Why does the children act refer to Police Protection Orders, when the police are using Powers of Protection rather than an actual order? Is it derived from some ancient legislation or terminology?
Firstly we work in a multi-agency manner (or should) and therefore everyone has responsibility over the welfare of children. Police Protection is a crucial part of the act and if honest a bit surprised you can't see why the children act will make reference to it. To gain an order to remove children takes time, also there will be occasions when the police visit a home (say for a domestic violence incident) and believe the child to be at risk- it could be pretty serious. They are not going to leave, go to the office, fill out a referral form or call the duty social worker etc. They may need to act immediately. This gives the police the power to have a child in police protection for up to 72 hours. Believe me, the police are likely to then hand over responsibility [if i remember correctly from my law lectures it is at this point you may seek an order or follow best practice].
Nope it's not ancient. If I am correct it is a power as opposed to an order that you seek from a court. The Children Act does not make reference to only frontline children's services. It sets out the powers and duties of a local authority or the NSPCC in some instances. Remember, if you think about section 17 services... not all of those will be provided by a local authority but it will be their responsibility to ensure such services are available. If they are out sourced then the children act will become relevant to the provider.
You will also find other legislation makes reference to other agencies as well... e.g. Mental Health Act and the police. It is crucial that this is all understood. Social services may have duties and powers defined in legislation but no social worker would be able to do anything without the co-operation of other agencies and when there is a significant level of risk being managed, the role other agencies play may well be defined in more social work specific legislation.
Hi Noboots,
I have to say I don't think that CA 1989 actually refers to the PPO but 'being taken into Police Protection' , well not in my copy anyway and it's pretty old. Though I see where you are coming from for years it was referred to as a PPO though it was never actually an order, in fact a lot or SW's and Police still refer to it as a PPO. I think it's exactly the same thing just different terminology - it still falls under s46 of the CA 1989. A child taken into Police Protection is under said protection for 72 hours, Police have to notify LA with the orders and reasons must be adequately recorded by designated officer (inspector rank) i.e concerns re significant harm. LA they have a duty to investigate under s47 or s46 can take place in the midst of an active investigation. LA/Police do not have PR for the child, however LA can accommodate children in Police Protection without parental consent in an emergency however can not excercise any other form of PR, LA can return children home whom are in Police Protection or can refuse to accomodate, after their own assessment.
So in a nutshell the terms PPO and being taken into Police Protection are exactly the same thing, only PPO was never accurate as it was never an official legal order.
I could be wrong but I don't recall any amendment to the legislation in respect of Police Powers.
Whilst they may 'mean' the same one is within the Children Act and one isn't!
There is no such thing as a Police Protection ORDER - the decision to take a child or young person into Police Protection is usually taken at quite a high level within the Police on a report from a Constable.
Police Protection would usually end once the Local Authority takes action as responsibility has been passed over to it or a decision made that such Protection is no longer required..
http://www.northumbria.police.uk/about_us/policies_plans_and_strategy/policies/General_Policing_Issues/details.asp?id=17930
thanks for the helpful responses, for clarification, I understand the use of these and have worked with these for years, my question was not about them or how they are used, it was about the terminology as for many years I have corrected workers who refer to police protection ORDERS to inform them that they are powers not an order but was not able to explain why we (not me) use the term ORDER when they are not orders. I quite often get puzzled looks from colleagues when I correct them and many people are under the impression that it is an order not police powers.
With respect you originally asked 'Why does the children act refer to Police Protection Orders ' - to be pedantic it is the Children Act 1989 and it does NOT refer to Police Protection Orders.
46 Removal and accommodation of children by police in cases of emergency.
(1)Where a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm, he may—
(a)remove the child to suitable accommodation and keep him there; or
(b)take such steps as are reasonable to ensure that the child’s removal from any hospital, or other place, in which he is then being accommodated is prevented.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, a child with respect to whom a constable has exercised his powers under this section is referred to as having been taken into police protection.
(3)As soon as is reasonably practicable after taking a child into police protection, the constable concerned shall—
(a)inform the local authority within whose area the child was found of the steps that have been, and are proposed to be, taken with respect to the child under this section and the reasons for taking them;
(b)give details to the authority within whose area the child is ordinarily resident (“the appropriate authority”) of the place at which the child is being accommodated;
(c)inform the child (if he appears capable of understanding)—
(i)of the steps that have been taken with respect to him under this section and of the reasons for taking them; and
(ii)of the further steps that may be taken with respect to him under this section;
(d)take such steps as are reasonably practicable to discover the wishes and feelings of the child;
(e)secure that the case is inquired into by an officer designated for the purposes of this section by the chief officer of the police area concerned; and
(f)where the child was taken into police protection by being removed to accommodation which is not provided—
(i)by or on behalf of a local authority; or
(ii)as a refuge, in compliance with the requirements of section 51,secure that he is moved to accommodation which is so provided.
