APPENDIX 62
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
District Judge Marilyn Mornington, Family Justice Council
1. I have held a fruitful
and helpful meeting with a senior official in the Department for
Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)) on the issue of children
missing from school. They do have new guidance for local authorities
on this issue (see below). They are committed to change. However,
the guidance is complex and virtually unknown and, therefore,
the local authorities are not being held to account as to their
compliance with the guidance by NGOs and others. I suggested that
DCSF attempt to publicise the guidance more effectively and to
prepare an accessible guide to Children Missing from Education
(CME). Enforcement will be the key.
The responsible civil servant wrote to
me as follows:
"It may be helpful if I explain what we
mean by CME. In February last year a new statutory
duty commenced in England (introduced by the Education and Inspections
Act 2006). The duty, supported by statutory guidance, means that
local authorities are required to make arrangements to identify
children of compulsory school age in their area who are not on
a school roll, and who are not receiving suitable education otherwise
than being at school. The statutory guidance gives minimum standards
that Local Authorities need to adopt to ensure they have effective
systems in place to identify these children and, once found, action
is taken as quickly as possible to provide support for them through
the most appropriate agencies.
2. They also have guidance
for children being "educated at home". However this
guidance lacks teeth as the present system of inspection (which
would require statutory change) is very inadequate. The parents
can deny access to the home and the child. There are no minimum
standards and no duty to follow the national curriculum. There
is a small but very effective pressure group which consistently
challenges proposals for a proper system of inspection and minimum
standards and they have, so far, won the battles. This is already
being exploited by traveller and Romany families in significant
numbers. I consider this needs urgent consideration and, again,
monitored enforcement of the guidance.
3. Colleagues from DCFS, in
response to my comments on a lack of minimum standards in home
education, wanted me to draw your attention to Section 7 of the
Education Act 1996, which provides that:
"The parent of every child of compulsory
school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education
suitable:
(a) to his age, ability
and aptitude, and
(b) to any special educational
needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."
I do, however, continue to consider the
above to be vague and very difficult to assess and enforce.
4. A further piece of information
might also be of interest, in the light of the fact that parents
can deny access to the home and the child. Case law (Phillips
v Brown (1980)) has established that local authorities may make
enquiries of parents to establish whether a "suitable"
education is being provided. If these enquiries do not include
an interview with the home educated child, to establish whether
the education described by parents is being delivered, then parents
will have to satisfy local authorities that the education they
are providing is "suitable" through some other mechanism,
such as a report by an independent expert. Local authorities do
have powers to issue school attendance orders where it appears
that no education is taking place.
Again, I question how many local authorities
are aware of, or have availed themselves of, these powers and
are there any statistics to establish that they have and with
what success?
"REVISED ELECTIVE
HOME EDUCATION
GUIDANCE
The guidelines are available from:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/localauthorities/index.cfm?action=content&contentID=11357&categoryID=75&subcategoryID=106.
A summary of the Elective Home Education consultation
results is also available from:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/conResults.cfm?consultationId=1479."
5. The Minister, Vernon Coaker
MP, in his evidence on 4 March referred to setting up stakeholder
groups on Domestic Violence, Honour Based Violence and Forced
Marriage. For many years there was such a stakeholder group which
had all the major players represented and was very effective.
It was called the Lord Chancellor's Domestic Violence Advisory
Group—a Minister always attended. I consider it a matter
of regret that the Ministry of Justice has allowed it to fall
into abeyance as there have been no meetings for over two years.
This was particularly disappointing given that this body could
have provided valuable expert feedback during the implementation
of the new legislation on domestic violence and forced marriage.
This group could readily be revived and put under an Inter-ministerial
umbrella.
6. In respect of the issue
of injunctions there are two issues concerning the Family Justice
Council and the judiciary generally:
a) it appears from reports being received
from all over England and Wales that there has been a significant
drop (averaging 20%) in applications for injunctions since the
coming into force of the Act. I have been able to get statistics
for the county courts in Croydon, Romford, Barnsley, Sheffield,
Manchester, York, Bristol, West Yorkshire and Hull. For example
in Manchester, a court serving a large urban population, the decline
in the number of applications for injunctions is very marked:
|
| 2005-06
| 2006-07 | April 07
-Jan 08
|
|
| Applications for FLA Injunctions | 736
| 731 | 337
|
| Injunction orders made—no power of arrest
| 87 | 90
| 190 |
| Injunction orders—power of arrest attached
| 1,518 | 1,482
| 746 |
|
The Family Justice Council would wish, as a matter of urgency,
for statistics to be obtained for all courts including Family
Proceedings Courts. If, as would appear likely, this is a national
problem then some urgent qualitative research should be carried
out as to the causes. The most likely cause, now that non-compliance
with a non-molestation order has been rendered a criminal offence,
may well be a reluctance on behalf of victims to criminalise their
spouses/ partners. The Family Justice Council would be happy to
help in this work.
b) the Judicial intranet, the Judicial Studies
Board courses and the Family Justice Council are receiving a large
number of reports from all over the country of failures of the
Police and CPS to act upon breach of a non-molestation orders
since the coming into force of the new legislation in June 2007.
Further, even when they do act, reports of inappropriate responses
tending to minimise the seriousness of the breach, and toleration
of repeated breaches, are widespread. There appears to be a failure
on the ground by the Police and the CPS to understand their new
powers and duties. On behalf of the Family Justice Council, I
sit on the ACPO DV Steering Group and will be reporting to that
group in March and will continue to work with them. I have also
reported the concerns of the judiciary to Ministers. We are currently
drafting a questionnaire on these concerns to be sent to the 40
local inter agency Family Justice Councils. The Council recommends
urgent action on this issue by the Ministry of Justice and Home
Office before someone dies as a result.
The FJC do not have any statistics relating to applications
for injunctions in domestic violence cases made by those under
18 years of age. These would have to be sought from the Ministry
of Justice.
10 March 2008
|
