Section 31, Children Act 1989 Threshold Criteria

Section 31, Children Act 1989 Threshold Criteria Before a court can make a care order, it must be satisfied that the ‘threshold criteria’ in Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 have been met.[1] The order must also promote the welfare of the child.[2] The main effect of a care order is to give parental responsibility for the child to the local authority.[3] If a care order is made, the child can be removed by the local authority at any time.[4] The threshold criteria, therefore, play a significant role in that they prevent care orders being made simply based on what is in the best interests of the child.[5] However, as this paper will demonstrate, the threshold for state intervention at various stages of the child protection process has been extremely controversial. Section 31 Children Act 1989: Threshold Criteria One of the great problems in the law of child protection is that if the wrong decision is made, great harm may result. As Bainham said: â€Å"The law in this area has to strike a careful balance between enabling the protection of children at risk of harm, with protecting the rights to respect for family life for children and their parents†[6] Not surprisingly, there is substantial case law on the interpretation of s.31 of the Children Act 1989 and the House of Lords have considered their interpretation in some important cases which will be assessed afterwards.[7] An analysis would be made about whether the courts have interpreted the threshold criteria in a strict or lax way. If interpreted in a strict way, this would imply that it would be more problematic for the local authority to satisfy the grounds for a care order. Under the first limb of threshold, the local authority must show that the â€Å"child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm† when applying for a care order.[8] Although quite straightforward, there have been concerns about when the alleged state of affairs must be shown to exist.[9] ‘Is suffering’ In Re M[10], the key issue was the meaning of ‘is’ in the threshold criteria. In this case, the children’s father had murdered their mother. Three of the four children were placed with their aunt. The remaining child was placed with foster carers, but later joined her aunt. However, the local authority still wanted a care order just in case it became necessary to remove the child from the aunt’s house. By the time the case came to court, it was hard to say that the child was, at that time, suffering from significant harm or that she was likely to. Their Lordships hence explained that the correct test was â€Å"whether the child was suffering from significant harm at the time when the local authority first intervened†.[11] Given that interpretation of the threshold, this was clearly satisfied. That decision is clearly correct, as their Lordships indicated or else it would be difficult for the local authority to obtain a care order in cases where child ren were put in excellent care.[12] It was a lax interpretation of the threshold criteria as a strict interpretation would have made the law hard to operate. ‘Likely to suffer significant harm’ The alternative ground on which the local authority can satisfy the first limb of the threshold criteria under s.31(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 is the likelihood of future significant harm. One of the major issues that local authorities encounter is that predictions that child abuse will occur are difficult to make. Removing a child on the ground of speculative harm is controversial as it is impossible to know whether or not the harm would occur.[13] In Re H[14], there were several issues for the court. The first was the meaning of ‘likely’. Their Lordships held that ‘likely’ meant that significant harm was a ‘real possibility’.[15] It was not necessary to show that the harm was probable in the sense of ‘more likely than not’.[16] This is a notably lax interpretation of the threshold criteria. They also held that it must be shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the threshold was satisfied. They rejected the view that the criminal burden of proof should be applied. However, rather confusingly, Lord Nicholls said that â€Å"where there was a more serious allegation, more evidence would be required to establish it on a balance of probability than a case of a less serious allegation†.[17] This dicta was reconsidered by the court in Re B[18] where their Lordships made it clear that Lord Nicholls was not suggesting that, in cases of serious abuse, the criminal burden of proof should be used.