CD had been accommodated by the local authority since October 2009 at which point he was eight years old. GH had been accommodated from birth to age nine. In both cases, care proceedings were not brought until September 2017. The judge stated that the cases represented "two of the most egregious abuses of section 20 accommodation" with "wholly inexcusable delays and inaction in care planning".
The judgment highlighted that the decision in CD's case to not issue proceedings six years earlier because "seeking a care order would not make a significant difference to CD's care given he had been accommodated for some time" was "fundamentally misconceived and fundamentally wrong". The judgment reiterated that "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 that its use for long periods is unacceptable".
Register Now to Continue Reading
Thank you for visiting Children & Young People Now and making use of our archive of more than 60,000 expert features, topics hubs, case studies and policy updates. Why not register today and enjoy the following great benefits:
What's Included
-
Free access to 4 subscriber-only articles per month
-
Email newsletter providing advice and guidance across the sector
Already have an account? Sign in here
