A helpful summary on how family law orders and measures work in relation to 17 year-olds has been written by an in-house advocate at a London borough.

Hazel Samuriwo, who works for Brent council, outlined the different ways the law applies – or doesn’t – to 17 year-old children, in a report for Family Law Week.

The report offers the definition of a child for child protection purposes, and explains the provisions available under the Children Act 1989, relevant jurisdiction issues and what happens to interim orders and public law proceedings once a child turns seventeen.

The summary’s purpose is to alert councils to the fact that provisions for 17 year-olds are limited in scope and duration, and encourages the use of emergency applications, which this site is wary of given the way these applications are currently being misused.

However, it also explains that professionals should think carefully before issuing proceedings as a child is about to turn 17, as most orders at that stage are not granted by the courts.

Despite the heavy emphasis on securing orders where possible, the report also serves as a useful guide for children, offering information on their rights so that they are not forced into inappropriate or unnecessary arrangements.

For example, the section on accommodation for children in need, under section 20 offers some helpful details on how this provision is used. The explanation though, does omit the fact that being accommodated under a S.20 arrangement is a purely voluntary process, so that children can remove themselves from the accommodation at any time, and without notice. Parents and carers of children can also do the same.

Samuriwo offers 9 key points in the report, which include:

• Full care orders made at any time before a child turns 17 lasts until the child turns 18;
• Local authorities can bring care proceedings for a child who is almost 17, and can apply for Interim Supervisions Orders and Interim Care Orders, but interim orders cease to have effect once the child turns 17;
• Proceedings that start before a child’s 17th birthday can continue beyond that birthday if the court can find merit to the application, and there are strong welfare considerations. In most cases the court will decide that proceedings must end;
• At age 17 a local authority can no longer bring care proceedings as there is no jurisdiction for public law orders for children that age;
• Emergency provisions (Emergency Protection Order, police protection, child assessment order), though applicable to those over the age of 17, are limited by the ability of the Gillick competent child to refuse to submit to assessment and by their limited duration;
• An Emergency Protection Order granted in respect of a 17-year old can’t be extended because only a local authority with Parental Responsibility and entitled to apply for a full order can apply for an extension and;
• A secure accommodation order is available to a 17-year old, provided he or she  is ‘looked after’ at the time (i.e. under a care order or accommodated under s20) and the other criteria are met.

You can read the report in full, here. 

Further reading:

• Councils Using Alternative Orders to Remove Children from Parents After Judicial Push Back on Care Applications
• Section 20: You CAN Remove Your Child From Local Authority Accommodation
• More Councils Using Section 20 Arrangements To Keep Children In Care Illegally

Image by Anastasia Gepp from Pixabay 

Councils should look to trusted family members of children in care to take up the role of closed contact centres in order to keep child contact arrangements alive, updated guidance by the government has confirmed.

The “Coronavirus: Separated Families and Contact with Children in Care FAQs (UK)“, which was updated last night, re-iterates that the spirit of child contact orders for both private and public family law cases must be upheld.

The guidance says, “Centres are working creatively with families to see if there are other people that might be able to take up the role of the contact centre. This works well where there are family members or other trusted people that can step in, to support.”

Centres which are only partially closed can continue to arrange handovers for parents who need the support of a contact centre.

The revised document also provides a link to another briefing paper which offers advice on how to get help with varying a court order during the Coronavirus outbreak.

Researching Reform is calling on the government to set up a children’s task force aimed at protecting children from the virus, as emerging data suggests children could be in grave danger.

The call comes months after this site warned the government that children in the UK were at risk of infection from the virus, and that a significant number of children in care had underlying health conditions making them extremely vulnerable to infection.

One care home has already reported that every single child in its care has been infected with the virus. However the true picture of those infected in residential settings will never be known unless the government implements emergency measures to track the spread of the virus in these homes.

Children and the novel Coronavirus

Despite governments around the world initially claiming children were immune to the virus, this site has repeatedly called for immediate action to ensure children are protected while data on the virus remains limited.

We renewed those calls after speaking with South Korean national lead Dr Chung, who confirmed during an interview that children were not immune and could die from the infection.

That was over a month ago.

Research is now confirming the worst – that children can be infected, and can die from the virus.

UK doctors have become so concerned by the growing number of child cases that they issued a nationwide alert on Twitter on 26th April after several children became critically ill with symptoms linked to the virus.

Since then, over 100 severe cases worldwide have emerged, with that number likely to increase sharply over time.

On 4th May, the U.S. National Institutes of Health launched a study to work out how many children in the country have been infected with the virus.

Research highlighted online by the Daily Mail (the only newspaper so far to cover this data) offers these key findings:

• A Chinese study found children under 14 had triple the number of contacts as adults
• Researchers said school closures can lower peak cases by 40-60% and delay epidemic
• A Germany study found children can carry as high levels of COVID-19 in their bodies as adults
• Findings showed asymptomatic youngsters had viral loads as high or higher than symptomatic children or adults

Children in Care 

Children in care are particularly vulnerable to infection as they live in often cramped quarters with a large portion of that population experiencing serious physical and mental health conditions.