[19] The civil balance of proof should be applied in all cases under the Children Act 1989. Instead, what Lord Nicholls implied, was that â€Å"some allegations will be inherently unlikely and they will require more evidence to establish them than others†. This interpretation was followed in Re S-B[20]. This aspect of the decision in Re B and Re H is perhaps best viewed as a lax interpretation, although it is probably not as lax as it could have been. Requiring a criminal burden of proof would have indeed made it very difficult for the local authority to obtain a care order. However, Lord Nicholls’ approach to the standard of proof, as well as its wider implications for protecting children at risk of harm has attracted strong academic criticism. Re B also confirmed another aspect of the decision in Re H. Risk of significant harm can only be established based on ‘primary facts’ which would then have to be proved on the balance of probabilities. Mere suspicions are not sufficient. In Re H, a 15 year old girl alleged that she had been raped by her stepfather. The local authority sought a care order in respect of the girl’s three younger siblings who continued to live with the man. There was a strong suspicion that the older girl had been abused and that the younger girls were at risk of being harmed. However, as it had not been proved on the balance of probabilities that the girl had been abused, no primary facts had been proved and thus, no care order was granted. As Lord Hoffman in Re B stated, â€Å"either a fact happened or it did not and there was nothing in between†. If there are no facts to support a finding of risk of future harm, the court is powerless to proceed.[21] This is, undoubtedly, a strict interpretation of the threshold criteria. The majority of their Lordships saw this issue in terms of parental rights; parents should not have their children removed on the basis of suspicions. However, it is suggested that this is not a safe approach to risk taking with children.[22] The reason why it is unsafe is that it would be very difficult for the local authority to safeguard a child’s right to be protected from abuse even when there is a serious risk of danger. As this analysis suggests, there are evidential problems and difficulties of predicting the future. The problems of proof partly explain the lengthy delays which can occur in child protection proceedings.[23] With the introduction of the Children and Families Act 2014, there is now a 26-week time limit for completing care proceedings with the possibility of extending the time limit for up to 8 weeks, if this is necessary to resolve the proceedings justly.[24] However, an important issue that arises here is whether this is achievable in complex cases. ‘Timescales can end up replacing professional judgment’.[25] ‘Harm attributable to the care given or likely to be given or the child’s being beyond parental control’ Uncertainty about who caused harm to the child is also another issue which local authorities and courts generally encounter.[26] The issue of the ‘unknown perpetrator’ was addressed in the case of Lancashire CC v B[27]. In this case, it was clear that the child had suffered harm. However, it was not clear whether it was the parent or the child minder who had caused harm to the child. Their Lordships held that as long as it was clear that the abuse was caused by a parent or a child minder, it did not matter which had perpetrated the abuse. On the other hand, where it is not clear whether the harm was caused by a parent or someone who was not a primary carer of the child, then no care order could be made. Although the House of Lords provided a clear guidance on when the threshold criteria would be satisfied in the case of an ‘unknown perpetrator’, they provided limited guidance on how the court should deal with an unknown perpetrator when deciding whether a ca re order should be granted.[28] Their Lordships returned to that issue in Re O and N[29], where it was emphasised that â€Å"just because the threshold criteria was satisfied, it did not automatically mean that a care order had to be made†. In one of the appeal cases, it was evident that the child was harmed by one of the parents, who had since separated. The child lived with the mother. The issue for their Lordships was whether the suspicions that the harm may have been caused by the mother should be considered. Their Lordships held that suspicions could be considered at the welfare stage. Lord Nicholls however emphasised that social workers should be careful in such cases to treat the parents as potential perpetrators, not proved perpetrators. Therefore, in Re S-B, it was confirmed that if both parents were possible perpetrators, the court might decide to remove the child as they were at risk of harm. It is therefore submitted that in Lancashire, the House of Lords took a noticeably lax interpretation of t he threshold criteria as the children could be removed from their parents even if they did not perpetrate the abuse. However, it was probably not as lax as it could have been as it was necessary to show that a primary carer of the child was harming the child. ‘Significant harm’ Even if the facts are known, there is much controversy over how much suffering the child should face before the local authority could intervene. Harm is very widely defined in s.31(9) of the Children Act 1989 as the â€Å"ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development.