A quick clarification - if a child doesnt appear to be 'in need', but the parent asks for the child to be put into care, does a social worker have any powers to do so?
No enough info provided! What could be the possible consequences? Have the parents threatened to harm? What is the mental capacity of the parents?
Make an assessment!
I would guess that "not being in need" can't be the conclusion of any assessment that includes having parents who want you taken away from them?
Come back Kellmer-Pringle, all is forgiven!
Children have the same human needs as everyone else - for example, for material security, social contact, and personal development. But they also have particular needs related to their development. Mia Kellmer Pringle identifies these as needs for:
Perhaps I should have mentioned Bowlby in this context?
Parents have rights and responsibilities that they have to fulfil - if there are no immediate concerns which would lead to the removal of the children then our job is to support the family to care for their children, supporting them to work through the issues which are making them feel they want their children removed
As the parent IS asking for the child to be taken into Care then there ARE concerns. There has to be an Assessment and parents need to be made aware that no child will ever be accommodated without the completion of a Core Assessment and the formulation of an Action Plan except in the case of a genuine emergency.
I was referring to the CA 1989; under s.20, the LA has a duty to accomodate children 'in need' under certain circumstances:
(1)Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of—
(a)there being no person who has parental responsibility for him;
(b)his being lost or having been abandoned; or
(c)the person who has been caring for him being prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care.
However it seems from that section that the child must be first be one defined as 'in need' as in s.17 (10) below:
id="section-17-10" class="LegAnchorID">
(10)For the purposes of this Part a child shall be taken to be in need if—
(a)he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority under this Part;
(b)his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services; or
(c)he is disabled,
This was in a past exam paper - the child was a seemingly healthy 14 yr old, the mother suspected the girl had been having sex with her husband, - the mother was then violent towards the husband and asked the LA for the child to be accomodated...
but yeah, I just wanted to check I was correct in my interp. of the law - that the child must be 'in need' and since this girl (if i'm right) doesnt fall within s.17 (10), there is no duty to accom....??
A local authority may not provide accommodation under this section for any child if any person who—(a)has parental responsibility for him; and(b)is willing and able to—(i)provide accommodation for him; or(ii)arrange for accommodation to be provided for him,objects.
Extract from Sect 20 '89 Act. The willing and able bit gives the clue. However the reality, depending on age and wishes and feelings of the child, is the authority would shift heaven and earth to avoid, usually within the extended family.
The answer to the OPs question is, it is more of a responsibility than a power.
This is common request on EDT, a frequent response made by my child care colleagues is "Of course we can take you child ... there is a fee that you're required to pay of £x per night", usually followed by refusal for any further input as they suddenly decide they want to keep their child. I still wait for that parent who is desperate enough to say "o.k. I'll pay!"
'A1ext' - a completely wrong and inaccurate response by your EDT colleagues.
OOOOOHHhhh here's a big debate starting.....I'm off before Simeon puts me on detention!!