Finding out how many children in these settings have been infected is almost impossible while no mandatory duty to report to a single, unified government database or independent body exists.

The sector, which can only run if it has children it can pass on to foster carers and adopters has little to no incentive to report cases, as doing so would damage their business. No foster parent or adoptee would take in a child with COVID-19 and risk infecting themselves or their existing families.

Children in school 

Researchers around the world are warning governments that sending children back to school while the virus is still visible could lead to a second wave of infections, with one test suggesting that reopening schools could cause a sharp spike in cases.

However many parents have complained that the virtual lessons on offer from organisations like the BBC are not nearly good enough, and are calling on schools to reopen over fears that their children are falling behind.

How the task force should work 

The government needs to set up a task force to ensure children are protected from the virus.

The body would be able to:

• Approve grants for emergency paediatric research on how the virus affects children, its spread, infection from child to child and child to adult, and the rate of infection
• Recommend legislation to ensure children are protected – for example, imposing a mandatory duty on care home bosses to report COVID-19 cases to the body’s database and a mandatory duty to have every child in the UK tested for COVID-19
• Fine organisations who try to suppress cases (i.e. claiming infected children have ‘colds’)
• Set up any sub-committee it needs, for example an education sub-committee with parents and tech companies to produce high quality virtual lessons for every age group

Useful links:

• Children And The Novel Coronavirus – What We Know So Far
• An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral load by patient age
• Changes in contact patterns shape the dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak in China

Source: An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral load by patient age

The birth parents of children in residential care homes must be told when their child falls ill during the Coronavirus outbreak, and must also be consulted about how they should be looked after, a House of Commons briefing paper has confirmed.

The paper, which has been published by the House of Commons library, offers answers to frequently asked questions about child contact in relation to both private (divorce) and public family law (child protection) orders.

The document goes on to explain that managers of residential care settings should speak to parents and carers about their views on whether the child should return home if he or she needs to self isolate. This is what the paper says:

“Concerning situations where a child in residential care needs to self-isolate, guidance states that managers of such settings should speak to parents to establish what should happen:

Managers of residential settings should speak to parents and carers to establish views on whether the child or young person should return home for any period of self-isolation (due to them, or someone else in the same setting, displaying symptoms) or should remain at their setting. They should do this pre-emptively, rather than waiting until someone shows symptoms. Where possible, the risk assessment should also include consideration of the impact on the pupil or student from the disruption of their usual staff relationships and routines.”

The briefing paper also offers information on active legislation and policy that must be followed by councils with regards to contact.

A section entitled “Can I visit my child in care/residential home (England)?” explains:

“Under section 34 of the Children Act 1989, where a child is in local authority care, the local authority must allow “reasonable contact” between a child and their parents, guardian, any person with parental responsibility or a named person who had previous care of the child. However, this can be halted for seven days if the local authority believes it necessary to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare; the refusal is decided upon as a matter of urgency.

UK Government guidance for local authorities on children’s social care states that the Government “recognise[s] that the challenging context means that local authorities and partners will struggle to meet the full range of statutory duties relating to child protection, safeguarding and care at present”.

The guidance states that the Government expects contact between children in care and their relatives to continue and for the spirit of contact orders to be met:

We expect that contact between children in care and their birth relatives will continue.

It is essential for children and families to remain in touch at this difficult time, and for some children, the consequences of not seeing relatives would be traumatising. Contact arrangements should therefore be assessed on a case by case basis taking into account a range of factors including the government’s social distancing guidance and the needs of the child.

It may not be possible, or appropriate, for the usual face-to-face contact to happen at this time and keeping in touch will, for the most part, need to take place virtually. We expect the spirit of any contact orders made in relation to children in care to be maintained and will look to social workers to determine how best to support those valuable family interactions based on the circumstances of each case.

Regulation 11 of The Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 amends the Children’s Home Regulations 2015.

It states there must be suitable facilities within a children’s home for any child accommodated there to meet persons including parents, friends, relatives and their assigned social worker, or, where this is not possible, for communication over the telephone, video-link or other electronic communication method.

The paper also has a section entitled, “My child contact centre is closed: What alternatives are being made (UK)?” 

Crucially, this section confirms that some contact centres have remained open.

The section says:

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Child Contact Centres are run by a variety of independent organisations that form the National Association of Child Contact Centres (NACCC). They deal with:

• private law cases, where there is an agreement or court order made for supervised contact, and
• public law cases, where a child is in the care of the local authority and a contact order has been made with respect to the child for supervised contact.

The NACCC is maintaining a webpage on Covid-19. The guidance from them is that people should not be attending Child Contact Centres.

Some Centres are exploring ways to ensure child contact can continue to take place:

1. Centres are working creatively with families to see if there are other
people that might be able to take up the role of the contact centre. This works
well where there are family members or other trusted people that can step in,
to support. The government has detailed that children can travel to see parents
and the judiciary are urging parents to work together in making decisions for
children where this is safe and appropriate.

2. Indirect Contact is being achieved using technology like Skype, WhatsApp
video calling, Face Time and so on. Some centres are finding ways to support
this so that similar arrangements can be implemented in line with the services
usually being offered.