† ‘Health’ means ‘physical and mental health’. ‘Development’ includes â€Å"physical, intellectual, emotional or behavioural development†. As a result of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the definition of ‘harm’ also includes the ‘impairment suffered by hearing or seeing the ill-treatment of another’. The legislation, however, does not define the line between ‘harm’ and ‘significant harm’. The Court of Appeal in Re C (A Child)[30] explained that to be significant, the harm had to be â€Å"great enough to justify the local authority interfering in the autonomous life of the family†. The test will therefore be subjective to the particular circumstances. This raises many questions. If a local authority finds that a child is living in a house where the family’s diet is unhealthy and where the children spend all their time in front of the television, what should be done? Joanna Nicolas, a child protection consultant, believes that â€Å"obesity should also be treated as a form of abuse as any type of under-feeding is, because of the physical impact on the child, the implications for their future health and the psychological impact.†[31] However, many would argue that this kind of situation is not sufficiently serious to justify intervention. This puts social workers in a difficult situation as they do not know in which circumstances it will be appropria te for them to intervene. Ward LJ also stresses the importance of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when assessing the significance of the harm, highlighting that Article 8 requires that there must be a ‘†relevant and sufficient† reason for crossing the threshold’.[32] Additionally, if the state is to intervene in a child’s life, the level of state intervention must be proportionate to the risk that the child is suffering. There is a danger that a child who is genuinely suffering will be known to the local authority, but never, quite, be regarded as suffering sufficiently to justify intervention. In Re MA[33], the local authority found that a girl, who was not the biological daughter of the parents, had been badly treated by them. However, no care order was granted in respect of the parents’ other children as their Lordships found that there was no sufficient evidence of a risk of significant harm to their natural children. The decision in this case is controversial as the parents demonstrated a capacity for cruelty and thus gave rise to a real possibility that they would harm their own children. In deciding whether the child is suffering from ‘significant harm’, the ‘child’s health or development must be compared with that which could reasonably be expected of a ‘similar child’.[34] There are a number of issues in regards to the ‘similar child’ test. There is particular controversy over the extent to which the cultural background of the child should be taken into account.[35] It is also unclear to which extent the characteristics or capabilities of the parents should be considered. Reforms and recommendations For the last 40 years, several reforms have been intended to improve the law on ‘child protection’ and compensate for failures in practice. Many of these reforms responded to the cumulative evidence inspections and high-profile reviews into children’s deaths including: the 1974 Maria Colwell inquiry which led to the Area Review Committees, the 1988 Cleveland inquiry which formed the early versions of the statutory guidance Working Together To Safeguard Children and the Victoria Climbià © Report which contributed to the Every Child Matters green paper with recommended policies designed to ensure that it never happened again. Since the individual reforms of the past have all seemed intelligent and well-designed, it seems puzzling that they have not achieved their intended goals.[36] It is submitted that there may have been too many unnecessary targets. Instead of addressing existing practical problems, such as poor system management and inadequate funding, the prev ious reforms have focussed too much on the process of case management and increasing regulation. This may have impeded the real issue of child protection. The Munro report has provided some interesting recommendations to improve the law on child protection with particular focus on early intervention, the transparency and accountability of the system and the expertise of the social work profession. In conclusion, it is submitted that there is no consistent theme in the approach of their Lordships in regards to the threshold criteria. There is however increasing evidence to suggest that the thresholds need to be lower. Witnesses from the courts found little or no evidence of inappropriate removal of children and many instances where earlier removal would have been appropriate.[37] This is backed by academic research. Professor Ward noted that â€Å"there is substantial evidence that many children remain for too long with or are returned to abusive and neglectful families with insufficient support.