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.
Researching Reform 
Yes consent for a S20 is a must but we still have the problem of Social workers lying about how they obtained a S20. its very common for them to use threats of calling the Police etc but later deny any such thing.
how do you combat that when its your word against theirs unless you record the event. most parents dont even think of that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If section 20 is voluntary then by definition it must come about because the parents wish it and therefore consent must be obtained.
The secrecy should be abolished so that parents know exactly where their children are living and with whom. Indirect contact (email,text or phone) should be unlimited between parents and children and whatever contact is agreed should be unsupervised.
Section 20 would then becomze a useful repite tool for parents instead of being the first stage in splitting up parents and children permanently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
It’s reassuring to learn that reform is always possible and that powerful bureaucracy is not beyond the law so justice prevails eventually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who the hell does the State / Local Councils think they are, taking children as property from their parents?
Especially when we KNOW that it’s far more often policy rather than ‘grateful parents consenting’???
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog and commented:
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?
LikeLike
Pingback: Question It! | tummum's Blog
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
The circumstances which brought this case to the Supreme Court shows how inept and indeed ignorant some Judges are on Family Law issues. Parental consent must be obtained. The system abuses children and parents more than the vast majority of parents themselves. Well done to those parents who have been so dogged in their persistence in this case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
Is the imminent supreme court appeal a belated warning bell for those inhabiting a parallel universe?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m Risk and Data analyst by profession. I defied S.20 legalized oppression, consequently me and my family had to suffer but we turned this horrible episode into and opportunity. We remained together and manage to navigate through that difficult times successfully by defying all sort of logic SW were suggesting . Eldest Kid is going to university next year. My child achieved 3 A*s and one A and one B. in GCSE results. Other are doing great. No matter what options I tried to negotiate with S. workers but they simply ignored and imposed their own version of child upbringing criteria. S. workers involved didn’t have their own kids therefore they had no emotional experience and kids bonding. S.20 was solely based on ticking check boxes. Family court system is highly flawed. Judges are as ignorant as SWs , even worse, both scratching each others back to run highly flawed status quo system . The most dangerous thing in life is an incompetent that has been given a law enforcement badge.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE