child protection services, which meet statutory9
and governance requirements10 and are provided within the context of
departmental guidance and the Children’s Services Plan (CSP).
1.2 The processes for commissioning child protection services ensure that they
are located within a continuum of services to children in need, those in need of
safeguarding and their families and that a range of appropriate interventions
for the prevention and treatment of significant harm is available. The process
is outcome-focused and takes into consideration:
• assessed local need, including identification of unmet need;
• service options and choice;
• the diversities arising from differing cultural and community identities,
which are respected and inform the commissioning and planning of
services to children and their families;
• budgetary constraints;
• value for money; and
9 “Responsibilities, Accountability and Authority of the Department of Health, Social Services and
Public Safety, Health and Social Services Boards and Health and Social Services Trusts in the
Discharge of Relevant Personal Social Services Functions to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of
Children” - Departmental Circular HSS (Statutory Functions) 1/2006 can be accessed through:
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/index/ssi/ssi_circulars.htm
10 “The Quality Standards for Health and Social Care - Supporting Good Governance and Best
Practice in the HPSS” (March 2006) can be accessed at:
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/qpi_quality_standards_for_health___social_care.pdf
7
• issues arising from research and evidence-based practice.
1.3 There are agreed arrangements to manage the interface and joint working
across Health and Social Care (HSC) Trusts and other agencies within the
planning, commissioning and provision of services, which include:
• joint protocols, guidance and procedures for delivering all aspects and
stages of the child protection process, including the interagency
arrangements. These provide clarity on the roles, responsibilities and
accountability of those involved; and
• arrangements for staff within HSC Trusts and relevant professionals in
partner organisations to gain and update their knowledge of child
protection policy and procedures and of the services available for the
protection and support of children and families.
Provision of Services
1.4 Where services are provided on a partnership or commissioned basis, Service
Level Agreements (SLAs) clearly state the required and agreed expectations
in regard to the level and quality of the service to be provided and the
arrangements for monitoring the SLAs.
1.5 There are agreed effective mechanisms for assessing, quantifying and
managing the level of need, and the level of unmet need, for children and their
families involved in the child protection process, which inform the planning,
allocation of resources and delivery of services (see also Standard 7.5).
1.6 Commissioners, providers and other relevant agencies have clear workforce
strategies in place for all staff working in child protection. These conform to
best employment practice, relevant codes of conduct and practice for
employers and employees and to the guidance and standards set. They
include:
• effective recruitment processes and workforce planning;
• coherent organisational structures and clarity about the roles and functions
of staff, the level of responsibilities and accountability arrangements;
• the necessary skills, knowledge and experience required by staff working
with children who need to be safeguarded;
• a clear multi-disciplinary training strategy for child protection;
• arrangements for staff induction, Continuous Professional Development
(CPD), uni-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary and post-qualifying training, the
organisation’s training plan and evaluation of the programmes provided;
and
8
• the requirements of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults
(Northern Ireland) Order 200311 and any subsequent legislation, when
selecting, recruiting, managing and retaining staff and volunteers who
have access to children and reporting incidents under the legislative
requirements.
Quality Assurance and Audit
1.7 The organisation has explicit leadership and defined roles and responsibilities
for the management, co-ordination, monitoring and audit of child protection
services, which takes account of legislation, the statutory duty of quality,
clinical and social care governance and professional codes of conduct.
1.8 There are mechanisms in place to manage the performance of staff and to
ensure that:
• those seeking and receiving a service are treated sensitively and with
respect, and services are provided in line with the standards set;
• staff have the capacity to develop and sustain effective working
relationships with colleagues in other agencies;
• staff are clear about their responsibilities and they;
- are held to account for the quality of their work, professional practice
and adherence to standards;
- routinely review and self-audit their performance; and
- build-in opportunities to develop and enhance their knowledge, skills
and practice;
• supervision arrangements are in place and comply with the standards
set.12 The process ensures that managers manage, support, monitor, and
assess practice, acknowledge good performance and actively address
practice deficits. It includes:
• staff appraisal and performance management;13 and caseload
management;14
11 The 2003 Order can be accessed at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20030431.htm
Also, “Choosing to Protect – A Guide to Using the Protection of Children, Northern Ireland Service”
can be accessed at: http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/poc.pdf
12 Supervision Policy, Standards and Criteria, (HSS (OSSPOL/RIT) 1-2008) issued in April 2008 can
be accessed through: http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/index/ssi/oss-childrens-services.htm
13 Quality Assurance and Performance Management, (HSS (OSSGUIDE/RIT) 2-2008) issued in April
2008 can be accessed through: http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/index/ssi/oss-childrens-services.htm
14 Caseload Management Model, (HSS (OSSGUIDE/RIT) 1-2008) issued in April 2008 can be
accessed through: http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/index/ssi/oss-childrens-services.htm
9
• staff are assisted to provide feedback on the usefulness of guidance and
procedures and are helped to build into their work, ways of measuring
outcomes for children and families; and
• effective participation by children, families and staff is promoted and
feedback on service planning, resource allocation and service provision is
actively sought.