[38] Word Count: 2500 Bibliography Primary Sources Cases Lancashire CC v B [2000] 1 FCR 509 Re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35 Re C (A Child) [1993] 1 FLR 257 Re D (Care: Threshold Criteria) [1998] Fam Law 656 Re D (A Child) (Care Order: Evidence) [2010] EWCA Civ 1000 Re H and Others (minors) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [1996] AC 563 Re L (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1282 Re M (A Minor) (Care Order: Threshold Conditions) [1994] 2 FLR 577 Re MA (Care Threshold) [2009] EWCA Civ 853 Re O and N (Children) (Non-accidental injury) [2003] 1 FCR 673 Re O (A Minor) (Care Order: Education: Procedure) [1992] 4 All ER 905 Re P (Care Proceedings) [2012] EWCA Civ 401 Re S-B (Children) [2009] UKSC 17 Re T (A Child) (Care Order) [2009] 2 FCR 367 Statutes and statutory instruments Adoption and Children Act 2002 Children Act 1989 Children Act 2004 Children and Families Act 2014 Secondary Sources Books Herring J, Family Law (6th edition, Pearson Education Ltd, 2013) Harris-Short S and Miles J, Family Law: Text, Cases and Materials (2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2011) Journal articles Bainham A, ‘Striking the Balance in Child Protection’ [2009] CLJ 42 Hayes M, ‘Uncertain Evidence and Risk-Taking in Child Protection Cases’ [2004] CLFQ 63 Keating H, ‘Shifting Standards in the House Of Lords’ [1996] CFLQ 157 Lowe N and Cobley C, ‘The statutory â€Å"threshold† under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989-time to take a stock’ LQR 396 Masson J, ‘Reforming Care Proceedings- Time for a Review’ [2007] CLFQ 411 Websites Department for Education, ‘Landmark Children and Families Act 2014 gains royal assent’ (Press release, 13 March 2014)

Comparing two pre 1914 ghost stories to show how the writing creates :: Free Essay Writer

Comparing two pre 1914 ghost stories to show how the writing creates and sustains tension. The two ghost stories that I have chosen are, The Signalman by Charles Dickens and The Old Nurses Story by Elizabeth Gasbell. â€Å"Compare and Contrast two pre 1914 ghost stories and show how the writers create and sustain tension.† In this essay I will be discussing and comparing two pre 1914 ghost stories to show how the writing creates and sustains tension. The two ghost stories that I have chosen are, â€Å"The Signalman† by Charles Dickens and â€Å"The Old Nurses Story† by Elizabeth Gasbell. The two writers have very different writing approaches â€Å"The old Nurses Story† has a slow pace which means that the tension builds over time. This story is also more hyper-bowl by this I mean everything is much more unrealistic. However â€Å"The Signalman† has a more realistic storyline, because they realize the ghost in the story ends up being a normal person. The pace in this story is almost the opposite of â€Å"The Old Nurses Story† because it goes in a slow then fast motion. So this story does not have one big climax like the other story, but it has small outbursts made by tension. The narrator in â€Å"The Old Nurses Story† is the Nurse. The Nurse is telling the story to Miss Rosamond’s Daughter â€Å"Miss Rosamond (that was the baby, who us now your mother)†. It makes you feel as though you are the little girl, which makes you feel as though you are involved which means that the tension not only builds in the story but it builds on you. The narrator in â€Å"The Signalman† is a visitor who visits the signalman. It feels as though he is telling the story a lot after the events have happened. This makes you feel as though you need to be ready for a dramatic story. The setting of â€Å"The Old Nurses Story† is in a hunted mansion which is one of the most popular settings for a ghost story. The Mansion is set in an old area, â€Å"old oaks. all white and peeled with aged†, this makes you feel that the place is hunted as soon as they arrive. The term â€Å"all white† in a ghost story gives you images of death and ghosts. In the Victorian times many houses were old and big because only the rich could afford houses so they made them as big as they wanted, due to no laws and masses of land. The setting of â€Å"The Signalman† is set on a train station. A train station is a very mood changing place.

Eleanor Roosevelt Essay

And strength, courage and confidence she possessed. Forty-six years after Eleanor Roosevelt’s death yet she the former First Lady still remains an influential women in the world. She supported her husband’s political career. In fact, President Franklin Roosevelt often called his wife his â€Å"eyes and ears† (Bradgon, McCutchen, and Ritchie 776). Eleanor Roosevelt played a pivotal role in the Roosevelt administration especially when paralysis hit the president (776). She used this power to advocate for civil rights, especially for the women (Goodwin 1998). The was the first woman to become the voice of the ordinary people, she spoke in national conventions, held press conferences, lectured, and wrote a syndicated column (1998). She fought for the plight of the poor, the women, and the African Americans (777). She was a super woman, so to speak. Her fight for social justice was perhaps what Roosevelt is famed and revered for. She helped laid the cornerstone of the civil rights and women’s movement. It was her greatest achievement, one that the world will forever be grateful for. Eleanor Roosevelt was born October 11, 1884 to Elliott Roosevelt and Anna Hall (Caroli 2008). Although she came from an influential family (her uncle was Theodore Roosevelt), her life story did not start out smoothly (2008). Hers was what people would call a â€Å"dysfunctional family† (Tindall and Shi 1266). Her father was described was an alcoholic who got servant girl pregnant while her mother was said to be a â€Å"cold, self-absorbed socialite† (Tindall and Shi 1266). Despite this, Eleanor loved her parents deeply. However, tragedy struck the family. By age ten, both her parents died and Eleanor, together with her brother, was brought to be raised by relatives (Caroli 2008). Eleanor’s other