d of living. However I should not let Parent / social worker communications compromise or hinder the health or welfare of David and when reading section 1, for the word court I should subsidise the word social worker, or any other agency who has dealings with the child. My first question would be, is David a child in need, section 17, or at risk of significant harm due to the quality of parental care, this would encourage me to raise a supervision order [section 31 (2,9&10)]. The supervision order can last initially for one year, but can be extended in length for up to a total of three years [schedule 3 (6)]. If he were a child in need, then I would have to be of schedule 2 (1), which directs me to arrange the provision of services to the family and identifies a child in need. If there has been a break down in his care, as there seems to be in this case, then under section 17 (1), the local authority have a duty to promote the welfare and the safeguarding of the child. Also as a representative of the local authorities I would have a general duty to prevent the suffering of the child from neglect, by the provision of necessary services, this could include advice to the parents, Peter and Jane. If the child, David is at risk of significant harm and there is a sense of emergency about the situation, then the child can be placed under an EPO (Emergency protection order)[section 44]. This removes the child from the family home and is active for eight days. It can be extended for another seven days. At this point, although the child has been taken away from the aggressor and the person who applied for the EPO has certain parental responsibilities, the parents have not lost all their rights to parental responsibility. The power of the EPO is only available if the child is at risk and not for a child who is within a safe environment. If on the other hand the case presents itself as a non-emergency case, then the next action depends upon the coo...
