Since 2018, following the Supreme Court decision in Williams and another v the London Borough of Hackney [2018] UKSC37 there has been the sense that any prolonged period of voluntary care under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 might lead to an entitlement to damages under the Human Rights Act.
In Williams it was found that where the use of section 20 amounts to an interference with a parent’s or a child’s exercise of their right to respect for family life, it will violate article 8 of the HCHR. Remedies available (and which are most usually sought) include awards of damages. The amounts are not particularly modest — commonly between £10,000 and £30,000 for delays even of a few months, and often the Claimant’s costs are in our experience many times more than that.
More recent case law shows that a prolonged period of time in foster or residential care under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 does not automatically amount to an unlawful infringement of human rights or lead to an entitlement to damages.
In 2023 the Court of Appeal confirmed that in certain situations long term placements under section 20 are satisfactory.
The Facts
The Court of Appeal was dealing with two cases together.
Re S (a child) at first instance
S was, at the time of the hearing, nine years old. He had a number of complex needs, including ASD, ADHD, behavioural issues and a lack of awareness of danger. Eventually his mother, made what she described as the “agonising decision” to request his accommodation. She did not want the Council to prepare for care proceedings. Initially the Claimant’s father (who had separated from the mother) was against the residential placement proposed, but as soon as he saw how well his son had settled and that his needs were being met, he agreed to sign a section 20 agreement.
The Council engaged with S’s mother and perceived that she was unable to “commit” either to a plan for her son to return home, or a timescale for rehabilitation. An expert acknowledged that it would be difficult to imagine how a lone parent would be able to meet S’s needs. The expert concluded the child required a specialist residential unit with a high staffing ratio.
In the care proceedings the Local Authority explained its understanding that section 20 is not an effective or appropriate mechanism for children requiring long-term care and long-term planning. The Court also had the benefit of a CAFCASS report. It is clear that the Social Worker and CAFCASS Officer had discussed the case and the Social Worker had said that had it not been for case law (i.e., Williams) regarding the misuse of section 20 she would not have been certain about the need for any Care Order.
The Court recognised this was in no small part due to the Claimant’s mother being so supportive of her son’s needs and the continued placement. The child’s father was also described as being “patient, tolerant, affectionate and accepting of feedback”. He had done nothing to undermine the placement.
At the initial hearing the Care Plan was agreed, but the parents argued that there should not be a Care Order made in favour of the Local Authority. Ultimately, the Judge at first instance concluded that a Care Order was necessary and that it might be necessary for the Local Authority to have parental responsibility looking ahead. This decision was appealed.
The grounds included an assertion that the Judge had attached excessive weight to the certainty that would be provided for a Care Order and failed to express a view as to whether section 20 agreements could be used for long-term accommodation. It also highlighted the fact that judicial guidance would be of benefit as to the best to be applied on the “no order” principle in the Children Act.
Re W at first instance
This case was based on similar facts. The Claimant had been adopted and as she grew received a complicated diagnosis of ASD, ADHD, ARDN, FASD, attachment disorder, dyspraxia, dyslexia, sensory processing difficulties, and bladder bowel dysfunction. As often happens her behaviour began to deteriorate when she entered puberty, with a particular feature being violence towards her mother. Again, the Court commented on the devotion and dedication of her parents, but they struggled, and in 2020 in order to provide respite she was enrolled in a residential school coming home at the weekends. Despite this, the relationship between W and her mother continued to deteriorate. Initially the parents agreed to the making of a Care Order but having had the opportunity to take legal advice and speak to other adopters, they changed their minds, explaining that they wished to “parent from a distance” under a voluntary arrangement permitted by section 20 of the Children Act.
The Local Authority made an application for a Care Order which was supported by the guardian. Nevertheless, both parents opposed the making of a Care Order on the basis that the arrangements already in place under the agreement should continue. Their argument was that a section 31 Care Order was neither necessary nor proportionate. The Judge observed that section 20 arrangements should not be used as a long-term tool, and that where W was to be in foster care in the medium to longer term, there was a need for a Care Order. The Judge also thought it would be useful for the Local Authority to share parental responsibility from the perspective of W “testing boundaries”.