3. Other centres are reducing service sizes and availability. This means
that whilst the centre may have suspended contact, it might be possible for them to offer handovers for those parents who just cannot organise this without the centre.

The NACCC states that impacted members of the public should contact NACCC directly or a local contact centre to find out what services are available. Contact details for local centres may be found here: https://naccc.org.uk/find-a-centre.

In Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice’s Office has said parties should contact their legal respective as all Contact Centres have been closed. In Scotland, parties should contact their local Contact Centre.

The Briefing Paper can be accessed here.

Vulnerable children in care are catching the novel coronavirus, with at least one residential home reporting all of its children falling ill, and several staff in other homes going into self-isolation.

Fears over children’s care homes in Britain harbouring some of the worst cases of communal infection have been sparked, after a report shared with this site outlined a number of cases in several care homes where children and staff appear to have contracted the virus.

The report, which was published on Monday by the Independent Children’s Homes Association (ICHA), includes information circulated to 400 care homes.

One care home, which could not be contacted for further information, confirmed in the report that all twelve of its children had become ill. At least two homes said two of their carers had tested positive for COVID-19, with three members of staff requiring hospital admission. Other care home managers said they had isolated staff with “quite severe symptoms”.

It is likely that the current ICHA report outlining COVID-19 outbreaks within these settings are conservative, with many more children infected with the virus. The report also only incorporates voluntary contributions from independent care homes, and does not include updates from care homes run by local authorities in England and Wales.

The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Social Care’s hands-off approach towards children in care during the outbreak may partially be down to ongoing myths about how the novel Coronavirus affects children.

Once thought to be largely immune from the disease, new research is confirming the worst – that children can catch the virus, and die from the infection. Newborns, and children with underlying health conditions, many of whom are represented within the care system, are especially at risk, making it more important than ever for the government to act urgently.

While the government has focused its attention on care homes looking after the elderly during the pandemic, it has routinely ignored children in residential settings, who are by definition also vulnerable.

Edward Nixon, the founder of Every Child Leaving Care Matters, said, “I’m pleased Matt Hancock is looking at issues within care homes, but it seems that his comments do not apply to children’s home settings and are exclusive to the Older People sector, which is partly understandable but he misses the point about many children who are ‘in care’ and vulnerable because of serious physical health conditions, others who are vulnerable due to acute mental health challenges, and who will really struggle in terms of their emotional well-being in the current lockdown.”

A significant number of children in care homes have health conditions which make them susceptible to infection. As many as 62% of children in residential care homes live with a serious mental health condition which could be aggravated by the outbreak, and a lack of government guidance to ensure that the spread of the virus in these homes is stopped.

Staff are required to notify the placing authority of any children infected with the virus, but it is not clear whether care homes are doing so. Birth parents who have court ordered contact in place or who continue to retain parental responsibility have been kept in the dark about their children’s health during the outbreak.

The Office for National Statistics does not carry information about the number of children’s care homes affected by COVID-19 as standalone data.

As the child protection sector continues to operate during the outbreak, new children who could potentially be infected with the disease are being introduced into care homes, increasing the risk of further and recurring infections among children and staff.

While some care homes are isolating newly admitted children for 7-14 days, not all care homes are employing this strategy, leaving children open to infection, and staff confused about what needs to be done to protect children in these homes. Some staff also raised concerns in the report that their homes had not been inspected in over two years.

Elizabeth Cooper, the deputy CEO of the ICHA said that although Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) could provide a barrier to infection in care homes, it posed other problems:

“Children need physical contact and affection. Looked after children have as great, if not more of a need for this to help them heal. They already often feel alienated and ‘different’ and adding a physical barrier to this contact compounds this.”

Mandatory testing for the virus could be a way forward, but while it has been made available to front line workers looking after children in care, vulnerable children are still not eligible for these tests, making it impossible to know the full extent of infection spread within children’s homes.

The testing kits too, are problematic. A booking form produced by Wakefield NHS for health and social care staff requesting a test seen by this site, highlights concerns about the accuracy of the kits.

The test used in their programme is called PCR, which NHS Wakefield says has a high number of false negative results, and that, “Research studies have suggested that false negatives may be as high as 30% in ‘real world’ testing situations.”

The form goes on to explain that, “Out of 10 people who have COVID-19, seven will test positive for the virus but three will test as negative when they are actually positive.”

NHS Wakefield outline the local public health advice for these tests, which it says requires a key worker with COVID-19 symptoms to isolate for the full 7 days before returning to work, even if the PCR test result is negative.

The guidance then tells organisations to use their discretion as to whether or not to follow the advice.

For vulnerable children in care and at-risk adult carers, the test’s 30% failure rate, a lack of compulsory COVID-related duties on councils and care homes, and incomplete government guidance on how to support children in care during the outbreak could be fatal.

Ms Cooper said she would welcome detailed guidance from the government;

“There are guidelines for care homes that don’t really apply to our sector, but are all we have. Clarity from the government and the Department for Education would make a positive difference.”