Herefordshire Council v AB
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Keehan,THE HONOURABLE |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWFC 10 |
| Docket Number | WR17C00178 |
| Court | Family Court |
| Date | 01 February 2018 |
[2018] EWFC 10
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM
60 Canal Street
Nottingham
NG1 7EJ
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Keehan
WR17C00178
and
and
Mr W Baker appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Ms L Morgan instructed by MS S RUDD on behalf of the 1 st Respondent Mother
Ms M Recordon represented and appeared on behalf of the 2 nd Respondent child.
Mr W Baker appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Ms L Morgan instructed by MS S RUDD on behalf of the 1 st Respondent Mother
Mr J Kerrigan represented and appeared on behalf of the 2 nd Respondent child.
(As Approved)
If this transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992)Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
Introduction
This judgment concerns two unconnected young people who have been accommodated pursuant to the provisions of The Children Act 1989, section 20 (the 1989 Act) for a very considerable period of time. Their treatment by Herefordshire Council (‘the local authority’) represents two of the most egregious abuses of section 20 accommodation it has yet been my misfortune to encounter as a judge.
CD was born in 2001. A series of referrals were made to the local authority in respect of his parents' allegedly abusive relationship in 2005 which led to CD being accommodated by the local authority in October 2009 when he was eight years of age. He was not made the subject of public law care proceedings until September 2017, when he was 16 years of age; a period of eight years, subject to section 20 accommodation.
On 8 December 2017, I made a special guardianship order in respect of him in favour of his long-term and very dedicated foster carers to whom he affectionately refers as Fossil and Grumpy. I reserved judgment.
GH was born in early 2008. He was born with significant disabilities and spent the first five months of his life in a special care baby unit in Hereford hospital. His mother was 14 at the time of his birth and his father was 17. In July 2008, GH was accommodated pursuant to section 20 of the 1989 Act. Initially, he was placed in a mother and baby foster placement with his mother but this broke down in September 2008. He remained with the foster carer. He was not made the subject of public law care proceedings until September 2017 when he was nine years of age; a period of nine years under section 20 accommodation, the whole of his life to date.
Notwithstanding this appalling state of affairs, GH has been in the care of his dedicated and long-term foster carer ZA since his discharge from hospital. The resolution of the future care of GH will be determined by His Honour Judge Plunkett at an issues resolution hearing listed on 12 February 2018 at Worcester.
None of the criticisms in this judgment should be read as referring to or reflecting upon either of these foster carers. I have nothing but admiration for the stable and nurturing care they have given to both boys.
These two cases, once issued, came before the designated family judge (‘the DFJ’) for Worcester and Hereford, His Honour Judge Plunkett, who referred both cases to me as the Family Division Liaison Judge for the Midland Circuit. When the cases came before me for the first time, I had statements from the respective heads of service which set out the chronology of events for both children but neither of which gave me any explanation for what appeared to be wholly inexcusable delays and inaction in the care planning for these children.
I required the Director of Children's Services to file and serve (i) a statement explaining the events and lack of planning in respect of CD and GH, and (ii) a statement detailing the circumstances of each and every child accommodated by this local authority pursuant to the provisions of section 20.
The latter document made very grim reading. Excepting CD, GH and three other children who are now the subject of public law proceedings, the local authority is accommodating 42 children. Of these 42 children, the local authority have now recognised that 14 have wrongly and abusively been the subject of section 20 accommodation for a wholly inappropriate lengthy period of time and/or should have been the subject of legal planning meetings and/or care proceedings at a much earlier time.
Mr Chris Baird was appointed the permanent Director for Children's Wellbeing for this local authority (otherwise known as the Director of Children's Services and hereafter referred to the as ‘the Director’) on 10 November 2017. It is right that I record at an early stage in the judgment that he (a) has readily and timeously complied with all directions made by this court for the filing and serving of statements and letters (b) has been completely frank and open about the past failings of this local authority (c) has provided a ready explanation of the steps he has taken or will take to remedy past mistakes, and (d) has chosen to attend court hearings in person.
Later in this judgment, I will be roundly critical of egregious failings of this local authority in relation to CD and GH but also in relation to the 14 children to whom I have referred above. Nevertheless, it is important for me to recognise and acknowledge that Mr Baird and the new senior management team at this local authority have taken and will take steps to ensure that such dreadful failures in the care of and planning for children and young people in its care will not occur in the future. I have every confidence in the sincerity and commitment of this director to improve very significantly the planning for and provision of services to the children and young people for whom it is responsible.
The Law
In Northamptonshire County Council v AS & Ors [2015] EWHC 199 (Fam) I said at paragraphs 35 to 38:
“The catalogue of errors, omissions, delays and serial breaches of court orders in this matter is truly lamentable. They will be serious enough in respect of an older child but they are appalling in respect of a 15-day-old baby. Each day, each week and each month in his young life is exceedingly precious. Where so young a child is removed from the care of his mother or father his case must be afforded the highest priority by the local authority. The use of the provisions of section 20 of the Children Act 1989 to accommodate was, in my judgment, seriously abused by the local authority in this case. I cannot conceive of circumstances where it would be appropriate to use those provisions to remove a very young baby from the care of its mother, save in the most exceptional of circumstances and where the removal is intended to be for a matter of days at most. The accommodation of DS under a section 20 agreement deprived him of the benefit of having an independent children's guardian to represent and safeguard his interests. Further, it deprived the court of the ability to control the planning for the child and to prevent or reduce unnecessary and avoidable delay in securing a permanent placement for the child at the earliest possible time. I trust that the events of the first 23 months of DS's life will not have a detrimental impact on his future development and his emotional and psychological wellbeing. There is a real risk they will do so.”
In the case of Re: N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [2016] 1 FLR, 621, the President said at paragraphs 157 to 160 and 171 as follows:
“The first issue relates to the use by the local authority, in my judgment the misuse by the local authority, of the procedure under section 20 of the 1989 Act. As we have seen, the children were placed in accordance with section 20 in May 2013. Yet it was not until January 2014, over eight months later, that the local authority eventually issued care proceedings. Section 20 may, in an appropriate case, have a proper role to play as a short-term measure pending the commencement of care proceedings but the use of section 20, as a prelude to care proceedings for a period as long as here, is wholly unacceptable. It is, in my judgment, and I use the phrase advisedly and deliberately, a misuse by the local authority of its statutory powers. As I said in Re: A (a Child) in Darlington Borough Council v M [2015] EWFC 11, paragraph 100, 'There is, I feared, far too much misuse and abuse of section 20 and this can be no longer tolerated.
As I said in Re: A (a Child) in Darlington Borough Council v M [2015] EWFC 11, paragraph 100:
“There is, I feared, far too much misuse and abuse of section 20 and this can no longer be tolerated.”
I drew attention there and I draw attention again to the extremely critical comments of the Court of Appeal in Re: W (Children) [2014] EWCA (Civ) 1065 and also to the decision of Keehan J in Northamptonshire County Council v AS & Ors [2015] EWHC 199. As Keehan J pointed out in the latter case:
“The accommodation of a child under a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams and another v London Borough of Hackney
...cases since then. A recent example is the judgment of Keehan J in Herefordshire Council v AB and CD; Herefordshire Council v EF and GH [2018] EWFC 10. His criticism was directed at delays of eight years (between the ages of eight and 16) in the case of CD and nine years (from leaving the sp......
-
Louise Tickle v Herefordshire County Council
...was at the time the Family Division Liaison Judge for the Midlands. Those four judgments are as follows: Herefordshire Council v AB [2018] EWFC 10 Herefordshire v A, B, C [2018] EWFC 72 BT & GT (Children: twins — adoption) [2018] EWFC 76 Re YY (Children) (Conduct of Local Authority) [2021] ......
-
A Local Authority v the mother
...where a Local Authority is not identified, even where it has been the subject of stringent criticism”. In Herefordshire Council v AB [2018] 2 FLR 784 Keehan J observed “The President and the judges of the division have always previously taken a robust approach on the identification of Local......