{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011025358324145534, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014332965821389196, 'mean_word_length': 5.394366197183099, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Human Rights and Decision-making in Child Protection through Explicit Argumentation

A recent judgement in February 2005 by the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland that a Health and Social Services Trust had breached a parent's Article 8 Right to Family Life in the process used to take a young child into care has stimulated major debate about the interface between the Human Rights Act (1998) and professional decision-making in child protection work in Northern Ireland and across Europe. This article examines the interface between the Human Rights Act and the paramountcy principle in the Children (NI) Order 1995 in relation to statutory interventions to protect children. It explores the increasing sophistication required of social work recommendations to courts in complex situations involving conflicting rights and considers the impact of adopting a structured model of explicit argumentation.