The Order was appealed, and the grounds included an assertion that the Judge erred in determining the proper use of section 20 which did not restrict or qualify the use of section 20 accommodation. It was asserted that the Judge erred in concluding that the “no order” principle was rebutted in the circumstances of this particular case.
The Court of Appeal
Considering the appeals the Court of Appeal reflected on the comparative roles of Care Orders and section 20 Accommodation Orders. They recognised that Care Orders effectively lead to the Local Authority having parental responsibility for the child in question, as well as the parents and with that parental responsibility the Local Authority may, by section 33 of the Children Act, “trump” the parents wherever there is an issue of dispute between them.
By contrast, a section 20 Accommodation Order simply facilitates partnership. Where that partnership is functioning well under an agreed Care Plan not only is the making of a Care Order not necessary, but it is disproportionate.
The simple fact that the threshold criteria under the Children Act are satisfied does not automatically lead to the making of a Care Order or in fact a Supervision Order. The Court always has to have in mind the “no order” principle under section 15 of the Children Act.
Their Lordships also went on to consider Williams -v- Hackney and the Public Law Working Group set up in March 2021 by the President of the Family Division which gave best practice guidance concerning section 20 Orders. That guidance recognised that section 20 “may be short term accommodation during a period of assessment or respite; alternatively, it may be a longer period of accommodation, including the provision of education or medical treatment”.
Having reflected on all of the above, the Court of Appeal was convinced that the statute was unambiguous. There is no time limit on the length of a section 20 Order.
The appeals against the making of Care Orders were allowed. No party in either case was resisting or challenging the idea that neither of the children should move or change their long-term placements. Those placements were meeting their respective needs. The placements were supported by the parents as worth the accompanying Care Plans.
So what does this mean for those Local Authorities facing section 20 claims?
Unfortunately, often Claimants pursuing “pure” section 20 claims do so many years after the events in question and significantly more than one year after the primary limitation envisaged by the Human Rights Act at section 7.
That means that it can be difficult, unless record keeping is really quite vigorous, to demonstrate the reasons why section 20 case continued for a significant period of time and why no Care Order was sought. Rigorous Care Planning regularly reviewed and carefully recorded is essential.
What this decision shows is that the attitude of the parents, their support for or risk of undermining any Care Plan or Provision, and the acceptance that the making of a Care Order itself is an interference in the private and family life of both parents and child are factors to be taken into account.
It follows that delay in itself does not bring an entitlement to damages.
For more information on how to handle section 20 claims quickly and efficiently please contact us.
Key contact
Sarah Erwin-Jones
Partner
Sarah.Erwin-Jones@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 976 6136
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Vicarious liability for kinship foster carer abuse: Implications for local authority insurers
Legal Update
Relying on parental consent for treatment and restraint against a child's wishes
Legal Update
A long period of voluntary child care does not always mean an entitlement to damages
Legal Update
Extended s20 voluntary care isn’t always a breach of human rights
Legal Update
Mitigating the £6.2bn black hole: Are councils maximising these resources well enough?
Legal Update
Court of Appeal extends local authority liability for kinship foster carers
Legal Update
Redress and reparation schemes: Where the complexity is not about quantum
Legal Update
What does the new gender questioning guidance mean for schools?
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Giving evidence before the Family Court - a practical session
Legal Update
HXA and YXA : Guidance from the Supreme Court on negligence in failure to remove cases
Opinion
Parental alienation a tool for domestic abuse?
Legal Update
Public Consultation on a Mandatory Reporting Regime for Child Sexual Abuse
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Legal Update
HXA and YXA failure to remove cases: Key considerations in anticipation of the Supreme Court judgment
Legal Update
Protecting children and their data in the online environment
Opinion
Challenges from potential Foster Carers and Adopters
Our immediate future shows a renewed focus on foster care. We’re going to see a new nationwide-drive to recruit foster carers and the implementation of a more robust, and potentially financially-generous system for encouraging friends and family to care for their relatives (both when extended families cannot cope or provide care for any reason).