brother had died a year before (2008). Eleanor was extremely close to her father and his death deeply affected the young girl (2008). The siblings were brought to their grandmother Mary Hall to become their guardian (Black 2008). An introvert, Eleanor was sent to Allenswood, a girls’ boarding school by age 15 (Caroli 2008). Under the wing of Mademoiselle Marie Souvestre, Eleanor’s intellectual curiosity was awakened. Souvestre was a confident woman who was a staunch believer in the liberal causes (Black 2008). In Eleanor’s three years at Allenswood, she forged friendship not just with Souvestre but with young girls her age; she learned language, literature and history; expressed her opinions on political events; and discovered Europe in summers (2008). She was, to say the least, transformed into a â€Å"tall, willowy, outgoing woman† (Tindall and Shi 1266). In 1902, Eleanor went back to New York for her â€Å"coming out† into society (Caroli 2008). Following her family’s tradition, she immersed herself into social responsibilities, enlisting with the National Consumers League and the Junior League for the Promotion of Settlement Movements (Black 2008). She also volunteered to teach at the College Settlement on Rivington Street (2008). Her endeavors soon reached the attention of the New York reform group (2008). One summer, on a train ride to Tivoli, she bumped into her fifth cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Black 2008). A secret courtship began and on November 22, 1903, the two became engaged (2008). The two were different. Eleanor was often described as a serious person, someone of â€Å"high ideals and principles† while Franklin was a confident man, who grew with love and affection from his family (Tindall and Shi 1267). Franklin’s mother, Sara was against the relationship and tried in vain to separate the two. On March 17, 1905, Eleanor and Franklin were married in New York (2008). The wedding, wherein President Theodore Roosevelt gave the bride away, was on the front page of the New York Times (2008). In a span of 10 years, Eleanor gave birth to six children, one of whom died after birth (Caroli 2008). In 1911, Franklin won a seat in the New York senate and the family relocated to Albany (Black 2008). Eleanor looked forward to moving out, especially since in their old home, her mother-in-law was constantly breathing down her neck. She was said to comment that the move ignited her desire to become independent and be an individual (2008). As Franklin started to carve his political career, Eleanor took on the role of a political wife- gracing formal parties and â€Å"making social calls† (2008). When World War I broke in 1917, Eleanor found herself returning to volunteer work. She spent her free time helping the Navy- Marine Corps Relief Society and the Red Cross (Caroli 2008). Her unwavering commitment opened another door in her life- that of being able to be of service to others. For some time, she was in the shadow of her political husband. The War ignited her desire to pursue other plans outside her husband. It helped boost her confidence. Ruby Black, Eleanor’s friend, once commented that the war became her first work â€Å"outside her family† (Black 2008). But this awakening of sorts was dampened when Eleanor found that her husband was involved romantically with another woman, Lucy Mercer. Mercer was Eleanor’s social secretary (Caroli 2008). This caused a dent in the couple’s relationship and Eleanor suggested to have a divorce, which Franklin refused (2008). Franklin ended the relationship with Mercer and tried to patch things with Eleanor. Though they continued on with the marriage, it was said that they remained affectionate but no longer intimate (2008). In 1921, Franklin fell ill with polio and was paralyzed (Tindall and Shi 1267). Despite what had happened in their relationship, Eleanor did not leave her husband. She helped him in his career, attending political gatherings and speaking on his behalf (1267). According to their daughter Anna, polio was instrumental in bringing their parents together (1267). While Eleanor supported her husband, she started to carve her own name. She became active with the Women’s Trade Union League and the Democratic Party of the New York state (Caroli 2008). As Chair of the League of Women Voters Legislative Affairs Committee, Eleanor read the Congressional Record, talked with members of Congress and the State Assembly and presented a report on a monthly basis (Black 2008). She was especially interested in non-legislative issues like primary reform, voter registration and party identification (2008). Eleanor also wrote for the Women’s Democratic News (2008). Three years after, Eleanor was part of a group whose purpose was to inform women on participating in political and social issues. As board member of the bi-partisan Women’s City Club, Eleanor led the City Planning Department, tackling issues such as housing and transportation, child labor, and the distribution of birth control information on married people (Black 2008). She also taught at a school (2008). When Franklin was elected governor, Eleanor divided her time equally, ensuring that she pursued her personal interest and that of being a governor’s wife. When the Governor’s inner circle had disagreements