A judgment in the Supreme Court handed down this morning confirms that councils must fully inform parents of their rights in relation to section 20 arrangements. The Court suggested that a failure to do so could amount to a breach under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for private and family life.
S.20 agreements enable local authorities to accommodate children in need, where parents cannot look after their children or where children seek alternative housing, for short periods of time.
The Supreme Court judgment in Williams and another v London Borough of Hackney, overturns current child protection practice which allows social workers to use S.20s to remove children, without giving parents substantive information about the arrangements.
The Supreme Court also reaffirmed that the Children Act 1989 did not contain any clauses requiring councils to get informed consent from parents, however Lady Hale made it clear that this was good practice. We remain of the opinion that whilst the need to obtain consent from parents under such arrangements is not written into the legislation, it is implied, given the nature of these agreements. Nevertheless, this judgment represents an important step in addressing the unlawful detention of children in state care under these arrangements.
Lady Hale went on to say that S.20 arrangements did not give local authorities any compulsory powers and that councils were not able to offer accommodation where there was a parent willing and able to provide, or arrange, accommodation for a child. Furthermore, the court held that S.20 arrangements could never be exercised by a local authority unless a parent voluntarily delegates their parental responsibility to the local authority in question.
Summing up her judgment, Lady Hale explained that parents should always be informed on the basis upon which their children are being looked after, and their rights to object to that care under S.20 arrangements. She also reminded councils that they could only keep a child if they had been given permission by the family courts to do so.
This final point is hugely important given that councils have been routinely detaining children in state care without filing applications with the family court requesting permission to do so, which is illegal.
Researching Reform is encouraged by this judgment, which echoes our previous calls to acknowledge the need to ensure that families are fully informed about their rights under S.20 arrangements.
The Supreme Court Website offers, as always, a very helpful breakdown of the case, including a press summary, which we add below, along with more information about S.20 arrangements for those who would like it:
- Supreme Court Main Page For Williams and another v London Borough of Hackney
- Supreme Court Press Summary
- Judgment (PDF)
- Appeal Court Ruling – No duty on councils to get parental consent for S.20s
- Section 20: You CAN Remove Your Child From Local Authority Accommodation
- Investigation into S.20 Agreements
- Section 20 Consent Forms For Parents and Children
You can watch Lady Hale explain the facts of the case and her judgment in this video:
Dr. Manhattan. said:
Another problem to contend with is that when Social workers unlawfully obtain a S20 they will always deny any wrongdoing and insist the parents signed the agreement willingly. how can this be tackled. i would suggest all such visits to parents houses seeking a S20 should be Documented on Video and with Police present if possible.
LikeLiked by 3 people
tummum said:
Not all of us signed one, refusing point blank. Then again, not all of us had our child/ren returned home even when we did go down the proper channels after being advised we could seek/demand our child/ren’s safe return home in person (over the phone) AND in writing through our solicitor. Breach of article 8 and 6 at least? I’ll be interested to read the judgement to see if section 1 CA 1989 is mentioned (regards failing to carry out a fair balancing exercise with welfare checks) after reading this short summary here at the latter….
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed191046
Accordingly, there was a lawful basis for the children’s continued accommodation under s 20 and the ground relied on by the judge for finding a breach of the appellants’ article 8 rights was not made out [61]. The question of whether the Council’s actions were a proportionate interference with the right to respect for family life throughout the time the children were accommodated was not fully explored in the lower courts and was not raised as an issue before the Supreme Court [62]. The appeal is therefore dismissed, albeit for reasons which differ from those of the Court of Appeal [63].
I’ll be interested to learn if/why this was not covered by the ones professional? as it should have been just like it should be on all family law cases?
Supreme Court Press Summary
For the judgment, click here.
18/7/18
LikeLike
tummum said:
Your latter comment is a good idea and a fair suggestion xx
LikeLike
truthaholics said:
Reblogged this on | truthaholics.
LikeLike
Ian Josephs said:
This judgement will be ignored in practice but will be conveniently used by politicians to show what wonderful rights we all have and benefit from.I guarrantee that social workers will continue to browbeat law abiding parents with dire threats that they will lose their children for ever if they don’t sign .They will of course deny doing any such thing if a daring parent manages to escape the legal aid lawyer and question them in court.A compliant judge will naturally believe the social workers ,refuse to hear any recordings made secretly by parents and will then rubberstamp the care order or adoption placement !
Such is life and will continue to be until it is finally decided by parliament that in future there should be no punishment without crime.
LikeLiked by 3 people
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
tummum said:
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
LikeLike
lonsb65 said:
And this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, with all the expense and hoo-hah along the way. If even the lowliest cleaner in an everyday firm had such a lack of intelligence at applying a commonsense solution to a problem early, they’d be shown the door. What did this cost to ‘solve,’ it if does.
LikeLike
Pingback: Government Ombudsman Cannot Investigate Matters Raised In Family Courts. | Researching Reform
Pingback: Government Ombudsman Cannot Investigate Matters Raised In Family Courts. | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE : SUPPORTING FRESH START @FSFtruthjustice
Pingback: Section 20: Councils Bypassing Parents, Targeting Children To Secure Agreements | Researching Reform
Barbara Gamble said:
If a mother agreed for temporary care in court.1st hearing so assessment are goingvto be done. Is this a section 20 or something different? & if the threshold is changed and mother agrees care because advised to do so by her solicitor or may loose them permanantly. And full care order made at a later date. And still has parental consent can she revoke her permission ? Also information given to the court regarding her drug tests and alchohol use is not accurate and a dv incident reffered to in court is found not to be a dv incident. Said involve the mother but police state it was no a dv incident. What redress does she have in law??
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Barbara, without seeing case files it’s not possible to give you clear answers so as a stop gap the mum may want to ask the lawyer if what she signed was a S20 and go from there. Please read the materials on the site for detailed info on these agreements, everything patents need is there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ian Josephs said:
Barbara :- As general guidance never sign anything offered to you by “helpful ” social workers. Even If you have signed you can change your
mind anytime because it is very very seldom legally binding especially if your signature has been obtained by dire threats of what will happen if you do not sign!
Also never sign anything proposed by a solicitor who has prevented you from speraking in court to present your case ! Traitors make poor counsellors !
Lastly you do not say who gave this wrong information re drug tests to the court or why neither you nor your solicitor exposed any falsehoods.I suspect both solicitors got together with social workers on that one but correct me if I am wrong !
LikeLike
[Name Withheld] said:
I’ve never been informed of my rights my little boy has been adopted yet i have contact with my other two children, I’m broken my little boy is the youngest out of my three I want him back so badly
LikeLike
Natasha said:
I’m so deeply sorry.
LikeLike
Ian Josephs said:
This final point is hugely important given that councils have been routinely detaining children in state care without filing applications with the family court requesting permission to do so, which is illegal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ian Josephs said:
The above quote is from Lady Hale of the Supreme Court.I ask therefore why if Councils have been regularly breaking the law as she says noone has been prosecuted?
Government officials break the law with inpunity and will always do so !
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Section 20: Councils Bypassing Parents, Targeting Children To Secure Agreements – Support Not Separation