Section 20 pre-proceedings “lag” is rearing it’s head around my neck of the woods again (not that it’s ever really gone away) as this widely circulated missive from our Designated Family Judge makes plain. Is it still a problem elsewhere (I think it probably is but I’d like to confirm whether I am right or not)?
I have heard on the grapevine (and I won’t be specific about areas here) that Section 20 is being used in precisely the way you have raised concerns about, for very long periods, with no active assessment or rehabilitation interventions being put in place because the LA’s can’t afford them and can’t get them on NHS or via any other route.
As I say, it is heard on the grapevine but a grapevine composed of very experienced professionals of assorted varieties, and it would seem that a good number of the Section 20 cases they are coming across are indistinguishable from cases that would previously have ended up in Proceedings.
Not being a lawyer, I am not sure what process would be followed to deal with this practice which has to be hugely risky and seems to be strongly linked to public sector funding cuts? How are the Courts supposed to find out about these Section 20 cases which are not appropriate?
I would be interested to hear a lawyer’s view on this one….
LRW – the theoretical safeguard is the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) who has the power to make a referral to CAFCASS as a last resort who may decide to bring the matter to court (see IRO Handbook ). I certainly have no experience of this happening or of this process even being initiated.
I have never been happy with the use of Sec 20’s by Local Authorities on the simple principle is that they can be prone to abuse, furthermore the terms when issuing Sec 20’s are not fully explained to the parents,
Sec 20’s are in effect a legal contract, as derived by a significant case Suesspicious minds minds blogged about a few months back, it was a while ago and brain is resting from a mad afternoon, I’m sure if Mr Sus. reads this he will point to the particular case in Q.
I had always believed that Sec 20’s were more about the parents having the all important ability to seek respite and not to be used as back door into having children removed on a more permanent basis, I wholeheartedly agree with the points given by HHJ Wildblood and he is spot.
I don’t generally have may cases revolving around Sec 20, I am almost certain there would be masses of them, each with their own unique T’s and C’s, those I have dealt with have in reality been what they were issued for and result in the return of the children back with parents.
Does inappropriate use of Section 20 also include where a parent is not even asked for either consent or signature nor told where the child has been placed. Leading to considerable distress to the child and parent. The parent is then told they can do nothing about it , nor is advised to get legal advice. The local police are unaware of the illegality as they help to accommodate the child . The threshold was not met at time of accommodation nor afterwards
When the parent finally does get legal advice the solicitor has not read the 1989 Children Act and does not realise the unlawful action.
Neither does a High Court or a Court of Appeal Judge. Or the IPCC , the Local Government Ombudsman.
This is unfortunately is not fiction all too real. Interestingly none of the judgements have been published.
yeah i’d say that what you describe is inappropriate. although on a specific point threshold does not need to be crossed for a child to be lawfully accommodated – a parent just needs to give their full consent (which should be informed consent).
Even more more strange the High Court Judge who did not recognise the infringement of the parents or children’s human rights despite being given written evidence in closed court.However when he later sat on a very similar case , but far less serious breach in open court he recognised the infringement and awarded damages.
Exactly the same case law was relied on in both cases.
Funny that . Just not funny ha ha if you happen to be the parent.
British Venema anyone?
This one, I think, Jerry
http://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/08/03/written-agreements/
Frankly, I think that s20 was devised to allow for a parent to come to a Local Authority and say that they needed a break, or that they weren’t coping and that the child would then be looked after by the LA.
I would estimate that around 70% of s20s are not driven by the parents asking for the child to be placed in care but by social workers asking for the parent to agree to this.
(I would prefer that the Act drew a distinction between those two routes – parents asking, which can be without time limits, and social workers asking a parent to agree, which should have a time limit and a relatively short one. Either solve the family’s problem and send the child home, or issue care proceedings – in effect Put up or Shut up. )
I think this Bristol initiative is good, and I hope it finds wider favour.
I think there are still social workers who have not heard of Re CA, and who miss those valuable principles. It still happens, that duress is applied to obtain s20, though it should not.
And as far as I know, there have been 8 referrals by IROs to CAFCASS and no proceedings issued as a consequence. This mechanism (the statutory response/mechanism from “starred care plans”) has been an utter failure.