When adoption without parental consent breaches human rights: implications of Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 963 on decision making and permanency planning for children

References

• Beckett, C., Dickens, J., & Bailey, S. (2014). available online at www.uea.ac.uk/centre-research-child-family/child-protection-and-family-support/evaluation-of-the-tri-borough-care-proceedings-pilot Concluding Care Proceedings within 26 Weeks: Report of the Evaluation of the Tri-borough Care Proceedings Pilot, Updated Version, Norwich, Centre for Research on Children and Families, University of East Anglia.
   Google Scholar
• Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General system theory foundation, development, application. New York: George Braziller.
   Google Scholar
• Broadhurst, K., Holt, K. E., & Doherty, P. (2011). Accomplishing parental engagement in child protection practice? A qualitative analysis of parent-professional interaction in pre-proceedings work under the Public Law outline. Qualitative Social Work, First published online 30 June 2011. 10.1177/1473325011401471.
   Google Scholar
• Broadhurst, K., Holt, K., Kelly, N., & Doherty, P. (2013). Coventry and Warwickshire pre-proceedings final report. CAFCASS.
   Google Scholar
• Broadhust, K., Harwin, J., Shaw, M., & Alrouh, B. (2014). Capturing the scale and pattern of recurrent care proceedings: Initial observations from a feasibility study. Journal of Family Law, 1073–1075.
   Google Scholar
• Calder, M. C. (1995). Child protection: Balancing paternalism and partnership. British Journal of Social Work, 25, 749–766.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Education. (2013). Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. HM Government 2013. London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. (1988). ‘Protecting children: A guide for social workers undertaking a comprehensive assessment.’. London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. (2000). Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families. London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Dickens, J., Beckett, C., Bailey, S., Connolly, S., & Sorensen, P. (2013). Evaluation of the Tri-Borough Care Proceedings Pilot (2012–2013). East Anglia: UEA.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, S. (2013). No matter what: An adoptive family's story of hope, love and healing. London: Jessical Kingsley.
   Google Scholar
• Doughty, J. (2013). Re B (A Child) (care order) (2013) UKSC 33. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 35, 491–501. doi:10.1080/09649069.2013.851313.
   Google Scholar
• Doughty, J. (2014). Care proceedings – Is there a better way? Child and Family Law Quarterly, 26, 113–131.
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, B. (2009). Contemporary fathering: Theory, policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Featherstone, B., Fraser, C., Ashley, C., & Ledward, P. (2011). Advocacy for parents and carers involved with children's services: Making a difference to working in partnership? Child & Family Social Work, 16, 266–275. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2010.00738.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Featherstone, B., Morris, K., & White, S. (2013). A marriage made in hell: Early intervention meets child protection. British Journal of Social Work, 1735–1749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Featherstone, B., White, S., & Morris, K. (2014). Re-imagining child protection: Towards humane social work with families. London: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fergusson, H. (2011). Child protection practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, C., & O'Shea, C. (1990). A culture for change. Educational Leadership, 47, 41–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harwin, J., Broadhurst, K., Kershaw, S., Shaw, M., Alrouh, R., & Mason, C. (2014). Recurrent care proceedings: Part 2: Young motherhood and the role of the court. Journal of Family Law, 44, 1439–1443.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, K. (2014). Child protection. London: Plagrave.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, K. E., Kelly, N., Doherty, P., & Broadhurst, K. (2013). Access to Justice for families? Legal advocacy for parents where children are on the ‘edge of care’: An English case study. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 35, 163–177.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, K., & Kelly, N. (2014). (a) Why parents matter: Exploring the impact of a hegemonic concern with the timetable for the child. Child and Family Social Work. 10.1111/cfs.12125.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, K., & Kelly, N. (2014). (b) The emperor has no robes: Why are members of the judiciary in the most complex of child care cases abandoning a sinking ship. Journal of Family Law, 44, 1424–1434.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, K., Kelly, N., Broadhurst, K., & Doherty, P. (2013). Liverpool pre-proceedings pilot. Interim Research Report.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, K., Kelly, N., Broadhurst, K., & Doherty, P. (2014). Final report of the Liverpool Cafcass Plus Project. London: Cafcass.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt, J, & Waterhouse, S (2013). It's Just Not Fair! Support, need and legal status in family and friends care (FRG/Oxford University Centre for Family Law and Policy).
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., & Drakeford, M. (2012). Social work and social policy under austerity. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Lonne, B., Parton, N., Thompson, J., & Harries, M. (2009). Reforming child protection. London & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Luckock, B. (2008). Adoption support and the negotiation of ambivalence in family policy and children's services. Journal of Law and Society, 35, 3–27, ISSN 0263-323X. 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00412.x .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luckock, B., & Broadhurst, K. (2013). Adoption cases reviewed: An indicative study of process and practice Project Report. London, UK: Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J. (2014). The quality of care proceedings reform. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 36, 82–84.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J. M., Dickens, J., Bader, K. F., & Young, J. (2013). ‘Partnership by Law?: The pre-proceedings process for famiies on the edge of care proceedings’. Bristol: School of Law, University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2011). Family justice review: Final report. London: Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (2011). The Munro report of child protection: Final report a child centered system. London: Department for Education.
   Google Scholar
• National Adoption Leadership Board. (2014). Impact of court judgments on adoption: What the judments do and do not say. (November).
   Google Scholar
• Newman, J., Glendinning, C., & Hughes, M. (2008). Beyond modernisation? Social care and the transformation of welfare governance. Journal of Social Policy, 37, 531–557. doi:10.1017/S0047279408002201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parton, N. (2014). The politics of child protection: Contemporary developments and future directions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, S. P., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. R. (2006). Contemporary human behaviour theory: A critical perspective for social work (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Ryder, Lord Justice (2013). Revolutionary culture of change: Keynote Presentation, Resolution National Conference. Stratford Upon Avon, 12th April 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, C. (2013). Adoption for looked after children: Messages from research an overview of the adoption research initiative. London: BAAF.
   Google Scholar
• Turney, D. (2005). Who cares? The role of mothers in cases of child neglect. In J. Taylor & B. Daniel (Eds.), Child neglect practice issues for health and social care. London: Jessica Kingsley.
   Google Scholar