Newsletter registration

Don’t refuse to mediate! Engage
Smile for the Camera?
ADHD diagnosis and disability
The coroner's duty to notify the DPP
Racist comments from one employee to another

Court of Protection case update: July 2025
Maximising ROI in renewable energy: Legal, technical, and financial strategies for net-zero success
Personal circumstances, public safety, and the planning balance
The Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets (Wales) Bill: the key provisions
Errors of law, materiality and remedies

What next for rent reviews?
Commonhold reform – the beginning of the end?
The CAT’s approach to Subsidy Decision Reviews: Fast, cheap and simple?
Millbrook Healthcare Limited v Devon County Council – Its impact on local government procurement
Early insights into the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
The section 58 defence in the Highways Act 1980
Risk assessments in care proceedings: L-G and Re T
Turbulence ahead
PFI – a new era?
Costs in discrimination claims brought by litigants in person
The Building Safety Act and retrospective service charge protection
Right to Buy (RTB) leases — be warned about service charges
Awaab’s Law – implementation of Phase 1
Seven key insights: Lord Justice Birss considers AI in civil justice
Imperative requirements in homelessness: nuts and bolts on a bumpy roadmap to suitable accommodation
Neurodiversity in the Family Justice System Panel Discussion
Employment Law Webinar Series - May to July - 42 Bedford Row
Home Truths - Dissecting Section 16J: Criminal Confusion in the Renters’ Rights Bill - 42 Bedford Row
Home Truths: Grounds for Possession under the Renters' Rights Bill - 42 Bedford Row
Airport Subsidy Challenged in the CAT
IPA guidance 2025: Managing PFI distress and preparing for expiry
What might the public inquiry on child sexual exploitation look like
Data (Use and Access) Act – Updating Data Protection Law and more
High Court Dismisses Challenge to New Super Prison
AI, copyright and LLMs
Automatic suspensions and the public interest
FOI and communication
Too much?
Deploying ‘ADR’ in Planning & Compensation contexts
Removal from the village green register
The attendance of experts in family proceedings
Local authority enforcement powers and domestic beekeeping
Too little? When intervention is not required
Closures of educational sites
Public law case update Q1 2025
Must read

Families refusing access to support
Must read

Families refusing access to support
Local areas “failing to address” safeguarding needs of Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage children and should review approaches to tackling racial bias: report
A new report by the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has highlighted a “concerning lack of focus” on race, ethnicity, and culture in safeguarding practice and reviews, and has called for Child Safeguarding Partnerships to “review their local strategies and approaches to addressing race, racism, and racial bias”.
- Details
The report, published last week (11 March), focused on 53 children from Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage backgrounds who died or were seriously harmed between January 2022 and March 2024, in order to understand the safeguarding needs of children from these ethnic backgrounds.
Report authors observed that although risk-assessment and decision-making is a “common theme” across all safeguarding reviews, their analysis highlighted specific issues in relation to race.
The report stated: “In 19 reviews risk had been at least partially recognised, but this had not translated into action. This included several examples about girls from Asian and Mixed Asian Heritages who made disclosures about sexual abuse, but these appeared either to have been disregarded as untrue or were not carefully followed up.”
In one review, family members had vocalised that they perceived practitioners to be racist.
However, the report found the review “appeared to distance itself from any possibility of racism” by noting that practitioners had been mindful of the ethnicity of the family.
The safeguarding review then concluded that the accusations were “groundless”, but “did not provide evidence about whether the claims had been investigated, or provide any detail about how that judgement had been made”, said the report.
The panel highlighted a “concerning” lack of focus on race, ethnicity, and culture in both safeguarding practice and reviews, noting: “this oversight has resulted in insufficient critical analysis and reflection on how racial bias impacts decision-making and service offers to children.”
Authors also identified a “pervasive silence and hesitancy” to address racism, warning that this makes the safeguarding needs of Black, Asian, and Mixed Heritage children “invisible”, both in practice and in the system for learning from reviews.
The report stated: “In failing to acknowledge race, racial bias and racism, the current system misses many opportunities to learn from incidents where Black, Asian, and Mixed Heritage children have been seriously harmed or died.
“This failure to see the totality of children’s lives or to scrutinise how racial bias may have affected decision-making leaves children vulnerable and at risk of harm, without the necessary support and protection.”
The report made the following recommendations for local areas to better protect Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage children:
- acknowledging and Challenging Racism: local leaders should ensure that appropriate internal structures are in place to support practitioners to recognise, discuss and challenge internal and institutional racism.
- empowering Practitioners: creating conditions that empower practitioners to have conversations with children and families about race and identity. This includes building skills and confidence and ensuring there are safe opportunities for self-reflection within teams and in supervision to acknowledge their own biases.
- reviewing Local Strategies: Child Safeguarding Partnerships should review their local strategies and approaches to addressing race, racism, and racial bias in their work with Black, Asian, and Mixed Heritage children.
Responding to the report, Minister for Children and Families, Janet Daby said: “Racism and racial bias are completely abhorrent and should never be barriers to keeping children safe and families getting the help they need.
“I’m grateful for the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel’s work to bring these injustices to light and I urge frontline professionals to challenge biases that could put children in harm’s way.
“More widely, this government’s Plan for Change is prioritising significant reform of the children’s social care system, driving better child protection and information sharing between education, health and social workers to stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks.”
Lottie Winson
22-10-2025 4:00 pm
05-11-2025 4:00 pm