1.9 There is an agreed planned programme of audit for the full range of child
protection services, which informs the development of services and
governance arrangements across HSS Boards, HSC Trusts and Agencies.
This includes the regular review and audit of:
• compliance with statutory functions;
• access to services which seeks to ensure easy access by members of the
public to report any concerns about a child and that these are dealt with
appropriately;
• integration into practice of lessons from Case Management Reviews
(CMRs), (see also Standard 6.8).
• therapeutic interventions and professional practice and their effectiveness
in achieving specified outcomes for children;
• the effectiveness of the arrangements for joint working across the
disciplines and agencies; and
• complaints and representations, in line with guidance issued.
10
2. The Purpose of and Access to Services
STANDARD 2
The organisation has a written Statement of Purpose about the range of
services available for children who require protection, including their statutory
basis, expected standards, and the purpose of and how to access to services,
which is informed by legislation, departmental and professional guidance.
Criteria
Purpose of Services
2.1 The organisation’s Statement of Purpose about the range of services available
for children who require protection sets out the nature and purpose of the
services, their basis in legislation, statutory functions and responsibilities and
is informed by departmental and professional guidance.
2.2 The Statement of Purpose focuses on the importance of promoting a
partnership approach with children, parents and families, which is
commensurate with the duty to safeguard children, and:
• provides clarity about the respective roles and responsibilities of all parties
to achieve positive outcomes for children; and
• includes guidance on how to assist children, parents, the wider family and
community networks, to provide suggestions for the improvement and
development of child protection services and, where necessary, to make
complaints.
Access to Services
2.3 There are agreed communication strategies for promoting access to child
protection services and these ensure that:
• the community is advised of the need to safeguard children, how they can
contribute to protecting children and how their views are sought;
• written information is provided to actual and potential users about the
range of family support services available, including child protection and
this is provided in a range of formats; and
• the needs of black and minority ethnic groups, people with communication
difficulties and disabled persons are fully considered and they are
supported in accessing services. Assistance, including access to
interpreting services, is provided during interviews, assessments and
meetings to enable the views of children, parents, family members and
others to be fully communicated with, where they do not have English as a
11
first or as a competent second language and where there is a deaf or hard
of hearing difficulty.
2.4 Organisations work effectively together to provide advice and encourage
appropriate referrals from children and families, members of the public and
others who work with children, where there are child protection concerns.
2.5 Children and their families receive responses and services which seek to
engage them in accessing services, contribute to problem solving, strengthen
resilience, avoid family breakdown, wherever possible, prevent harm and
promote children’s life chances.
2.6 Those who make referrals and enquiries about safeguarding children are
responded to in line with CtSC, and in a way which ensures:
• an appropriate response to the concerns raised within 24 hours;
• written acknowledgement of the referral within 2 working days of it being
received; and
• referrer/agencies are appropriately kept informed of the progress and
outcome in line with the standards set.15
2.7 Where there is a concern about child abuse or where children present with
high risk and challenging behaviour, self-injurious behaviour, or suicidal
ideation:
• strategy discussions/case planning meetings are convened in line with
CtSC, the ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures16 and child protection
procedures are initiated appropriately;
• actions required are clearly defined;
• processes are applied consistently, irrespective of setting;
• relevant disciplines are consulted and involved in the assessment, risk
assessment and care planning process; and
• key working and lead agency responsibilities are clearly identified.
