ve due consideration to the Davids religion, race, cultural background and linguistic nurturing. If a care order is taken out, the parental responsibility is given to the local authorities, meaning that a supervisor or responsible adult, under section 5, would be enrolled to befriend the child. Under section 2 (5 and 6), this does not remove the rights of the Peter and Jane with regards to parental responsibility; it just means that the local authority has the deciding vote. Although this might be the case, under section 34 and section 8, the local authority must allow David reasonable contact with his parents or guardian. The only variation to this ruling is that the local authority has the right to deny contact for seven days, under section 34 (6), if they believe that the child is at risk and if it would challenge Davids welfare. If a care order were raised, under section 33, the local authority would have to receive David into their care and keep him there whilst the order was in place. Should David go in to foster care, the local authorities have to be aware of schedule 2 (2), which lays out the regulations about where the child, David, can be placed. They would also have to be aware of section 22, which lays out the duty of the local authority, in relation to the children that they are looking after. This would last until David was eighteen years old unless under section 91 (12), it is bought to an earlier end. At the end of all this, if Peter and Jane feel that they have been unjustly represented, under section 94, they can appeal to the High Court. Obviously this does not mean that the whole case will be reverted, but they may have conclusive evidence that has been over looked. As the childs social worker, I would hope that at the end of the proceedings that there was a happy ending for all of the people concerned, but it would still have to be Davids interests that would come first. (1485 words)...
