• About
    • Privacy Policy
  • GSW
  • Guide To Making A Subject Access Request
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates
  • Voice of the Child Podcasts

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Daily Archives: October 9, 2017

Section 20 Consent Forms For Parents and Children – Get Yours Here.

09 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform, social services, social work

≈ 21 Comments

Together with child rights campaigner Michele Simmons, Researching Reform has produced two consent forms for families and children thinking about entering into a S.20 Agreement.

Michele, whose idea it was to create these forms, wanted to be able to offer parents and children the opportunity to fully inform themselves about these agreements and to protect them from their more controversial, and illegal, use – coercing families to place children in care.

Section 20 Agreements are intended to allow children access to temporary accommodation for a variety of reasons, including situations where parents through no fault of their own are unable to care for their child at that time, and instances where communication breaks down between parent and child. Their purpose and function are outlined in the Children Act 1989.

These agreements have become infamous for their misuse. Their implementation is now being investigated after it emerged that councils were removing children from parents and initiating child protection proceedings through them, which is illegal.

A new row has emerged over whether parental consent should be required before S.20 Agreements are created, with the Supreme Court to rule on this issue in the not too distant future. 

In the meantime, The President Of The Family Division has issued guidelines which request all local authorities to obtain parental consent prior to signing off on any S.20 arrangement.

Michele and Researching Reform have put together two forms – One for parents, and one for children who feel able to engage in the process and want to have their wishes and feelings set in writing. The consent forms have been saved in Word files, and uploaded onto Scribd, where the documents can be downloaded free of charge and completed at home.

The forms all come with links to key guides on S.20 Agreements, and other relevant law and policy relating to them, and we would urge parents and children to read them before signing any agreement.

To access the parent consent form, click here.

To access the child consent form, click here.

These forms are intended to invite social workers and families to work together and treat S.20 Agreements as supportive collaborations, which is the spirit in which they were intended to work.

If you would like to offer feedback on the content of the forms, we would welcome it.

Consent Forms

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question It!

09 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in Question It, Researching Reform

≈ 11 Comments

Welcome to another week.

Controversial S.20 Agreements, meant for placing children in local authority accommodation where child protection concerns exist but which have been illegally used to take children into care, are now on the Supreme Court’s radar.

After the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no duty on councils to get parental consent for these agreements, the family involved in this case appealed the decision, and the Justices at the Supreme Court have now granted permission to challenge the ruling.

Section 20 Agreements have been so badly abused by social workers that in April of this year an investigation was launched, which aimed to look at how and why these agreements were being used to coerce families and children into child protection proceedings.

The ruling by the Court of Appeal also contradicts the President of the Family Division’s own guidelines, released in 2015, which explicitly state that parental consent must be obtained for any S.20 Agreement.

At Researching Reform we take the view that parental consent must be a basic ingredient of any Section 20 Agreement, which is by its nature a voluntary arrangement. Failure to secure that consent, to our mind, renders the agreement null and void precisely because it is a voluntary arrangement, which expressly implies a need for consent.

Just as critically, failure to obtain consent acts as a gateway to abuse, allowing social workers to coerce families into child protection proceedings. It is this lack of transparency, and consent, that has led to councils being able to use S.20 Agreements to break the law and take children from parents.

But that’s just one view.

Our question then, is just this: do you think parental consent should be a legal requirement for S.20 Agreements?

A very big thank you to Michele Simmons for alerting us to this development.

Questions

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 8,468 other subscribers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

October 2017
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
« Sep   Nov »

Children In The Vine : Stories From The Family Justice System

Categories

  • Adoption
  • All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and The Court of Protection
  • Articles
  • Big Data
  • Bills
  • Case Study
  • child abuse
  • child abuse inquiry
  • child welfare
  • Children
  • Children In The Vine
  • Circumcision
  • Civil Partnerships
  • Consultation
  • Conversations With…
  • Corporal Punishment
  • CSA
  • CSE
  • Data Pack
  • Domestic Violence
  • Encyclopaedia on Family and The Law
  • event
  • Family Law
  • Family Law Cases
  • FGM
  • FOI
  • forced adoption
  • Foster Care
  • Fudge of the Week
  • Fultemian Project
  • Huffington Post
  • Human Rights
  • IGM
  • Inquiry
  • Interesting Things
  • Interview
  • Judge of the Week
  • Judges
  • judicial bias
  • Law to lust for
  • legal aid
  • LexisNexis Family Law
  • LIP Service
  • LIPs
  • Marriage
  • McKenzie Friends
  • MGM
  • News
  • Notes
  • petition
  • Picture of the Month
  • Podcast
  • Question It
  • Random Review
  • Real Live Interviews
  • Research
  • Researching Reform
  • social services
  • social work
  • Spotlight
  • Stats
  • Terrorism
  • The Buzz
  • The Times
  • Troubled Families Programme
  • Twitter Conversations
  • Update
  • Voice of the Child
  • Voice of the Child Podcast
  • Westminster Debate
  • Who's Who Cabinet Ministers
  • Your Story

Recommended

  • Blawg Review
  • BlogCatalog
  • DaddyNatal
  • DadsHouse
  • Divorce Survivor
  • Enough Abuse UK
  • Family Law Week
  • Family Lore
  • Flawbord
  • GeekLawyer's Blog
  • Head of Legal
  • Just for Kids Law
  • Kensington Mums
  • Law Diva
  • Legal Aid Barristers
  • Lib Dem Lords
  • Lords of The Blog
  • Overlawyered
  • PAIN
  • Paul Bernal's Blog
  • Public Law Guide
  • Pupillage Blog
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs
  • Story of Mum
  • Sue Atkins, BBC Parenting Coach
  • The Barrister Blog
  • The Magistrate's Blog
  • The Not So Big Society
  • Tracey McMahon
  • UK Freedom of Information Blog
  • WardBlawg

Archives

  • Follow Following
    • Researching Reform
    • Join 813 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Researching Reform
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: