Blatant discrimination? Children, Asylum and Hillingdon Home Office apparatchiks
Tess | 02.02.2007 19:07 | Anti-racism | Migration | Social Struggles | London | World
How the Home Office's planned 'reforms' for children who claim asylum alone is already being implemented by the London Borough of Hillingdon.
Blatant discrimination? Comments by the Guardian Newspaper and Children's Commissioner on Hillingdon Council
Minors conflict
But the conduct of local authorities over their treatment of young asylum seekers was called into question this month in evidence given by the children's commissioner to a joint parliamentary committee on human
rights.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/asylumseekers/story/0,,2002061,00.html
Service Provision to Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children
from a Hillingdon Perspective
Evidence from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner on the
de-accommodation policy and practice of the London Borough of Hillingdon
Arrival and Referral to Hillingdon Social Services
1.The majority of UASC (unaccompanied asylum seeking children) supported by the London Borough of Hillingdon arrive at Heathrow airport and are referred directly by the Immigration Service to the Asylum Intake Team (AIT) [1] or the Emergency Duty Team (EDT) outside of office hours. 2. The AIT also receives referrals from Colnbrook and Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centres. Where an arriving asylum applicant claiming to be a minor is disbelieved by the Immigration Service they may be treated as an adult and therefore detained. The AIT’s role here is to attend the detained individual and determine whether the local authority has a duty to them as a ‘child in need’ under Part III of the Children Act (1989). If the detainee is found to be a child they will released into the care of the local authority.
3.New arrivals who are judged to be over 16 are placed in the ‘emergency rooms’ at a facility called Margaret Cassidy House – a remote setting near to Harmondsworth IRC. The emergency rooms are shared accommodation consisting of four beds to a room. Occasionally there are more than four young people occupying ‘emergency rooms’.
4.The first part of this paper refers to the position for children who are already 16, deemed to be 16 or are nearing their 16th birthday.
References
[1] http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/php/ebc.php?id=36
Initial assessment
5.Within 7 days of referral to the Asylum Intake Team (AIT), the young person an initial assessment will be undertaken. These assessments take place at the AIT office at Weir House. Although an initial assessment should be carried out within seven days, this might be carried out more quickly for two reasons: first where there is a perceived medical need or, second, where there are doubts about whether the young person is in fact a child. This situation raises child protection issues as the emergency rooms at Margaret Cassidy are shared. The AIT may be alerted of the need to undertake a quick initial assessment either directly by the Immigration Service, or the EDT at the airport or by one of the ‘support workers’ based at Margaret Cassidy House ( however, support workers at MCH are discouraged from using interpreters due to costs).
Housing assessment
6.If the initial assessment finds the young person to be 16+ they will be sent for a ‘housing assessment’ by the Asylum Support Team (AST) who will check their ‘entitlement’. It appears that what is actually checked is their immigration documentation. This may be to enable a claim to be made under the ‘UASC grant’ from the Home Office. The AST will normally place the young person back in Margaret Cassidy House, where if the child is over 16, he or she will be placed in a fully self contained studio flat. The local authority employs ‘support workers’ who are based at Margaret Cassidy House but who do not sleep there. This is apparently to avoid the facility being designated as a ‘children’s home’ with the attendant requirement to register with Commission for Social Care Inspectorate and undergo inspection. Another facility – ‘Halls Terrace’ is used for UASC but this has no in-house staff. Outreach workers are used to support the UASC accommodated there.
Reference:
[2] http://www.hallsterrace.co.uk/
Review meeting
7.Once the placement has been settled, the child is normally allocated a named worker – either a registered social worker, a ‘personal advisor’, or a ‘children’s asylum worker’. These second two groups of staff are not registered social workers, but often undertake the initial assessment and take part in the review. Staffing constraints mean it is not always possible to allocate a named worker prior to the first review meeting in which case a ‘duty worker’ who may be unknown to the child would attend with them on the day of the review.