2.8 Complaints or allegations of abuse to a child, made to and/or by a
professional, staff member, counsellor or therapist working in a private
capacity, carer, volunteer, child, member of the public, are immediately
15 Information Sharing Policy, Standards and Criteria will be issued for consultation in the near future
16 The ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures (April 2005) can be accessed at:
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/acpcregionalstrategy.pdf
A Short Guide to Regional Policy and Procedures can be accessed at:
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/acpcregionalstrategyshortguide.pdf
12
responded to and in accordance with CtSC, and other departmental guidance,
and the ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures.
2.9 Disclosures made by children are immediately responded to and appropriate
interventions and support is provided following a full assessment of need,
including a risk assessment.
2.10 Public access, reception and duty arrangements, including out-of-hours or
emergency arrangements enable appropriate access to services and support.
13
3. Assessment, Case Planning, Case Management and Record Keeping
STANDARD 3
Written policies and procedures provide direction and guidance to staff
regarding assessment, including risk assessment, case planning, case
management, including risk management, and record keeping, at all stages of
the child protection process.
Criteria
Policies and Procedures
3.1 Written policies and procedures are made available to staff and these and the
agreed multi-agency guidelines take account of:
• statutory responsibilities, CtSC and other departmental guidance,17 and
the ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures;
• the need for children and families, assessed to require child protection
services, to receive a skilled multi-disciplinary assessment, which looks
holistically at the child’s circumstances and includes health and
development, education and social needs, parenting capacity, the wider
family and environmental context;
• the need for staff to understand the short and long term effects on children
of neglect in their early years; and the short and long term effects on
children, cared for by adults with alcohol, substance misuse, mental health
or other problems;
• the timescales, standards and systems for:
- responding to a concern about significant harm or risk of significant
harm;
- allocating referrals and work based on the expertise and competence of
staff, and their current workload;
- screening of referrals, and subsequent actions taken, by the line
manager; and
- tracking and monitoring actions taken in response to the referral;
• the roles, responsibilities, and accountability of those involved in individual
case management and decision making processes; and
• planning and managing child protection investigations as required under
Article 66 of the Children Order.
17 “The Guidance and Regulations produced by the Department in the context of the Children
(Northern Ireland) Order 1995 can be accessed through:
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/hss/child_care/child_care_guidance.htm
14
3.2 Referral, assessment and case planning guidance and criteria are made
available to assist staff to reach professional judgements about risks to
children and recourse to child protection processes.
3.3 Staff are clear about their roles and responsibilities and are complying with
professional standards, legislative requirements, departmental guidance and
related policies and procedures.
3.4 Procedures and guidance are reviewed and revised in the light of new
developments, changes in legislation, regulation, policy and guidance,
learning emerging from CMRs, audit, and research in child protection.
Strategy Discussions
3.5 Strategy discussions are held in accordance with CtSC and the ACPCs’
Regional Policy and Procedures. Decisions and actions taken and the
outcome of these inform the progression of the case and are reflected in
writing in the case record and on the appropriate Protocol for Joint
Investigation forms.
Assessment and Analysis of Risk
3.6 Assessments are carried out on a single agency and multi-disciplinary basis
and are consistent with the Children Order, CtSC and the “Understanding the
Needs of Children in Northern Ireland”, (UNOCINI) assessment framework.
3.7 Assessments bring together all aspects of the case at each stage of the
process and contain an analysis of the needs of and risks to the child and
indicate a clear direction for current and future work. They are based on:
• a partnership with children and parents;
• clear information from the interviews with the child and with the family;
• analysis of the needs of and risks to the child;
• identified resilience and protective factors;
• family and environmental circumstances, including the strengths and
capacity of the parents and the wider family and the outcomes from family
group conferencing;
• professional knowledge and expertise acquired from relevant disciplines
and agencies; and
• evidenced-based practice and research.
3.8 All assessments are carried out within the time frame established in CtSC, the
ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures and the Guide to UNOCINI. The
written document includes:
15
• the identified issues in the case, how these are being dealt with and the
timescale for delivery;
• the work programme, identifying who is responsible for carrying out each
element including therapeutic interventions and the intended outcomes;
• the risk assessment and risk management action plan and the
communication of risk and its management to others with a need to know
in accordance with guidance issued;
• the services provided alongside the assessment process; and
• next steps and actions required.
