Alarming reports of councils sidestepping parental consent for Section 20 living arrangements have surfaced this week on Facebook, after the highest court in the land ruled that failing to get parents’ consent could lead to local authorities being sued for breaches under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for private and family life.
Section 20 agreements allow councils to house children in temporary accommodation when parents are unable to care for their children. The agreements are intended to be short term, and voluntary, meaning that children can leave local authority accommodation under these arrangements at any time and without notice.
Children who are considered Fraser Competent, or mature enough to make decisions, can arrange accommodation under Section 20 agreements without parental involvement. The original thinking behind the policy was to ensure that children who felt unsafe or vulnerable in their home environments could reach out to councils for protection or respite.
This caveat now appears to be being abused by local authorities, who are turning to children to secure these agreements when parents refuse to accept the arrangements offered.
Whilst the Supreme Court made it clear last month that parents must be informed about their rights under Section 20, the judges did not cover the need to fully inform children who personally seek out temporary council accommodation, or are approached by councils looking to create such an agreement, and ensure that they fully understand the terms of the agreement, too.
Comments across closed Facebook groups, and text messages this site received, suggest that the practice of targeting children when parents object to a Section 20 arrangement is not new. Several children also posted about their experiences of being coerced into council accommodation, and adoption proceedings. One child told Researching Reform:
“I wish the court had made sure I understood first what was being asked.. which I didn’t at the time. I have grown up to realise as a young adult that I have missed out on so much. I have lost touch with family members as a result, and this concerns me for my health because I lost one of my parents when they were very young. I would like to be able to understand their medical history to see if I can alleviate my own health worries but have nowhere to start.”
Section 20 arrangements came to the mainstream media’s attention last year after it was revealed that the agreements were being used by councils to remove children from their parents with a view to putting them up for adoption, which is illegal.
More on Section 20:
- Section 20: You CAN Remove Your Child From Local Authority Accommodation
- Investigation into S.20 Agreements
- Section 20 Consent Forms For Parents and Children
Many thanks to Michele Simmons for alerting us to this development.
Researching Reform 
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLiked by 1 person
The children can be young too! Way younger than a teenager, who are being pursued behind their parent/s backs who maintain PR right up until an adoption order is made! Thank you Natasha for doing this. it is outrageous what is going on. xx
LikeLiked by 3 people
sure and if parent will publisise council will throw him to prison
LikeLiked by 1 person
forced adoption fostering is child abuse https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.change.org%2Fp%2Ftheresa-may-mp-call-on-the-government-to-order-a-independent-investigation-into-forced-adoption-fostering%2Ffbog%2F300905841%3Frecruiter%3D300905841%26utm_source%3Dshare_petition%26utm_medium%3Dfacebook_link%26utm_campaign%3Dshare_petition%26utm_term%3Dshare_petition&h=AT1moxb5acJE___cJVE4yZOijhYEPtuZzyQGONMzZ3J34x3OGHZE6X9PK8YjQDhnXv_5erAxfMKZJLeLWj5sMNn-DupupYsdSPu-bdy7p7NV3veogI2EgRKVPtCBQN-e7_6dj4Sd6pxIt8B2lPUKg90b51gqEPRbUwTodzD2rbsiNARDIFqMzmKcNVqBteGCHB33KFljs2ghCR3HyN9XCaDJ8brxNcf8PXLlpwVwd7cueYKF5vcIS8vspe9TT6SRwku8lU0Hi_aP1Amgi2rp9UA1FN3WVwGejPJRcCd2fnVUstxkw5hVBt9M4YJx7wYeM-TCNZKJuJq2KeTBmtE7zFPh2xHcmUpWLNnExTUwlXtSRAcaj5X0YELe
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is another vital revelation that may have a considerable impact on the way children and their parents are subjected to questioning by local authorities – and the credence given to their testimonies.
We have been duped into believing that truth will always prevail, but experience has taught us that life is not about truth – only about perception – and that is weighted on the side of the Establishment.
Notwithstanding the distortions that truth can undergo in the retelling, we have to believe that truth will out in the end given the revelations and publicity granted many victims of long covered-up transgressions in recent times even though the timeline extended back in history – though too late for some.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: Section 20: Councils Bypassing Parents, Targeting Children To Secure Agreements « Musings of a Penpusher
“Section 20 arrangements came to the mainstream media’s attention last year after it was revealed that the agreements were being used by councils to remove children from their parents with a view to putting them up for adoption, which is illegal.”
i wonder how many Councils have been Sued so far. not many i would think. thousands of parents wont even know about this information.
