Re A and B (care orders and placement orders: failures)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | KEEHAN J |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 2018 |
| Court | Family Court |
Human rights – Adoption – Placement orders – Decision taken not to place for adoption but placement orders not revoked for many years – Impact on children – Role of IRO – Duty of IRO to children in care – Multiple failures by local authority to care appropriately for children.
The mother had poor mental health, had been involved in a number of abusive relationships and had issues with substance abuse. Although care proceedings relating to the two girls were issued in mid-2003, and the girls were removed from the mother’s care and placed together in foster care, it was not until February 2008 that the girls were made the subjects of care and placement orders. Notwithstanding that a decision not to place the girls for adoption was made in 2009, no consideration was given to revoking the placement orders. The girls were placed with a long-term foster carer in the expectation that they would remain in her care until they were 18. The records were extremely confused but it was in 2013 that the local authority first recorded the foster carer’s intention to relocate to Antigua and to apply for a special guardianship order.
However, what in fact happened was that the girls were placed separately and both became victims of prolific child sexual exploitation in the Bedfordshire area. When this emerged both girls were moved to new separate placements. In November 2016 the girls had their first face to face contact with each other since 2014; this had been requested by the elder girl, who was now pregnant. After the baby was born the elder girl was evicted by her former foster carer and sought help from the local authority; the local authority now accepted that it failed the elder girl and the baby at this point and that the elder girl had not been given appropriate support in finding suitable accommodation.
Between December 2013 and 1 September 2017, the elder girl had at least five changes of placement in various different areas of the country. Between February 2016 and March 2018, the younger girl had seven changes of placement in various different areas of the country. As a result, both girls suffered significant emotional and psychological harm. Over 14 different social workers were involved with the girls, with eight different independent reviewing officers.
The elder girl’s care order and placement order ceased to have effect when she became an adult in September 2017. The local authority applied to revoke the younger girl’s placement order in April 2018. The order was duly revoked in October 2018, the day before the younger girl turned 18.
At a hearing in October 2018, the local authority conceded that the serial failures in the care provided to the girls amounted to breaches of the girls’ art 8 rights. The court was told that substantial steps had been taken to ensure that the mistakes and serious errors made in respect of these girls were not suffered by any other child or young person in the authority’s care and that far more robust procedures had been put in place to ensure that issues were escalated to more senior managers and, where appropriate, to the assistant director and/or the director of children’s services. The court asked for and was provided with a report from the head of the IRO service for the local authority; this accepted that the service had failed to fulfil its statutory responsibilities to the younger girl, describing some attempts to address issues, which had been blocked by senior managers at the local authority. The court was again told that more robust procedures were now in place, in particular that the IRO service was now able to seek independent legal advice without obstruction, and that there was now a dispute resolution process.
Held – (1) A care order entrusted the future care of the child to the local authority. This local authority had accepted that it had failed both young people in the errors made by its social workers and their managers over a very prolonged period of time. The IROs had also failed them both on a serious and serial basis. The essential safeguard the court and the public at large had that a local authority would be a good corporate parent was the function and role of the IRO; the appointment of an IRO was a statutory requirement, under s 25A of the Children Act 1989. The functions of an IRO were set out in s 25B of the 1989 Act. The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations 2010 set out supplementary provisions relating to the functions and duties of an IRO. The government had issued guidance for IROs, set out in the IRO Handbook. The IRO performed a hugely important function. Any obstruction of an IRO performing their statutory role or any diminution in an IRO, or their manager, feeling empowered to do so, was a matter of the utmost consequence. Otherwise, a looked after child was subject to the vagaries of social work practice and the local authority’s different pressures and priorities. The IRO was, or should be, the child’s protector or advocate. If the IRO was silenced or pressured not to act as the child’s interests demanded and required, it was the child who would suffer – just as these two children had suffered. The court’s focus on the role and actions of the various IRO’s should not be taken in any way to diminish the appalling failures of the social workers and/or their mangers. Rather the failings of the IROs had been so stark and grave that it was appropriate to focus on the failings of the IROs and the IRO service in this case (see [46]–[53], below).
(2) In these straitened financial times all local authorities were stretched. Furthermore, this local authority, like very many around the country, had difficulties recruiting and retaining social workers. As a consequence many social workers had to carry very heavy case loads, might not have sufficient experience to deal with the more complex cases and/or had limited time to work on a particular case. These difficulties, however, did not begin to explain the wholesale failure of this local authority, in its role as a corporate parent, to plan adequately or appropriately for the care of these children. It was unclear as to why the care plan had been changed from adoption to long term fostering in 2009 (the explanation given in the younger child’s 2018 Care Plan was plainly false or, at best, inaccurate). Regrettably, this meant that neither of the girls could now be given a clear and cogent explanation of why they had suffered such instability while in the care of this local authority (see [54]–[56], below).
(3) The fact that the local authorities were under financial pressures, and there were too few social workers, carrying too many cases, increased the importance of the role performed by the IROs. When it was known that deadlines might be missed, visits not undertaken, assessments not completed or other actions in furtherance of a child’s care plan not addressed, the IROs must take active steps to ensure that a child’s welfare and future care was not disadvantaged by these omissions. Whatever opposition or obstruction the IRO or Head of Service faced from a local authority, the IROs and their managers must remember that their first and foremost duty was to the children and young people that they served. If this was ignored or obstructed, it was the children or young people who would be harmed. The clear message must go out that IROs served a vital and essential function to ensure that a child’s or a young person’s interests were met post the making of a care order or other orders. If those functions and roles were not exercised in a clear, robust and untrammelled fashion, the children or young people would suffer (see [57]–[59], below).
Statutory provisions referred to
Children Act 1989, s 25A, s 25B, s 34(4).
Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/959), reg 36, reg 37, reg 45, reg 46.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, art 8.
Cases referred to
A and S v Lancashire County Council[2012] EWHC 1689 (Fam), [2013] 2 FLR 803, (2012) 15 CCL Rep 471.
S (a child acting by the Official Solicitor) v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and the Independent Reviewing Officer[2008] EWHC 3283 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR 1090.
Application
On 26 April 2018 the local authority applied for revocation of the placement order concerning the young woman, B, which had been made on 2 May 2008 alongside the placement order made in respect of her elder sister, A, which had ceased to have effect when A attained majority on 1 September 2017. The facts are set out in the judgment.
Mr T Marks (instructed by Herefordshire District Council) for the applicant, the local authority.
Judi Evans (instructed by Humfrys & Symonds) for the first and second respondents, A and B.
The third respondent did not attend and was not represented.
30 November 2018. The following judgment was delivered.
KEEHAN J.
Introduction
[1] I am concerned with two young women A and B. A and B were made the subject of care orders and placement orders on 2 May 2008 in favour of Herefordshire Council. Neither were ever placed for adoption. A’s care order and placement order ceased to have effect when she attained majority on 1 September 2017. The local authority made an application to revoke the placement order in respect of B on 26 April 2018. I revoked the placement order at a hearing before me on 11 October 2018. B attained her majority the following day. I reserved judgment.
[2] The care of and care planning for both these young people by Herefordshire Council has, over the last 10 years or so, been woeful.
[3] The mother of both young people is C. The father of A is D and the father of B is E. They have played no substantial part in their children’s lives for many years save C has had occasional contact. Neither C nor D have taken any role in these proceedings. E died on 1 February 2011.
[4] At the hearing on 11 October 2018 the local authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial