P (A Child: Use of S.20 CA 1989)
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HER HONOUR JUDGE CAROL ATKINSON
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Administrative Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
FAMILY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
P, a 5-year-old, was placed in foster care by the London Borough of Redbridge (LBR) in 2012 due to concerns about his parents' capability to meet his needs. Despite potential for reunification in 2014, a lack of stable housing delayed the process. LBR and the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) were criticized for their roles in the delays. The court held that prolonged foster care without a clear plan violated welfare standards and directed RBG to provide housing to facilitate P's return to his parents.
Judgment
HER HONOUR JUDGE ATKINSON:
P is a little boy who was born on 04/08/09 and is now aged 5 years and 4 months. P has not lived with his mother and father for 2 ½ years. He was accommodated under s.20 Children Act 1989 by the applicant local authority, London Borough of Redbridge, (LBR) on 28 th June 2012 and placed in foster care. Care proceedings were not issued until almost 2 years after his removal, on 30 th May 2014.
These parents accept that at the relevant date in 2012, they needed help in developing the parenting skills necessary to meet their son’s needs and that the statutory threshold is crossed as a result. On the issue of welfare, suffice to say by way of introduction, that by September 2014 it was clear, on the evidence of the jointly instructed assessment service, Symbol, that these parents were able to resume the care of their son. It was also agreed that they needed a carefully managed programme of rehabilitation which could only commence once they had somewhere to live. The problem in this case and the only reason why P has not been returned to their care is that these parents have no home of their own and it is suggested that the local authority fixed with the obligation to house them, the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) is unwilling to assist.
In my judgment, P has not been appropriately cared for by the applicant local authority within the care system where for many years he has languished in s.20 accommodation with no clear plan. It is likely that he will have suffered confusion and some harm as a result. To its credit, the authority fixed with the responsibility for P’s care, LBR, has recognised the errors in its management of this family.
However those errors are compounded by P’s ongoing separation from his parents caused, I am told, by the wholesale failure of another public authority to find them somewhere to live. The RBG is unrepentant in the way that it has handled this housing issue maintaining that it has followed all proper procedures and denying any bad faith. I have listed this case next week for me to determine whether there has been any bad faith in its handling of this case and to give the authority concerned the opportunity to reflect upon the circumstances in which this family finds itself. In the interim I have fixed RBG with the responsibility to support this family through an interim supervision order in the hope that by bringing children’s services on board I will see some “joined up thinking” develop