Assessing Threshold Criteria and Legal Interventions for Chloe’s Case

Assignment Brief

Case Study 1. Read the case study and respond to the questions that follow.

The Smith family are white/British. There are four children in the family: Mathew (9 years) Luke (7 years), Chloe (3 years) and Mia (9 months). The family are not previously known to social services.

Concerns were raised by Wythenshawe Hospital on Friday 20^th October 2020 when Chloe presented with a head injury. Chloe’s mother explained to the Doctor in A&E that two days ago Chloe had fallen against a radiator at home and sustained the injury. Chloe’s mother claimed she had not cried and therefore neither she nor her husband were initially concerned.

Later, when swelling on Chloe’s head increased, she was taken to hospital. The hospital made the referral to social services because they believed Chloe had sustained a suspected skull fracture, which they asserted, would have been greater than the impact that Chloe’s mother has described, however swelling to the area was causing problems with the accuracy of the x-rays that had been taken.

Two duty social workers from the local area team met with Mr and Mrs Smith at an agreed time at the hospital. They discussed the concerns with the parents that the hospital was expressing and decided to ask the parents and the hospital to allow Chloe to remain in the hospital over the weekend. This would allow time for the swelling to subside allowing a clearer picture to emerge.

Mr and Mrs Smith are unhappy with this request and refuse to give their permission for Chloe to stay in hospital.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Discuss the threshold criteria, and how this might be applied to Chloe in the case study. ( under Section 47 of the children Act 1989). (500words)
2. Applying the welfare checklist, what legal interventions might the local authority consider, if Chloe’s parents are refusing to let her stay in hospital. (250words)

Sample Answer

Threshold Criteria and Application to Chloe under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989

Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 establishes the duty of local authorities to investigate where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. Threshold criteria under this section require that the concerns raised reach a level where there is evidence or suspicion that the child’s health or development is being significantly impaired. Significant harm is assessed in terms of physical, emotional, sexual abuse, or neglect, and involves evaluating the degree, frequency, and impact of any injuries or risk factors.

In Chloe’s case, the initial report from Wythenshawe Hospital raises suspicion of a skull fracture. A skull fracture in a child under the age of five is considered a serious injury, particularly given the developmental vulnerability of a three-year-old. The discrepancy between the mother’s explanation, that Chloe fell against a radiator and did not cry, and the medical opinion that the injury could not plausibly have occurred in this way, heightens concern. The fact that swelling and the potential severity of the injury affect the accuracy of x-rays further emphasises the need for urgent professional assessment. This combination of a potentially serious physical injury and an implausible explanation meets the threshold for significant harm, triggering the local authority’s duty under Section 47.

The threshold criteria require social workers to consider both the nature of the injury and the context. Factors such as the family’s prior history, the consistency of parental accounts, the child’s developmental age, and the seriousness of the injury are all relevant. While the Smith family has no known history with social services, the severity of the suspected injury and the incongruence with the parents’ account create a reasonable cause to investigate further. Additionally, the refusal of Chloe’s parents to allow her to stay in hospital complicates the situation, as it may limit timely medical treatment and risk assessment.

In practice, applying the threshold criteria would involve the local authority conducting a joint assessment with the hospital and health professionals. This assessment would aim to determine whether Chloe’s injury resulted from an accident or if there is a possibility of non-accidental harm. Section 47 allows the local authority to gather medical evidence, interview parents, and observe interactions with the child. The threshold is met because there is sufficient suspicion of significant harm that cannot be safely assessed without further medical investigation. Consequently, social workers are justified in requesting that Chloe remain in hospital to ensure her safety and wellbeing while further inquiries are conducted.

In summary, Chloe’s case meets the Section 47 threshold criteria due to the seriousness of her injury, the inconsistency in the parental explanation, and the potential risk of harm if she returns home prematurely. The local authority’s intervention is consistent with their statutory duty to protect children where reasonable cause exists to suspect significant harm, even in families without prior involvement with social services.

Continued...