Mitchell Woolf is a lawyer fighting legal aid cases for children in care. He tells us about his work and how individual cases can help to bring about change for everyone in the system.
Mitchell Woolf's office is a long way from the stereotyped lawyer's place of work - it's a tiny room stuffed with papers half way up a storage facility in Kentish Town. Even so, he doesn't regret leaving academia - almost by chance - for this work a few years ago. 'I took just one case because it was very interesting - then another one came along, then another. I've never advertised and I've worked constantly ever since.'
He works for the solicitors Scott Moncrieff Harbour and Sinclair and has a particular interest is children in need. 'That's Section 17 of the Children Act. It's where a child is disabled, or because of their background can't develop as other children would. Most children who go into care are classified as children in need.'
He argues that case law is often vital to get legislation acted upon. 'The legislation out there is not terrible for children, and central government will say "oh yes, we have this in place" but they're in a bit of a dream world because it's all about the application.'
Woolf describes one of his early cases.
'One of the best bits of legislation out there is the Children Leaving Care Act. If you've been in care for up to 13 weeks, when you turn 16 your Local authority has to create what is called a Pathway Plan. The government say that for children who fit that eligibility criteria, you can get support up to the age of 21 and possibly 24 if you go into higher education.
'I took the first Children Leaving Care Act case in 2004. The local authority in question was Newham. The guidance was really clear. Newham said "yes but we don't have to do that, do we?" and the court said "yes, you really do". And it absolutely knocked the authorities for six because none of them were doing it. I had cases against authorities up and down the country and they were all saying "OK, now we're going to do this stuff".
'They didn't know how they were going to do it but they knew they had to.'
Woolf says that he wishes far more lawyers worked in his sector. 'There are way too few lawyers taking far too many cases. You get firms who won't take cases that could get sorted out very quickly because the fixed fee is so low. So people who could get cases solved basically with a letter don't get it resolved and end up with a much bigger problem.'
In some cases problems snowball for budgetary reasons.
'There's quite a lot of academic research on this. If you provide for children with disabilities, especially social and mental disabilities, you've got so much more chance of the child succeeding and being far less costly to the state.
'One of the big problems is that departments within local authorities can sometimes develop institutional selfishness. They will think right, if we don't provide for this person we can save our budget and someone else will pick up the problem. There are a number of children who end up in the criminal justice system and you see the lack of support by social services beforehand. To me, there's an element of social services thinking "phew, we've got that person off our books". But now they are in prison. And for the taxpayer, the cost is actually significantly more. Particularly because you look at the fact that breaking the cycle of crime is really hard. Even with some of the best schemes, they are claiming a 92% reoffending rate. And 92% is claimed as a success!
'We lock up more children than any other country in Europe at younger and at younger ages. Putting children in that situation is a short term, political, badly thought out, economically unviable plan and goes against what the public want.'
Woolf argues that when Local Authorities are allowed to set their own targets, it gives weaker authorities the opportunity to set criteria so high that barely anyone gets the service.
A recent example is the support for children with disabilities. 'I've been working with the Council for Disabled Children and some academics. We're looking at a private member's bill to get short break entitlement for carers of disabled children. Short breaks are a good way of preventing breakdowns that lead to children being placed in permanent care.'
'I had a case involving a very committed mother with a son who had a severe communication disorder. The mother herself had significant disabilities. The child had been a child at risk - she'd admitted to pushing him down the stairs a few years ago because she was just so depressed, lost, no support. And the local authority gave her some support, and he was regarded as a child in need. But then they cut back the eligibility criteria and cut her support by half - she lost about 600 hours a year. We challenged it and said the eligibility criteria were unlawful, and the court agreed with us.
The important bit though was the Council for Disabled Children saying, look, this is happening up and down the country. This allows us to go back to the government and start to create an impetus for change.'
Woolf admits wryly that 'people don't come to me when things are going right' and adds that case law is only part of the solution. Even so, it's clear that his work - and that of other legal aid lawyers in this area - isn't just affecting a handful of children who've been badly cared for. Sometimes the implications of a single case can reverberate across the care system and improve the lives of a whole class of children.