8.A statutory looked after child review must be undertaken within 28 days of a child becoming looked after. [3] The process of ‘review’ of the case would ‘normally’ take place between 21 and 28 days, although it is not unknown for this to happen more quickly – within a week or two of the initial assessment. (and even on occasion within a few days). These reviews are chaired by an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) [4] with the young person, their allocated worker (or a ‘duty worker’) and an interpreter ordinarily being present. The purpose of the review is to monitor the child’s well-being, progress and future to ensure that, in accordance with their statutory duty under s.22 (3) Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is being safeguarded and promoted. Normally, the review would have before it information from professionals, carers, teachers etc to enable it to determine whether the child needs to remain looked after or can be rehabilitated with his family or found a permanent placement with another family. In the case of UASC children, the only information that will be before the review is the initial assessment, which is a short and fairly superficial document, generally containing information from the child alone, with perhaps some medical information.
9.The practice at these first review meetings is for the IRO to make a decision to ‘de-accommodate’ a young person if they have already reached the age of 16 or will have reached that age by the time they are de-accommodated. The date for ‘de-accommodation’ is generally set for just over 13 weeks from the initial assessment, the minimum necessary time period before a child can be considered eligible to receive leaving care services.
10.Prior to any decision being made about the child, it is the duty of the IRO to ensure that the child’s views are understood and taken into account. [5] The local authority are also under a duty to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding de-accommodation and to give due consideration to those wishes, having regard to the child’s age and maturity (s.20 (6) Children Act 1989). In order to have an effective consultation and for a child to be able to express their wishes and feelings about remaining in the looked after system, the child needs to understand what is being proposed. There is no indication that UASC children in Hillingdon receive clear advice on the difference between being in the looked after system and receiving services under leaving care provision. These children do not appear to have access to independent advocates who can explain these differences, nor is it clear that the IRO ensures that children’s wishes and feelings on this issue are considered, despite the duty on the IRO to assist the child to obtain legal advice and an advocate if necessary. [6]
11.The IROs chairing the reviews of UASC children appear to be registered social worker employees of Hillingdon. The Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 [7] permits the appointment of social workers employed by the local authority in question as an IRO, but the appointee must not be involved in the case, or be under the direct management of a person involved in the management of the case. In addition the IRO must not be under the direct management of a person with control over the allocation of resources allocated to the case. [8] It is not clear, in the case of Hillingdon, that the IROs appointed fulfill the criteria. Clearly all IROs are affected by the policy of their employer, the London Borough of Hillingdon, supported by the Children and Families Divisional Management Group and the Child Protection and Review Section, to de-accommodate UASC children after 13 weeks and thus arguably falls under the direct management of a person with control over the allocation of resources allocated to the case. The Green Paper on ‘Care Matters’ has expressed concern over the lack of independence of IROs, and the potential conflict of interest that arises from using local authority employees. We would submit that Hillingdon provides a very clear illustration of the problems faced by children where the chair of the review is not a totally independent reviewing officer.
12.Prior to the third quarter of 2006, the general practice was for the AIT to carry out a more in-depth assessment of the child, known as a ‘core assessment’ before the child’s case was transferred to the ‘Youth Asylum Team’ (16+ team). This does not now happen and it appears unlikely that any core assessment is in fact conducted before ‘de-accommodation’ takes place. The failure to undertake a core assessment prior to de-accommodation means that decisions are made at the review on the basis of very sparse evidence,
13.The most striking feature of the arrangements after the third quarter of 2006 is the clear policy to de-accommodate children after 13 weeks. The decision does not appear to be based on a needs assessment, nor is there proper consultation with the child, or informed consent on the part of the child as required by law. In addition, in most cases there has been no effective social work input into the decision, the case having been allocated to a duty worker who is often not a registered social worker, due to pressure of time. The decision to de-accommodate will result in the child receiving a lesser form of service and a lesser form of protection.
14.The duties owed to a looked after child accommodated under s.20 Children Act 1989 are quite different to those owed to a care leaver. The local authority does not have parental responsibility for a care leaver and do not owe the duties of a corporate parent to such a child. Neither will a leaving care child have an allocated social worker, or statutory reviews. The local authority is under a duty to provide accommodation and maintenance unless satisfied the child’s welfare does not require it, but apart from this there is merely a duty to keep in touch with a ‘relevant’ child (into which category the UASC de-accommodated care leavers fall), appoint a personal adviser and prepare a pathway plan.
15.The policy change on looked after UASC by Hillingdon has not been publicly announced, and thus the reasons for the change are unclear. However, it is likely that the need to make financial savings play a part. By de-accommodating UASC children after such a short period of time, social work time will be saved, there will no longer be a need for statutory reviews, saving IRO time and the services that will need to be offered to care leavers are likely to be very considerably less than those owed to looked after children. It has also been suggested that reducing the numbers of ‘looked after’ children, also reduces the number of unallocated cases, thus shielding the authority from criticism on this issue.
References:
[3] Reg. 3 Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991
[4] S.26(2A) Children Act 1989 and Reg 2A Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991
[5] Reg 2A(6) Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 The Regs make it clear that legal advice and an appropriate adult should be offered where the child is likely to want to make a complaint or legal proceedings. Where the child is unable to understand the consequences of the local authority's proposals, whether due to age, maturity or simply ignorance of the English system and what the meaning of what is being proposed, an advocate should at the very least be appointed to assist the child to put their views to the review and have their voice heard..
[6] Reg 2A(7) Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991
[7] As amended by the Review of Children's Cases (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2004
[8] Reg 2A(4) Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991
Responsibility for the de-accommodation policy
16.It would seem that the de-accommodation policy is endorsed by senior managers of the Children and Families Divisional Management Group (C&F DMG), while its compliance and enforcement is being directed by the Child Protection and Review Section (CPRS). At the level of the individual child, the policy is being implemented by the allocated Independent Review Officer at the first review meeting.
17.We are deeply concerned that UASC children, who are frequently extremely vulnerable, are effectively being removed from the looked after system without due regard to the law, their needs or their welfare, and that their access to an appropriate level of service is thus prevented or restricted. We consider that the Hillingdon policy of de-accommodating UASC children at 16 is inimical to these children and fails to adequately safeguard and promote their welfare. We further take the view that the policy violates the child’s right to family life and private life under Article 8 ECHR and discriminates against UASC contrary to Article 14 ECHR. In addition, in introducing such a policy it would appear that the best interests of the child have not been the paramount consideration. The recent Green Paper on ‘Care Matters’ states quite clearly that it is generally undesirable for children to leave care before their 18th birthday as most are unable to cope on their own below this age, the Green Paper recommends that all children should remain in care until they reach the age of 18. This applies to an even greater extent to UASC who are frequently unable to speak English, and have nobody exercising parental responsibility.
Children Under 16
18.Children aged under 16 on arrival do not go through the same process. They are either placed in foster care or in a children’s home. There is strong pressure to de-accommodate these children as they reach the age of 16 (when the grant arrangements change and the local authority gets considerably less remuneration from the UASC grant). This situation has led to numerous complaints from children in this situation who frequently wish to remain in their previous placement
19.Under 16 UASC are treated differently to other, domestic, looked after children, a practice which is potentially in breach of Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR. The main provision for UASC is a dedicated children’s home - ‘Charville Lane’. Where there is no placement available here they are generally placed with a private fostering agency ‘out of borough’. Domestic children with a ‘local connection’ are placed in foster placements that are directly contracted by the local authority. The decision to de-accommodate at 16 raises the same issues as de-accommodation after 13 weeks. But, in addition, for these children, de-accommodation at 16 can lead to placement change, and as a result, loss of a school place, or difficulty in reaching the school, as the local authority are not under a duty to provide transport and children cannot afford to pay for such. transport. Children moved at the age of 16 are also likely to lose valuable social and professional networks.