the Govt should send out letters to all parents re this Unlawful Sec20 Scam.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Children are being asked if they are happy to be adopted as young as 7 years old, when parent/s decline to sign section 20! It is criminal! Sick! because a parent maintains PR right up until an adoption order is made. It’s criminal when parents are not told therefore and it’s taking advantage of the young child who does not understand. Then they are growing up to tell their parent/s once reunited, so it’s not getting found out until then always. Why are solicitors not informing the parent/s what’s happening with their child who they maintain PR for?! Same with councils? It’s as though they are seeking the young child’s consent regards section 20 instead, going over the parent/s heads and going behind their backs! This takes team effort and corruption to the highest level? Yet, take any of your children to court it gets frowned on! Medical records with their family members history is very important to them too! and rightly so (family members lost sadly, along the way) So this is why it’s very important to be at the adoption hearing, even where you as a parent/s have been misled! Although, i appreciate how upsetting it is to do that but you could be turning up to witness them taking advantage of your child/ren! Section 20 is being abused worse than we first thought?? It’s no better than stealing a child from the local park! then the parent/s not being updated by the police for example who reported their child missing, because instead the kidnappers have been allowed to get away with it! The worry this young adult must be going through, we can only imagine in our worst nightmares. xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
The big ? is why are LAs unlawfully obtaining S20 agreements. we never hear much about who gets paid what and if anyone involved in the process are getting backhanders.the Motives for this Criminal activity needs to be uncovered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The answers could lie on the floppy disc with all the billing, and the paperwork with all the billing but then that would be another maze of information to check but also worth checking (now where to check the floppy disc) xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
what about when a “senior practitioner” (non registered social worker) snatches 2 children without a court order or consent, using threats of police and prison, and forced used against the eldest child (aged 7)? when asked “why?” she says it’s because she watched a tv program about men with depression who murder their children before committing suicide. so she decided to “rescue” my children because i has bog standard depression. that’s how it all started. then with my youngest daughter (snatched from the womb 2 days before the due date) the social worker gave the “off the record” reason as being “your other children were successfully adopted”. then my son snatched by home invasion a few hours after a home birth, the reason was spite, and a load of bull shit from a bent judge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Section 20: Councils Bypassing Parents, Targeting Children To Secure Agreements | tummum's Blog
https://www.grants4schools.info/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3bO53Zz23AIVRLYYCh1SFQGAEAAYBiAAEgK1SPD_BwE
We need to look into Philanthropy funding Grants for well-being and child welfare to all Services and where these incentives are coming from this is a good place to begin in my opinion from what I am seeing child welfare = farewell to our natural heirs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/what-we-do/programmes/criminal-justice/ Many Judges, I have discovered are trustees of Charities , Foundations , is there a conflict of interests? Roles and Duties of Trustees of Charitable Trusts and Foundations?
Philanthropic trusts have existed in Australia for more than a century. While such trusts were
generally exempt from income tax, it was not until 1963 with the introduction of Public Ancillary
Funds that a form of charitable trust allowed for tax deductible donations. These funds required
control by a majority of ‘responsible persons’ and had a public fund raising obligation. Up until 2001
private or family philanthropy was not as tax efficient as similar structures elsewhere, particularly in
the UK and the USA.
Following a 1999 report on how to foster philanthropy, provision to create a new form of
philanthropic structure, the Prescribed Private Fund (PPF), was announced by the Howard
Government in 2001. The then Prime Minister stated that “This measure will open up a new vehicle
for private philanthropy, similar to that existing in the United States, so that families and
individuals can donate to a trust of their own, which then disburses funds to a range of other giftdeductible
recipients.” (Prime Minister’s Press Release 30 March 2001.)
Click to access PAF_Handbook_FINAL_May_2014.pdf
https://www.charitygovernanceawards.co.uk/judges/?doing_wp_cron=1534584413.5958518981933593750000
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you ever heard of a Judge running their own Law firm from the same address as the Barristers chambers that supply the Barristers to represent parents in their Court ?
LikeLike
http://slynn-foundation.org/about/trustees/ Mr Peter Williamson (Chairman)
Peter Williams is a retired solicitor who was President of the Law Society in 2003/4. He was also Chairman of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund from 1997 until 2002 and Chairman of the Solicitors Regulation Authority from 2005 until 2009. He was appointed as a Trustee in 2010 and became Chairman in 2012.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
The root cause is the commodification of children for corporate profit, which is a blatant waste of taxpayers money! Every single instance of any council sidestepping parental consent for Section 20 living arrangements marks an abuse of power by a state actor against family members. and must be challenged and Appealed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If it’s not found out in time and gets found out years later and gets challenged then, the problem is no jurisdiction. It’s a sad world when we can’t even ask questions getting the answers so deserved xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jobbery the conduct of public or official business for the sake of improper private gain. corruption and jobbery , section 20 used in the way described above is criminal .https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/jobbery#incoming-702669
Dear Judicial Conduct Investigations Office,
Jobbery
jobbery, n. (1837) – Courts/Councils/Reserved Legal Practice for
Legal Complaints,
Can you tell me under the FOIA how many complaints and what
sanctions have been imposed on local authorities, solicitors firms,
advocacy firms, courts and judges committing jobbery, (1837) The
practice or act of perverting a public service in a way that serves
private ends; unfair means to serve private interests.
It is a criminal offence to carry on a reserved legal activity
(including an activity in the form of the exercise of a right of
audience); see sections 14 to 17 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Section 20: Councils Bypassing Parents, Targeting Children To Secure Agreements – Support Not Separation
Pingback: Best Practice Replaces “Good Enough” Standard in New Family Court Guidance | Researching Reform
Thannk you for this
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome.
LikeLike