Child Protection Conferences and Reviews
3.9 Child Protection Conferences (CPCs) and reviews are conducted in line with
CtSC and the ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures, in respect of children
who have suffered or are likely to suffer significant harm. These are effectively
planned and managed to facilitate:
• the attendance at and input of appropriate professionals/agencies; and
• the attendance at and input of children and parents.
3.10 The CPC is chaired by a senior manager who is responsible for fulfilling the
responsibilities detailed in departmental guidance and ensuring that:
• the initial CPC is held within 15 working days of the decision taken to
convene a it;
• the assessments (UNOCINI), written reports and the range of information
are available to the CPC to enable decisions and recommendations to be
made;
• the tasks identified in CtSC and the ACPCs’ Regional Policy and
Procedures are completed;
• a person trained to take minutes of the meeting is in attendance. The
minutes include the:
- record of invitees, those who attended, or sent apologies;
- list of all reports to be considered by the CPC, including the reports
received from those not attending;
- summary of the essential facts of the case;
- summary of views expressed and analysis of information;
- record of all decisions reached, including any dissenting views and how
these were resolved;
- actions to be taken, by whom and timescales for each action;
16
- summary of decisions taken, which should be circulated within 14
working days of the CPC being held;
- identification of the case co-ordinator, membership of the core group
and date of its first meeting; and
- time-frame for subsequent reviews.
Child Protection Plans
3.11 Child protection plans are “fit for purpose”, fulfil the requirements as set out in
CtSC and the ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures and are agreed with
those involved. Copies are provided to the relevant staff and to parents/carers
and children.
3.12 There are arrangements in place to ensure that:
• each child whose name is on the child protection register has a named
social worker allocated;
• the social worker co-ordinates the contributions of other disciplines and
agencies to achieve the completion of tasks identified in the child
protection plan; and
• when tasks set out in the child protection plan are not carried out there are
mechanisms to quickly identify and resolve any disagreements and
difficulties, so as to ensure that the identified work takes place with the
child and family.
Record Keeping
3.13 Guidance on record keeping is in line with the standards set18 and includes:
• the quality and standard of recording practices, how records/case files are
to be structured and maintained, from referral through to closure of the
case;
• the required content of children’s case files, including the need for:
18 Administrative Systems, Recording Policy, Standards and Criteria (HSS (OSSPOL/RIT) 2-2008)
issued in April 2008 can be accessed through:
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/index/ssi/oss-childrens-services.htm
Reference should also be made to:
Good Management Good Records, which can be accessed at:
http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/dhs-goodmanagement.pdf
Good Medical Practice (November 2006), which can be accessed at:
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/GMC_GMP.pdf
NMC Record Keeping guidance, which can be accessed through:
http://www.nmc-uk.org/aDefault.aspx
17
- accurate and up-to-date records and an up-to-date chronology of
events;
- referral information, initial and subsequent multi-disciplinary
assessments/inputs, review CPC minutes and the child protection plan;
- evidence of professional analysis, opinions, action and decisions,
which are endorsed by line management at each stage of the child
protection process;
- summary of intervention and agreed action plans; and
- evidence of monitoring by line management and senior management.
3.14 There is evidence within the child’s case file that records and interventions
provided comply with the standards, and:
• are agreed, signed and dated regularly by the line manager or senior
professional adviser;
• are reviewed and audited regularly by senior management; and
• timely and appropriate information is exchanged verbally and in writing
between disciplines and relevant agencies.19
19 Information Sharing Policy, Standards and Criteria will be issued for consultation in the near future
18
4. Protecting Vulnerable Children in Specific Circumstances
STANDARD 4
There are agreed interagency arrangements in place for the protection of
children in groups known to be vulnerable and in specific circumstances.
Criteria
4.1 There are agreed interagency arrangements for the protection of children in
groups known to be vulnerable and in specific circumstances, and these take
account of children at high risk in community, hospital and residential settings.