Reference:
[9] Charville Lane Children's Centre
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/php/ebc.php?id=258
[10] Service Provision to Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children from a Hillingdon Perspective
http://www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?originx358mx_11582723155691g89b8353960000
Carolyn Hamilton, Senior Legal Adviser, Office of the Commissioner for Children
Adrian Matthews, Consultant, Officer of the Commissioner for Children
6.1.07
Reference:
Evidence to JCHR on de-accommodation policy and practice of the London
Borough of Hillingdon
https://www.childrenscommissioner.org/documents/written%20evidence_
de-accommodation%20final_CH_080107_0%201.pdf
Q. Can a local authority lawfully “de-accommodate” an unaccompanied minor who it has previsouly been accommodating under section 20 of the Children Act 1989?
http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/Templates/Topic.asp?NodeID=90133
Minors conflict
But the conduct of local authorities over their treatment of young asylum seekers was called into question this month in evidence given by the children's commissioner to a joint parliamentary committee on human
rights.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/asylumseekers/story/0,,2002061,00.html Service Provision to Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children
from a Hillingdon Perspective
Evidence from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner on the
de-accommodation policy and practice of the London Borough of Hillingdon
Arrival and Referral to Hillingdon Social Services
1.The majority of UASC (unaccompanied asylum seeking children) supported by the London Borough of Hillingdon arrive at Heathrow airport and are referred directly by the Immigration Service to the Asylum Intake Team (AIT) [1] or the Emergency Duty Team (EDT) outside of office hours. 2. The AIT also receives referrals from Colnbrook and Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centres. Where an arriving asylum applicant claiming to be a minor is disbelieved by the Immigration Service they may be treated as an adult and therefore detained. The AIT’s role here is to attend the detained individual and determine whether the local authority has a duty to them as a ‘child in need’ under Part III of the Children Act (1989). If the detainee is found to be a child they will released into the care of the local authority.
3.New arrivals who are judged to be over 16 are placed in the ‘emergency rooms’ at a facility called Margaret Cassidy House – a remote setting near to Harmondsworth IRC. The emergency rooms are shared accommodation consisting of four beds to a room. Occasionally there are more than four young people occupying ‘emergency rooms’.
4.The first part of this paper refers to the position for children who are already 16, deemed to be 16 or are nearing their 16th birthday.
References
[1]
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/php/ebc.php?id=36 Initial assessment
5.Within 7 days of referral to the Asylum Intake Team (AIT), the young person an initial assessment will be undertaken. These assessments take place at the AIT office at Weir House. Although an initial assessment should be carried out within seven days, this might be carried out more quickly for two reasons: first where there is a perceived medical need or, second, where there are doubts about whether the young person is in fact a child. This situation raises child protection issues as the emergency rooms at Margaret Cassidy are shared. The AIT may be alerted of the need to undertake a quick initial assessment either directly by the Immigration Service, or the EDT at the airport or by one of the ‘support workers’ based at Margaret Cassidy House ( however, support workers at MCH are discouraged from using interpreters due to costs).
Housing assessment
6.If the initial assessment finds the young person to be 16+ they will be sent for a ‘housing assessment’ by the Asylum Support Team (AST) who will check their ‘entitlement’. It appears that what is actually checked is their immigration documentation. This may be to enable a claim to be made under the ‘UASC grant’ from the Home Office. The AST will normally place the young person back in Margaret Cassidy House, where if the child is over 16, he or she will be placed in a fully self contained studio flat. The local authority employs ‘support workers’ who are based at Margaret Cassidy House but who do not sleep there. This is apparently to avoid the facility being designated as a ‘children’s home’ with the attendant requirement to register with Commission for Social Care Inspectorate and undergo inspection. Another facility – ‘Halls Terrace’ is used for UASC but this has no in-house staff. Outreach workers are used to support the UASC accommodated there.