with Eleanor’s League of Women Voters, Eleanor acted as arbitrator (Black 2008). Her political grace, no doubt, was shaping up. Following Franklin’s successful crack at the presidential election, the now First Lady continued with her passion. With her own staff, Eleanor carried on with her causes. She had press conferences with women correspondents, something she was keen on. She also talked to her husband about employing women in his cabinet (Tindall and Shi 1268). In fact, she backed the successful appointment of France Perkins as Secretary of Labor (Caroli 2008). Like the First Lady, Perkins was an advocate of minimum wage and maximum hour laws, child-labor restrictions and other reforms (Bradgon, McCutchen, and Ritchie 776). Eleanor was not afraid to speak her mind, even if it meant carping on her husband’s plan regarding unemployment insurance (Caroli 2008). In 1936, she started her own daily syndicated newspaper column â€Å"My Day† (2008). This was her channel for expressions her opinion publicly. While some greeted her write-up with criticisms, many people admired her for taking interest in their plight. She often tackled child welfare, racial minorities, housing reform and women equality (2008). Following her husband’s death in 1945, President Harry Truman her to the US delegation in the United Nations (UN) (Caroli 2008). She was responsible for the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (2008). The UDHR was approved on Dec. 10, 1948 at a U. N meeting in Paris, for which the former First Lady received a standing ovation from the delegates (Gardner 1988). The UDHR is deemed the touchstone of human rights (1988). It is also used to measure the performance of UN entities and NGOs (1988). Likewise, the UDHR continued to serve as inspiration for other human rights treaties in Europe and Latin American (1988). Based on the American Bill or Rights, the British Magna Carta, and the French Declaration of the Rights of the Man, the UDHD comprises a preamble and 30 articles on basic rights and freedoms (1988). When John F. Kennedy became president, she appointed Eleanor as chair of the Commission on the Status of Women (Caroli 2008). She continued to work and fought for the underprivileged. Even at her age, Eleanor travelled the globe to conduct meetings with world leaders (2008). She also did not stop writing books and articles. In 1962, she contacted a rare form of tuberculosis and succumbed. She was buried at Hyde Park. Works Cited Black, Allida. â€Å"Anna Eleanor Roosevelt. † The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project. Jan. 31, 2008. May 7, 2008 < http://www. gwu. edu/~erpapers/>. Bragdon, Henry, Samuel McCutchen and Donald Ritchie. History of a Free Nation. Ohio: McGraw-Hill, 1996. Caroli, Betty. â€Å"Eleanor Roosevelt. † Britannica. com. 2008. May 7, 2008 . Gardner, Richard. â€Å"Eleanor Roosevelt’s Legacy: Human Rights. † Dec. 10, 1988. May 7, 2008 . Goodwin, Doris. â€Å"Leaders and Revolutionaries. † TIME. com April 13, 1998. May 7, 2008 . Lewis, Jone. â€Å"Eleanor Roosevelt Quotes. † Womenhistory. about. com 2008 May 7, 2008 . Tindall, George and David Shi. America A Narrative History 5th ed. USA:W. W. Norton and Company, 1999.

Social Structure Of France During The French Revolution Essay

The French Revolution was a time of period where social and political was a disruption in France that lasted from 1789 until 1799. This time of period affected Social Structure of France prior to the French Revolution. The factors that caused this revolution was due to having a bad government system, weak superiority, and inequality of the classes of people in France during the war. In this research, I will define and explain how Social Structure contributed to the French Revolution Resentment of royal authoritarianism. The three estates that social structure consists of are first estate which are the clergies, second estate known as the Nobleman, and third estate which are the Bourgeoisie, peasants, and workers. The Revolution did not omit sharp distinctions among the social groups, neither did it alter the distribution of wealth. This caused them to divide into these three groups called as estates. The French Revolution were influenced by many factors such as the Enlightenment ideals, concepts of popular sovereignty, and unchallengeable rights. France’s costly involvement in the Revolution and excessive spending by King Louis XVI and his predecessor had left the country on the brink of bankruptcy. Not only were the royal coffers exhausted, but two decades of poor cereal harvests, drought, cattle disease and skyrocketing bread prices had kindled unrest among peasants and the urban poor. (history.com).These actions played a critical role in shaping modern nations. AsShow MoreRelatedEssay on Use of Terror in the French Revolution 1108 Words   |  5 Pages18th century of France, the third estate made up of the lower class of France had been oppressed and overtaxed, and received very little representation at the Estates General. The commoners of France wanted change and equality throughout France so they separated from the Estates General and formed their own government t o govern France. A few years later in 1792, Maximilian Robespierre, the radical leader of the Jacobin party and the