tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11652148.post2442777153181903932..comments2024-02-23T10:53:19.705+00:00Comments on Dare to Know: Why Badman's Recommendations Will Mean LAs are MORE LiableCarlottahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12686469871331093679noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11652148.post-91345573691826655902009-10-25T13:45:17.423+00:002009-10-25T13:45:17.423+00:00Hi Schuyler,
That's really interesting. I ha...Hi Schuyler,<br /><br />That's really interesting. I had taken that section to mean that it only applied to examinations performed in relation to an emergency protection order, but given that even in these circumstances, a child can refuse to be examined, surely this should act as some sort of standard to which all examinations of a child are undertaken. <br /><br />I certainly think this is worth raising in our arguments. Thanks for pointing it out.Carlottahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12686469871331093679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11652148.post-72144052253109562242009-10-24T19:57:15.408+01:002009-10-24T19:57:15.408+01:00Carlotta, I have a question regarding the Children...Carlotta, I have a question regarding the Children Act 1989. In section 44 subsection 7 of the Children Act it states: ) Where any direction is given under subsection (6)(b), the child may, if he is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision, refuse to submit to the examination or other assessment.<br /><br />A child can decide if he or she is to be assessed via subsection 6b the medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment of the child. A child can refuse to be assessed so long as they are of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision. I haven't been keeping up, that much, with the response to the Badman review. But I thought it might be a minor piece in the potential arsenal if the Badman review makes it into law.Schuylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09801734082790893216noreply@blogger.com