Reference:
[2]
http://www.hallsterrace.co.uk/ Review meeting
7.Once the placement has been settled, the child is normally allocated a named worker – either a registered social worker, a ‘personal advisor’, or a ‘children’s asylum worker’. These second two groups of staff are not registered social workers, but often undertake the initial assessment and take part in the review. Staffing constraints mean it is not always possible to allocate a named worker prior to the first review meeting in which case a ‘duty worker’ who may be unknown to the child would attend with them on the day of the review.
8.A statutory looked after child review must be undertaken within 28 days of a child becoming looked after. [3] The process of ‘review’ of the case would ‘normally’ take place between 21 and 28 days, although it is not unknown for this to happen more quickly – within a week or two of the initial assessment. (and even on occasion within a few days). These reviews are chaired by an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) [4] with the young person, their allocated worker (or a ‘duty worker’) and an interpreter ordinarily being present. The purpose of the review is to monitor the child’s well-being, progress and future to ensure that, in accordance with their statutory duty under s.22 (3) Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is being safeguarded and promoted. Normally, the review would have before it information from professionals, carers, teachers etc to enable it to determine whether the child needs to remain looked after or can be rehabilitated with his family or found a permanent placement with another family. In the case of UASC children, the only information that will be before the review is the initial assessment, which is a short and fairly superficial document, generally containing information from the child alone, with perhaps some medical information.
9.The practice at these first review meetings is for the IRO to make a decision to ‘de-accommodate’ a young person if they have already reached the age of 16 or will have reached that age by the time they are de-accommodated. The date for ‘de-accommodation’ is generally set for just over 13 weeks from the initial assessment, the minimum necessary time period before a child can be considered eligible to receive leaving care services.
10.Prior to any decision being made about the child, it is the duty of the IRO to ensure that the child’s views are understood and taken into account. [5] The local authority are also under a duty to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding de-accommodation and to give due consideration to those wishes, having regard to the child’s age and maturity (s.20 (6) Children Act 1989). In order to have an effective consultation and for a child to be able to express their wishes and feelings about remaining in the looked after system, the child needs to understand what is being proposed. There is no indication that UASC children in Hillingdon receive clear advice on the difference between being in the looked after system and receiving services under leaving care provision. These children do not appear to have access to independent advocates who can explain these differences, nor is it clear that the IRO ensures that children’s wishes and feelings on this issue are considered, despite the duty on the IRO to assist the child to obtain legal advice and an advocate if necessary. [6]
11.The IROs chairing the reviews of UASC children appear to be registered social worker employees of Hillingdon. The Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 [7] permits the appointment of social workers employed by the local authority in question as an IRO, but the appointee must not be involved in the case, or be under the direct management of a person involved in the management of the case. In addition the IRO must not be under the direct management of a person with control over the allocation of resources allocated to the case. [8] It is not clear, in the case of Hillingdon, that the IROs appointed fulfill the criteria. Clearly all IROs are affected by the policy of their employer, the London Borough of Hillingdon, supported by the Children and Families Divisional Management Group and the Child Protection and Review Section, to de-accommodate UASC children after 13 weeks and thus arguably falls under the direct management of a person with control over the allocation of resources allocated to the case. The Green Paper on ‘Care Matters’ has expressed concern over the lack of independence of IROs, and the potential conflict of interest that arises from using local authority employees. We would submit that Hillingdon provides a very clear illustration of the problems faced by children where the chair of the review is not a totally independent reviewing officer.