4.2 The organisation’s operational guidance, child protection training and support
systems for staff includes the procedures to follow in respect of:
• children who have been sexually abused;
• children who have been physically abused;
• children who have been emotionally abused;
• children who have been neglected;
• children who present with faltering growth/failure to thrive;
• children who present with fabricated or induced illness;
• children who present with high risk and challenging behaviour, selfinjurious
behaviour and suicidal ideation;
• children living away from home20 and children placed outside the Trust’s
area;
• children with ill health or who have a disability;
• children with significant language, speech and communication impairment;
• children in need of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)
and psychological support services;
• children who are homeless;
• children who are exploited, including those exposed to child/human
trafficking;
20 Children “looked after” in care, either foster care or children’s home for respite, short term or long
term; children staying with host families on exchanges/holidays; children in hospital, residential or
boarding schools; and children in youth justice custody settings
19
• children who abuse others;
• children who are bullied;
• children who are under age parents;
• children who are carers;
• children whose parents/carers have a disability;
• children who are victims of domestic violence;
• children whose parents/carers have a mental illness;
• children whose parents/carers misuse drugs/alcohol;
• children who live with or have contact with families or individuals who may
pose a risk to children, including persons where there is risk of sexual
and/or violent behaviour;
• children who are exposed to potential abuse on the internet;
• children from black and minority ethnic groups and from the travelling
communities;
• unborn children, where risks are posed by parents.
20
5. The Establishment and Operation of Area Child Protection Committees
(ACPCs) and Trust Child Protection Panels (CPPs)21
STANDARD 5
The lead responsibilities for the establishment and effective working of ACPCs
and CPPs are clearly defined and in line with departmental guidance.
Criteria
Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC)
5.1 The ACPC is constituted as required by CtSC and has representation and
contribution from the relevant agencies, at an appropriate senior level of
authority.
5.2 Policies, procedures, information and amendments are agreed regionally by
the relevant agencies for interagency, multi-disciplinary work and within the
framework provided by CtSC and subsequent departmental guidance.
5.3 Each ACPC child protection strategy and business plan is agreed and
adhered to by all disciplines and agencies involved in the safeguarding of
children and these documents are widely available.
5.4 Outcome-focused objectives and performance indicators for safeguarding
children have been established and these take account of the multidisciplinary
and interagency contribution.
5.5 Policy and procedures are in place for access to, and use of, information
entered on the child protection register and this information has been
disseminated across the relevant services.
5.6 The ACPC has an audit subgroup and, in collaboration with the CPP, has an
agreed multi-disciplinary, interagency planned programme of audit to measure
outcomes for children and families, which ensures:
• services are working effectively together to safeguard children and the
resources needed are identified;
• governance and corporate responsibilities for safeguarding children are
complied with;
• child protection issues and developments are shared across disciplines
and agencies and are appropriately acted upon;
21 Work is underway to establish a Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) and a
Safeguarding Panel (SP) within each HSC Trust which will support the work of the SBNI. It is
anticipated that the new structures will be introduced during 2008 and will ultimately replace
ACPCs and CPPs. It will be necessary to revisit this Standard prior to the SBNI and SPs
becoming operational
21
• uni-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary and interagency training is based on the
child protection process, and the identified needs of all levels of staff
involved in child protection work;
• access to and use of the child protection register is promoted across the
region and is in line with CtSC and subsequent departmental guidance,
and the ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures; and
• child protection activity is regularly monitored and reviewed and staff are
assisted to build into their work ways of measuring outcomes for children
and families.
Trust Child Protection Panel (CPP)
5.7 The CPP is constituted as required by CtSC and subsequent departmental
guidance, and has representation and contribution from the relevant agencies,
at an appropriate senior level of authority.
5.8 Terms of reference have been established and activities are carried out within
the framework of the ACPC business plan and objectives set.
5.9 The CPP, in collaboration with the ACPC, has an agreed multi-disciplinary,
interagency planned programme of audit for measuring outcomes for children
and families, which ensures:
• services are working effectively together to safeguard children and the
resources needed are identified;
• governance and corporate responsibilities for safeguarding children are
complied with;
• the ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures are implemented;
• child protection issues and developments are shared across disciplines
and agencies and are appropriately acted upon;
• uni-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary and interagency training is based on the
child protection process, and the identified needs of all levels of staff
involved in child protection work;
• access to and use of the child protection registers is promoted across the
region and is in line with CtSC and subsequent departmental guidance,
and the ACPCs’ Regional Policy and Procedures; and
• child protection activity is regularly monitored and reviewed and staff are
assisted to build into their work ways of measuring outcomes for children
and families.