Committee of Public Safety, took control of France and executedRead MoreCrucial Elements Leading to the French Revolution866 Words   |  3 Pages In the French Revolution, many contributing factors helped give birth to this messy revolution. These Factors included an unfair social system that gave privileges to the first estate, which was the clergy, and the second estate, which was the nobleman. The Rights included special positions, in which only higher classes could obtain, and most importantly an exempt from all taxation. For this reason, citizens in lower, third class France were rightfully upset. Another reason for rebellion wasRead More French Revolution Essay1141 Words   |  5 Pages Why was there a French Revolution? Between, 1789  ¡V 1799, many events occurred in France that caused an outbreak within the people thus leading to a revolution. This culminated in the France becoming a democratic government. This essay will argue that the resentment of absolute government, financial difficulties, the famine, rise of philosophes and the ongoing feud between the estates are all the major causes of why there was a revolution in France. Firstly before going into the topic, the wordRead More Napoleon Betrayed the Revolution Essay1320 Words   |  6 Pagesthe Revolution In order to investigate the claim that ‘Napoleon betrayed the revolution’, it has to be determined what is the French revolution? And what are the revolutionary ideals that Napoleon allegedly betrayed? If Napoleon betrayed the Revolution then he betrayed the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. However if Napoleon did not betray the revolution, he consolidated the revolutionary ideals. The only way of determining whether Napoleon consolidated or betrayed the revolution isRead MoreThe French Revolution During The 19th Century Essay1481 Words   |  6 PagesDuring the beginning of history there have been major political, economic, cultural and social revolutions. The people wanted change and brought about revolt against their government. The revolution instigated the act of liberty and equality for all people and generated fair living standards and/or social classes and treatment. This prompted expansions of political forces including but not limited to the democra cy and nationalism. Questioning the authority of kings, priests and nobles it providedRead MoreThe French Revolution Occurred During The Time Periods1414 Words   |  6 PagesThe French Revolution occurred during the time periods 1787 to 1799 which shook France. Its climax reached in 1789 when the ancien regime ended in France. The French Revolution was the most violent and by far the most universally significant revolution compared to the rest. The initial cause of the revolution was the social structure of the West. One social structure that was based on the holding of all land by fees that resulted in the relation of the king to vassal was called the feudal systemRead MoreEnlightenment And The Enlightenment Movement1317 Words   |  6 Pagesfor reform in France between 1690 C.E. and 1789 C.E.? Geo. H. Lewis argues in his DeFOREST ORATION. CAUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION that the extremely high and constricting taxes implemented in France, the conflicts between the nobility and the working class, and the uncooperativeness of the King created a sense of urgency for the general population of France (Lewis, pg. 51-52). Louis Gottschalk attributes this reform to the revolutionary ideas which were formulated by Rousseau during the EnlightenmentRead More Revolutions Around the World Essay1245 Words   |  5 PagesDuring the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century, the colonies of the New World, and countries of the Old World, were undergoing revolutions and reforms. In North America, the United States created an economic and political powerhouse; the modern world’s first major nation to become a democracy. The Haitian Rebellion dramatically inspired other slaves and people to rise above government and be given the rights to freedom. The French Revolution practically destroyed its earlierRead MoreFrench Revolution: the Solution to Class Inequality1141 Words   |  5 Pages The French Revolution was one of the most important events that occurred in the history of France. The revolution crumpled the Old Regime and completely transformed the social and political system of France. The people of France sought to establish a more egalitarian society through their newly created Republic. When Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Baron de Montesquieu introduced individual liberty, natural rights and equality the ideas of revolution emergedRead MoreRousseaus Impact On The French Revolution1636 Words   |  7 Pagesglobe, however, they seemed to have the most interesting effect on France. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a major contributor to Frances political and social structure post-French revolution. These ideas weren’t the only triggers for the French Revolution. A combination of strangling taxes, economic disparity, and an impotent ruler led to the development of an intense need for reform in France. â€Å"France spent an enormous amount of money during the American war which put them on the verge of bankruptcy† (McKay