(4)As soon as is reasonably practicable after taking a child into police protection, the constable concerned shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to inform—
(a)the child’s parents;
(b)every person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; and
(c)any other person with whom the child was living immediately before being taken into police protection,
of the steps that he has taken under this section with respect to the child, the reasons for taking them and the further steps that may be taken with respect to him under this section
(5)On completing any inquiry under subsection (3)(e), the officer conducting it shall release the child from police protection unless he considers that there is still reasonable cause for believing that the child would be likely to suffer significant harm if released.
(6)No child may be kept in police protection for more than 72 hours.
(7)While a child is being kept in police protection, the designated officer may apply on behalf of the appropriate authority for an emergency protection order to be made under section 44 with respect to the child.
(8)An application may be made under subsection (7) whether or not the authority know of it or agree to its being made.
(9)While a child is being kept in police protection—
(a)neither the constable concerned nor the designated officer shall have parental responsibility for him; but
(b)the designated officer shall do what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare (having regard in particular to the length of the period during which the child will be so protected).
(10)Where a child has been taken into police protection, the designated officer shall allow—
(b)any person who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for him;
(c)any person with whom the child was living immediately before he was taken into police protection;
(d)any person in whose favour a contact order is in force with respect to the child;
(e)any person who is allowed to have contact with the child by virtue of an order under section 34; and
(f)any person acting on behalf of any of those persons,
to have such contact (if any) with the child as, in the opinion of the designated officer, is both reasonable and in the child’s best interests
(11)Where a child who has been taken into police protection is in accommodation provided by, or on behalf of, the appropriate authority, subsection (10) shall have effect as if it referred to the authority rather than to the designated officer.
Hopefully I am not generating the wrong sort of debate...
The children act have Emergency Protection Order (EPO) which could include the Police being requested (Ordered) to assist with the removal of the children named on the order. A Judge or Magistrate have felt it necessary to make the order. An aspect of that application is drawing the Magistrate/ Judge attention to the directions for EPO, which Munby LJ set out.
The Police have powers. A PPO being one of the powers. PPO lets a Policeman remove a child who is at risk. There does seem to be a gray area about the risk being removed and the Policeman deciding not to remove a child... The Policeman is responsible for their decisions and risks having a complaint about their decision. A PPO lasts up to 3 days, but can be shorter when the Police hand care of the child to a Social worker.
The Police also have powers to remove a child under a witness protection program and there is a case where the Police removed a child and put the child into witness protection to be kept from a social worker. The LA got a Court order ordering the Police to disclose the location to the LA, but that order was not complied with. It's obviously rare that the Police do that because the multi agency expectations try to get all agencies working together.
The LA could get a care order. If the parents refuse to hand their child to the LA, the LA could ask for a recovery order which might request the Police to assist.
'Starter' - please read the threads above and especially the legal position - there is no such thing as a Police Protection Order (PPO) -it simply does not exist.
Rupert - yes you're correct, it does not specify 'order' and I suppose what I meant but didnt explain is why do we get things like this:
http://www.devon.gov.uk/text/index/childrenfamilies/childprotection/cp-sec-6/cp-sec-6-1.htm#emergency_situations
and this
http://www.1chancerylane.com/?action=news&asset_id=3610
where the section you have pointed out, is referred to by many as taking out a PPO and talk of 'orders' when there has never been any such thing. as you can see from the other poster, it is believed that a ppo is something that exists, I was just wondering where the confusion lies, where has this terminology come from.
With the incorrect use of PPO one would expect there to be a written Order. In reality it would help if the Police did produce the equivalent of an Order giving their reasons for the use of Police Protection powers.
As stated, there is No Such Thing as a Police Protection Orders!
Police guidance states that:
"Home Office Circular 017/2008 sets out the duties and powers of the Police under the Children Act 1989. Section 46 of the Children Act 1989 empowers a police officer, who has reasonable cause to believe that a child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm, to either remove the child to suitable accommodation and keep them there, or take such steps as are reasonable to ensure that the child’s removal from any hospital, or other place, in which they are being accommodated is prevented.
Police powers under section 46 cannot be exercised unless and until a child is located. A constable does not have the right to enter and search premises to remove a child without a warrant. Section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gives powers that may be executed where there is a need to save life or limb. The Children Act legislation implies the power to use reasonable force in appropriate circumstances to take a child into police protection or to keep the child there. The use of reasonable force is further supported by the decision of the divisional court in the case of R -v- Commissioner of Police, for the Metropolis (May 2006)".
It's easier to have a Policeman remove a child at significant risk of harm, immediately, than to delay the removal until a sympathetic judge can be located. However, even when the officer removes the child, it is for the SW and LA to justify to a judge, within 72hrs, why the removal was deemed necessary and appropriate!
Hi @Rupes,
every police officer carries "the equivalent of an Order giving their reasons for the use of Police Protection powers", it's called their Warrant Card. With this, in their possession, they are empowered by Her Maj to carry out all the powers bestowed upon police officers, such as Police Powers.
Unfortunately, many police officers believe their warrant card to be a bit like Dr Who's card, which allows people to see whatever the Dr wants them to see. So powerful do some police officers believe their card to be, they don't even carry it with them. Well worth all CP social workers checking their accompanying officers are in possession of their warrant cards before attempting to remove a child. It can save a lot of embarrassed faces.