Legal Update
Independent review of children’s social care – focus on foster care
This summer saw the publication of a report describing itself as a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to reset children social care. Based on the current trajectory, the report concluded that 100,000 children would be held in care in the next decade.
Published Article
Complex safeguarding allegations
Whilst Schools and Academies exist to educate and inspire young people, their primary obligation is their protection. Keeping Children Safe in Education (“KCSIE”) is at the heart of everything that educational institutions do and impacts on every decision, however big or small.
On-Demand
'Barry Bennell case' webinar
This webinar looks at the three key themes in the decision, and is aimed at sports & social clubs (including safeguarding officers).
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Safeguarding Forum. Child Safeguarding in childcare proceedings
Published Article
Do local authorities owe a duty of care to children living at home with their family?
On-Demand
Child Abuse & Social Care Forum
Watch now on-demand our Child Abuse & Social Care Forum.
Published Article
KCSIE: How to research applicants' online profiles
The Department for Education published the draft 2022 version of Keeping Children Safe in Education. A few changes caught the eye and the one that most of us in education are discussing relates to a new set of text that suggested checking the online presence of job applicants.
Press Release
High Court strikes out ‘failure to remove’ Human Right Act claim against two local authorities
The High Court has considered the application of the Human Right Act to local authorities in cases where they are carrying out their statutory child protection functions after dismissing the latest ‘failure to remove’ claim against two local authorities.
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Preparing for 2022 – the big issues for legal teams across health and social care
On-Demand
Children's Trust webinar: Rebuilding Children's Services
In this session, we look at how to manage and respond to current challenges, including interventions, service failures and serious incidents, and consider future models for long term transformation of services.
Press Release
Court delivers key ruling on a local authority’s duty of care in ‘Failure to Remove’ negligence claims
Legal Update
Settled law on failure to remove negligence claims: does section 20 of the Children Act 1989 create a lasting duty of care?
The judgment in YXA v Wolverhampton City Council [2021] is significant for several reasons.
On-Demand
Children's social care forum
Catch up on this year’s social care forum where we discussed developments on liability for friends and family foster placements, lessons learned from pursuing recoveries from abusers in child sex abuse cases and also the impact of the ABI Code of Practice for responding to civil claims for child sexual abuse following recommendations of the IICSA.
Legal Update
Children’s social care review – Case for Change – a step towards consensus?
The Independent review of children’s social care in England describes itself as a ‘once in a generation opportunity to transform the children’s social care system’. Some might also see it as a poisoned chalice.
Legal Update
More guidance on failure to remove claims: what are the implications for children's services and SAR teams?
Local authorities now have the benefit of a flurry of recent judgments on the issue of the existence of a duty of care in children’s ‘failure to remove’ cases.
On-Demand
Post-Covid child abuse litigation - a new future
Legal Update
The importance of evidence when it comes justifying indirect discrimination
The High Court decision of R (Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service Ltd) v The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills highlight the critical role that evidence plays in the Court’s assessment.
Opinion
COVID-19 child protection practice - four months in - lessons learned so far
In June 2020 the University of Birmingham published a research briefing exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child protection practice.
Legal Update
Vicarious liability - when is the role of an Independent Contractor sufficiently “akin to employment”
The beginning of Spring 2020 saw the Supreme Court give judgment in two important cases concerning the principle of vicarious liability.
Legal Update
The Coronavirus Bill – Social Care implications
The Delay phase of the Government’s coronavirus response plan anticipated a need to take steps to support health and social care systems, including steps to preserve essential services by reducing some others.
Legal Update
Historical child abuse and limitation – check your public liability policies
Last week the Court of Appeal handed down a decision that has significant implications for all those organisations that may face historical abuse claims.
Legal Update
What we have learned about costs claims in child abuse cases
The Courts are slowly accepting that these cases are very much now in the mainstream of litigation, they still do have their quirks which many judges consider separate them from the pool of general personal injury litigation.
Legal Update
Understanding the risk - looked after children trends and the impact on claims
Last month the government published the latest annual update on the numbers of looked after children.
Legal Update
Potential liability for child sexual and criminal exploitation
The Children Act 1989 imposes a statutory duty on Local Authorities for Looked After and certain other young people as they prepare for adulthood.