Northamptonshire County Council v AS & Ors (Rev 1)

The use of Children Act 1989 section 20 to accommodate a very young baby should be exceptional. Removal should ordinarily be for no more than a matter of days, unless truly exceptional circumstances justify otherwise. Prolonged section 20 accommodation deprives the child of independent representation and the court of effective control over care planning. Local authorities must give the cases of very young children the highest priority, issue proceedings without avoidable delay and comply strictly with court orders. Public bodies are subject to the same obligations as other litigants, with particular responsibility where delay may affect a child’s welfare and family life. Serious failures may justify damages for breaches of Convention rights.

Northamptonshire County Council accommodated DS, a 15-day-old baby, under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 after concerns about risk of harm in his mother’s care. The local authority delayed both its decision to issue care proceedings and the eventual application. The care proceedings were then repeatedly delayed by failures in assessment, care planning, compliance with court directions and arrangements for contact.

At the final stage DS was placed with his maternal grandparents in Latvia. The local authority conceded breaches of DS’s and his mother’s Convention rights under Articles 6, 8 and, in DS’s case, Article 13, and agreed damages. The issues included the proper use of section 20 accommodation, the consequences of delay and non-compliance, and the appropriateness of the agreed damages.

1. Disposition. Final orders were made securing DS’s placement with his maternal grandparents in Latvia. The local authority conceded liability for breaches of DS’s and his mother’s Convention rights and agreed damages of £12,000 for DS, £4,000 for the mother and £1,000 for the maternal grandparents. The judge held that those sums were appropriate.
2. Use of section 20. The use of section 20 accommodation had been seriously abused. The judge could not conceive of circumstances in which it would be appropriate to remove a very young baby from a parent under that provision except in the most exceptional circumstances, and where the removal was intended to last for a matter of days at most.
3. Prolonged accommodation under section 20 deprived DS of an independent children’s guardian and deprived the court of the ability to control care planning and prevent avoidable delay in securing a permanent placement.
4. Delay and priority. Where a very young child is removed from parental care, the local authority must afford the case the highest priority. The unexplained delay in deciding to issue proceedings, the further delay in issuing them, the high turnover of social workers, inadequate planning and repeated failures to comply with directions were wholly unacceptable.
5. Compliance with orders. The judge adopted the strict-compliance principles stated in Re W (A Child) (Adoption Order: Leave to Oppose) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177 and the related authorities. Court orders, including interlocutory case-management directions, must be obeyed on time. A party unable to comply should apply for an extension before the deadline expires. The obligation is especially serious for a public body responsible for a young child.
6. The local authority’s failures caused harmful delay in planning DS’s future and prejudiced DS’s and his mother’s enjoyment of family life. The agreed violations of Articles 6 and 8, and DS’s Article 13 rights, were therefore accepted and compensated.

The matter proceeded in Northampton County Court and was transferred to the High Court on 7 February 2014 because of jurisdictional issues and the local authority’s failures to issue proceedings and comply with orders.