22
6. Case Management Reviews22
STANDARD 6
Case Management Reviews (CMRs) are conducted in accordance with CtSC
and subsequent departmental guidance and outcomes effectively inform
practice at all levels. Lessons are communicated clearly to all those who need
to know and changes are implemented, audited and reviewed to maximise the
safeguards provided to children.
Criteria
6.1 There are policies and procedures for undertaking CMRs and these have
been appropriately disseminated across the relevant agencies and are
conducted in accordance with CtSC and subsequent departmental guidance.
6.2 Arrangements are in place to audit compliance with the policies and
procedures for undertaking CMRs, as outlined in CtSC and subsequent
departmental guidance.
6.3 Arrangements are in place to ensure that all decisions not to proceed to CMR
are in line with CtSC and endorsed by DHSSPS.
6.4 The CMR Panel is made up of individuals who are independent of HSC Trusts
and other agencies concerned with the case under examination and include
the range of relevant disciplines and agencies required to carry out the Review
to achieve impartiality, openness and independence.
6.5 The CMR Panel has terms of reference and a plan to progress its work is
drawn together, in line with departmental guidance and addresses the specific
issues in the case.
6.6 The ACPC has systems in place to monitor the progress of the CMR report
which ensure that:
• the individual agency reports are compiled in line with the guidance in
CtSC;
• the CMR report addresses relevant issues and is presented in the format
prescribed in CtSC;
• the CMR report is completed within the timescales established in CtSC;
• the CMR action plan is immediately constructed and the recommendations
are implemented, in collaboration with all relevant agencies and
professionals;
22 In line with establishing the SBNI, DHSSPS has commissioned a review of the current CMR
process. It will be necessary to revisit this Standard when this process is completed
23
• the CMR action plan clearly identifies who is responsible for specific action
within set targets and includes the process for reviewing and auditing how
changes implemented have improved outcomes for children; and
• the CMR report and action plan is shared with DHSSPS within the
timescale established by departmental guidance.
6.7 There are systems in place to monitor and audit how the recommendations
have been progressed and to ensure outcomes have been achieved in a
timely manner.
6.8 The recommendations and learning emerging from CMRs have been promptly
and effectively disseminated to frontline and management staff in the relevant
agencies, within appropriate timescales. The outcome of this informs the
development of best practice and service improvement across the region (see
also Standard 1.9).
24
7. The Interfaces and Joint Working Arrangements for Children in Need of
Residential Care, across Fieldwork, Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Services (CAMHS), Adult Mental Health and other Agencies
Criteria
7.1 There are agreed protocols to effectively manage the interfaces with
residential, fieldwork, CAMHS, adult mental health services and other
agencies. These set out clearly the respective roles and responsibilities of
professionals and agencies, the arrangements for joint working and making
and tracking referrals, in particular to CAMHS, Intensive Support Services and
other agencies.
7.2 Each HSC Trust has a Children’s Resource Panel23 with clearly agreed Terms
of Reference which ensures:
• representation from the appropriate disciplines, including, residential child
care services, which enables the full utilisation of expertise in the decision
making process; and
• implementation of the standards expected in relation to the comprehensive
assessment, risk assessment and care plan and the standards for
children’s homes in respect of admission requirements.24 These facilitate:
- appropriate decision making regarding the placement of children prior
to admission;
- consideration of the impact of emergency/unplanned admissions to
residential care of children who present with high risk and challenging
behaviour and the effective management of safeguarding arrangements
in the home, including adjusting staffing levels, where necessary;
23 The purpose of the Children’s Resource Panel is to manage access to service provision for children
on the edge of care or in the care system by establishing a dedicated mechanism for ensuring that
the needs of children are identified and the referral pathways to systems and services that promote
best outcomes for children and families are based on a clear and robust assessment of need.
Further guidance will be issued to HSC Trusts in the near future
24 “Children’s Homes – Minimum Standards” will be issued in the near future. The Children’s Homes
Regulations can be accessed at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2005/nisr_20050176_en.pdf
STANDARD 7
There are agreed protocols, structures, staffing, management and auditing
arrangements in place for ensuring effective interfaces and joint working
arrangements for children in need of residential care, across fieldwork,
CAMHS, adult mental health services and other agencies. These facilitate
the comprehensive assessment, risk management and care planning
process and the provision of the appropriate therapeutic interventions and
supports that are required for children and families.
25
- the identification of a comprehensive range of placements in a timely
way for children in need of protection, to ensure individual assessed
needs can be met.
7.3 Formal admission contracts are agreed between the staff, child and family,
which provide:
• clarity on the purpose and expected outcome of the admission and
ensures planned visits to the home are provided for the child and family
members, wherever possible, in advance of admission; and
• clarity on the respective roles and responsibilities and contact
arrangements of the residential, fieldwork, CAMHS, adult mental health
services and other agencies in relation to the work plan and the follow-up
arrangements, including their expected input regarding therapeutic
interventions, statutory visits, family contact and reviews.
7.4 Staff in residential, fieldwork, CAMHS, adult mental health services and other
agencies have sufficient training, knowledge, skill and experience in working
with children and families, where there are child protection and high risk
situations.
7.5 The resources needed for CAMHS and Intensive Support Services are clearly
identified and are in place. These provide for the assessed therapeutic needs
of looked after children and support residential child care staff in working with
and managing children’s challenging and high risk behaviours (see also
Standard 1.5)
7.6 There are agreed management information systems for collating and
analysing information on unmet need and critical incidents in order to identify
high risks requiring action. There are mechanisms for bringing these to the
attention of the appropriate authorities, agencies and committees, to quality
assure decisions and service provision and to assist in service planning. The
systems have been agreed with other agencies e.g. PSNI, RQIA and other
relevant bodies.
7.7 Practice and case records demonstrate that each assessment of need and
risk is robust and that children in children’s homes have timely and appropriate
access to therapeutic interventions, which is informing work with the child and
family, in seeking to achieve the goals agreed in the admission contract.
7.8 Decisions regarding discharge or “home on trial” 25 are based on a full
assessment and risk assessment of the child and the likely benefits, strengths,
weaknesses and risks within the family situation. The care plan sets out the
contact and the follow-up arrangements of the various disciplines and
agencies.
25 Placement of Children with Parents etc Regulations in Northern Ireland 1996 (Article 27 of the
Children Northern Ireland Order 1995). The Regulations can be accessed at:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr1996/Nisr_19960463_en_1.htm#tcon
26
7.9 The training strategy and training plans are discussed and agreed across all
the relevant professionals and agencies and include joint training on:
• identifying the symptoms of abuse; recognising and managing allegations
of abuse and disclosures made by children including self-injurious
behaviour and suicidal ideation;
• identifying and managing risk, including children who sexually abuse
others or display sexually harmful behaviour;
• initiating timely child protection procedures and referrals to mental health
services;
• understanding the short and long term effects on children of neglect in
their early years;
• understanding the short and long term effects on children cared for by
adults with alcohol and substance misuse problems, mental health
problems or learning disability; and
• improving the interfaces and joint working arrangements across
residential, fieldwork, CAMHS, adult mental health services and other
agencies.
27
8. Equality and Human Rights
STANDARD 8
Organisations fulfil their statutory duties in respect of human rights and
equality legislative requirements. Human rights and equality principles are
integrated into practice within all aspects of child protection services.
Criteria
8.1 Organisations can demonstrate that the rights of children under the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Act 1998
are respected, valued and promoted.
8.2 All relevant policies have been subject to appropriate screening and
consultation in accordance with Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.26
8.3 The age and stage of development of children and young people, their
disability, religious belief, gender, sexual and ethnic orientation and political
opinion are recognised and respected when consulting with children and
young people, and in planning and delivering services.
8.4 Organisations can provide evidence that the wishes and feelings of the child
or young person is ascertained and considered in actions taken on his/her
behalf and the child or young person, where appropriate, is actively involved in
measuring the outcome of the service provided.
26 Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 places a duty on public authorities to promote effective
equality of opportunity for all and good relations between those of different religions belief, political
opinion or race. The Act can be accessed at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980047.htm
Produced by: Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety
Castle Buildings, Belfast BT4 3SQ
Telephone: (028) 9052 0701 Textphone: (028) 9052 7668
www.dhsspsni.gov.uk
June 2008
Ref: 63/08
Printed by Central Print Unit