Whilst I do not disagree with what you say 'sodom etc' in reality the decision to make a child subject to Police Protection is usually taken at at least Inspector level.
I seem to remember something about 'police protection' orders being originally place of safety orders under the Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Act 1889 whereby the police had authority to a place of safety until the child could be brought before court following the parent's or parents' conviction. So it would be a retrospective order in effect. These powers weren't time limited until the 1963 Children and Young Persons Act when they placed a limit of 7 days in Section 28.
I can recall pre-CA89 implementation training when we were already referring to 'PPO's' and/or 'Police Protection Orders'. Why that was I really do not know. For some odd reason it immediately became the common terminology even though it is quite wrong. Strange, really......?
As an aside, the Police have been required by the Home Office since 2008 to complete a 'police protection form' when Sect 46 protection is utilised, but only for their own records. The Home Office has never issued guidance or instructions on providing copies to anyone else. Some Police authorities do provide a copy to children's social care as a matter of course, others do not and have to be asked.
Just re-read the question and my response. Sorry it sounds patronising and rude... didn't mean it to.
You know Nooboots, now that I've thought about it a bit more (it takes a while: brain like an out of date hard drive and not enough RAM), I can suggest a derivation for the use of the term 'order' - albeit rather illogical, though that is how such things usually occur.
Firstly, I can recall 'Police Place of Safety Order' (ostensibly under the 1969 Act) being part of the lexicon, though that was incorrect too as it was actually a warrant if memory serves. But it shows we were already doing it.
Secondly, we were assimilating these new orders into the vocabularly: EPO, CAO. You can sort of see how we just ended up adding PPO into the new acronym mix.
But hey, you just had to be there.
Anyway, it's as good an explanation as any
Andy Pandy - thanks, I think I took it that way but then my question was too vague and I didnt explain myself!
The the historical aspects to this is very interesting and I can see why it causes confusion. On top of this, I met with my student this week who also said, 'and the police took out a PPO', I said they didnt, they used their police powers, its not an order and she looked at me like I was making it up!
Police Protection Order (S46 Children Act 1989) (PPO)
6.7 These are to be used in cases of immediate emergency where the delay of applying for an Emergency Protection Order would pose significant harm to a child. This Order should not be used where a Local Authority can apply for an Emergency Protection Order and has sufficient time to do so.
6.8 The Police must have reasonable grounds for believing the child would otherwise suffer significant harm.
6.9 The duration for the Order can be up to 72 hours but can be allowed to lapse before this time if the child's safety is not at issue.
6.10 Conditions for the Order are as follows:
http://www.devon.gov.uk/text/index/childrenfamilies/childprotection/cp-sec-6/cp-sec-6-1.htm
The link points to the range of options available when removing a child.
Starter:Police Protection Order (S46 Children Act 1989) (PPO)
Another LA who either didn't run their guidance through the Legal Department or employs a bunch of monkeys in the Department. Alas, there are too many monkeys working in LA legal departments, IMO.
Perhaps the new 'Unified' college can take up the challenge of pedantry and get all LAs to rid their guidance of historic inaccuracy. "It's NOT a ***** Order, it's a Power"!
Alternate explanation:
Or.....
Us social workers are so inherently discomforted by the idea of police powers, we unconsciously added the word 'order' to assuage our libertarian conscience
Farlit: Alternate explanation: Or..... Us social workers are so inherently discomforted by the idea of police powers, we unconsciously added the word 'order' to assuage our libertarian conscience
@ Farlit,
you are most probably very, very right
Starter - you are making the mistake that was the whole point of my thread, we (not me) keep referring to PPO, police protection orders when there is no such thing.
The link I provided from Devon was just an example, literally the first that comes up in a search but there were countless others, which refer to the section as PPOs.
I have corrected colleagues in the past, who initially dont believe me (as my student didnt) and then probably think Im a pedant, but it was a query about accuracy but also for my own curiosity about why we use the term when its not an order
When I did my PQ the Uni stressed that it is incorrect to use PPO as there is no such thing, only PPP. On the other hand, it is also true that Police officers can apply for an EPO
Maybe this is where many get confused. The difference simply is in once case, the Police makes use of a power given under the law, in the other it is ordered by the Court. There is also the difference in the duration of the power of protection as opposed to the order. And yes, you can get funny looks when you correct people on this matter. It is not the only one - how many times have you seen in Social Work statements or plans the term "full care order"? I am surprised that legal do not challenge this either.
Apparently it's not just SW's and local authorities that do it either. This group of barristers refer to PPO's on their website too
My apologies. I was under the impression that the police used their powers as an order. I have heard solicitors, barristers and judges use the term Police protection order on a few occasions and seen it written in court documentation.
The next time I hear that term, I will be asking for a correction or guidance being used which give Police the power to make an order. Thank you for the highlighting this, it's good practice to get terms clarified and divert away from misunderstanding... and generating a perpetuating mistake.