BY BEN KERRIGAN
A mother of two has been awarded £45,000 in damages, following a verdict by a judge that a council ‘abused’ a section 20 agreement and breached human rights law.
Judge Farquhar ruled that West Sussex Council acted unlawfully by exercising parental responsibility “in every conceivable area” of the children’s lives without the power to do so; failing to promote contact between the children and mother; and failing to issue care proceedings for almost two and a half years, which had denied the children independent representation.
Farquhar said the council’s actions were the “clearest possible breach” of the right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, despite the legality of the section 20 arrangement. He found the delay bringing care proceedings breached the children’s and mother’s Article 8 rights and their right to a fair hearing under Article 6.
He said: “I am satisfied that the inordinate delay in this case was unlawful and an abuse of the [section ]20 agreements that had been obtained.”
Criticizing a “breath-taking” lack of urgency, he stated that the section 20 agreement had led to “very poor outcomes” for the children.
Most notably, the judge blasted the independent reviewing officer (IRO) for “a total failure” to challenge the council’s conduct in the interests of the children, adding: “This was clearly a case that should have come before the courts years before it actually did ,yet the IRO did not appear to put any pressure upon the local authority to ensure this occurred.” The condemnation highlights the possibility of incompetence on the part of independent reviewing officers, the very people we should be trusting to examine complaints about any borough council. However, this independent reviewer failed to challenge the council, because they were acting in their interest instead of reviewing the complaint against them. Shame on them all!
West Sussex council argued the arrangement had been used with a view to securing a long-term special guardianship order placement with foster carers. he presiding judge said this excuse was “even worse” than the section 20 arrangement being used as a long prelude to proceedings. The mother deserved the award in light of all the circumstances known.
LOSS OF A CHANCE
The children, referred to as ‘X’ and ‘Y’, were under the guidance of their aunt, following a residence order following care proceedings in 2008. In 2013 they entered care through the section 20 arrangement after the aunt said she could no longer take care of them. The children entered the arrangement with the consent of both the auntie and mother.
Whilst in care, the children were separated, and had no contact with each other or any other family member. This was adjudged ”culturally inappropriate” in a case that brings misconduct and grosse negligence together.
The judge said the council’s actions had “at best” seen the “loss of a chance” for the children to be placed together, for there to be any contact between the children and the mother, and for a culturally appropriate placement to be found. In other words, the child was denied the chance of having the best action taken on their behalf . Children always deserve to have the best chance of living life to the full,and this includes adequate protection all that is bad for them.
