Worcestershire County Council v AA

Section 20 accommodation is a valuable voluntary mechanism, but it must not be used as an alternative to public law proceedings or to delay them where care proceedings are necessary. Appropriate uses may include short-term support, respite, shared care and accommodation requested by parents, especially where the threshold for a care order is not met. The fact that a child is safe and settled does not justify prolonged drift without a clear permanence plan, therapeutic support and effective oversight. Local authorities must keep the child’s longer-term needs under review and act promptly where a court order is required to secure legal status, planning and protection.

AA had been accommodated by Worcestershire County Council under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 from November 2010 until these care proceedings were issued in July 2018. He lived throughout that period with the same foster carers, who provided excellent practical care, but neither they nor the local authority had parental responsibility. The authority accepted substantial delay and failures in planning, support and oversight.

At the final hearing the parties agreed a comprehensive Special Guardianship Support Plan. The issue was whether AA’s future welfare was best secured by a special guardianship order in favour of his foster carers or by a care order.

1. The court made a special guardianship order in favour of Mr and Mrs C, supported by the agreed Special Guardianship Support Plan. The plan addressed AA’s complex and continuing needs and was accepted by the local authority, the foster carers and the children’s guardian as securing his welfare.

2. Section 20 accommodation has legitimate uses, including short-term family support, respite, shared care and accommodation requested by parents. Those examples are not exhaustive. However, it is wholly inappropriate and an abuse of section 20 to use accommodation as an alternative to issuing public law proceedings or to delay issuing them where proceedings are necessary.

3. The court adopted the guidance in Williams v London Borough of Hackney [2018] UKSC 37. A child may remain accommodated for a long period without care proceedings, but that may breach other statutory duties, be unreasonable in public law terms, or engage Article 8 rights. Local authorities must also consider whether they should seek parental responsibility by applying for a care order, particularly where longer-term planning requires court scrutiny and independent representation for the child.

4. The authority had serially and seriously failed AA by providing no therapeutic support, inadequate support to his foster carers, no stable and clear legal plan, and no timely judge-led process or children’s guardian protection. His safety and good day-to-day care did not excuse the absence of permanence planning. The court made no finding about whether he should have been removed from his birth family before November 2010.

5. The court emphasised the vital role of the independent reviewing officer. Effective challenge, monitoring and escalation are necessary to protect a looked-after child where the local authority’s planning has drifted. The authority’s separate human-rights liability was admitted, with quantum to be resolved separately.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate history.