12.Prior to the third quarter of 2006, the general practice was for the AIT to carry out a more in-depth assessment of the child, known as a ‘core assessment’ before the child’s case was transferred to the ‘Youth Asylum Team’ (16+ team). This does not now happen and it appears unlikely that any core assessment is in fact conducted before ‘de-accommodation’ takes place. The failure to undertake a core assessment prior to de-accommodation means that decisions are made at the review on the basis of very sparse evidence,
13.The most striking feature of the arrangements after the third quarter of 2006 is the clear policy to de-accommodate children after 13 weeks. The decision does not appear to be based on a needs assessment, nor is there proper consultation with the child, or informed consent on the part of the child as required by law. In addition, in most cases there has been no effective social work input into the decision, the case having been allocated to a duty worker who is often not a registered social worker, due to pressure of time. The decision to de-accommodate will result in the child receiving a lesser form of service and a lesser form of protection.
14.The duties owed to a looked after child accommodated under s.20 Children Act 1989 are quite different to those owed to a care leaver. The local authority does not have parental responsibility for a care leaver and do not owe the duties of a corporate parent to such a child. Neither will a leaving care child have an allocated social worker, or statutory reviews. The local authority is under a duty to provide accommodation and maintenance unless satisfied the child’s welfare does not require it, but apart from this there is merely a duty to keep in touch with a ‘relevant’ child (into which category the UASC de-accommodated care leavers fall), appoint a personal adviser and prepare a pathway plan.
15.The policy change on looked after UASC by Hillingdon has not been publicly announced, and thus the reasons for the change are unclear. However, it is likely that the need to make financial savings play a part. By de-accommodating UASC children after such a short period of time, social work time will be saved, there will no longer be a need for statutory reviews, saving IRO time and the services that will need to be offered to care leavers are likely to be very considerably less than those owed to looked after children. It has also been suggested that reducing the numbers of ‘looked after’ children, also reduces the number of unallocated cases, thus shielding the authority from criticism on this issue.
References:
[3] Reg. 3 Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991
[4] S.26(2A) Children Act 1989 and Reg 2A Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991
[5] Reg 2A(6) Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 The Regs make it clear that legal advice and an appropriate adult should be offered where the child is likely to want to make a complaint or legal proceedings. Where the child is unable to understand the consequences of the local authority's proposals, whether due to age, maturity or simply ignorance of the English system and what the meaning of what is being proposed, an advocate should at the very least be appointed to assist the child to put their views to the review and have their voice heard..
[6] Reg 2A(7) Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991
[7] As amended by the Review of Children's Cases (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2004
[8] Reg 2A(4) Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991
Responsibility for the de-accommodation policy
16.It would seem that the de-accommodation policy is endorsed by senior managers of the Children and Families Divisional Management Group (C&F DMG), while its compliance and enforcement is being directed by the Child Protection and Review Section (CPRS). At the level of the individual child, the policy is being implemented by the allocated Independent Review Officer at the first review meeting.
17.We are deeply concerned that UASC children, who are frequently extremely vulnerable, are effectively being removed from the looked after system without due regard to the law, their needs or their welfare, and that their access to an appropriate level of service is thus prevented or restricted. We consider that the Hillingdon policy of de-accommodating UASC children at 16 is inimical to these children and fails to adequately safeguard and promote their welfare. We further take the view that the policy violates the child’s right to family life and private life under Article 8 ECHR and discriminates against UASC contrary to Article 14 ECHR. In addition, in introducing such a policy it would appear that the best interests of the child have not been the paramount consideration. The recent Green Paper on ‘Care Matters’ states quite clearly that it is generally undesirable for children to leave care before their 18th birthday as most are unable to cope on their own below this age, the Green Paper recommends that all children should remain in care until they reach the age of 18. This applies to an even greater extent to UASC who are frequently unable to speak English, and have nobody exercising parental responsibility.
Children Under 16
18.Children aged under 16 on arrival do not go through the same process. They are either placed in foster care or in a children’s home. There is strong pressure to de-accommodate these children as they reach the age of 16 (when the grant arrangements change and the local authority gets considerably less remuneration from the UASC grant). This situation has led to numerous complaints from children in this situation who frequently wish to remain in their previous placement
19.Under 16 UASC are treated differently to other, domestic, looked after children, a practice which is potentially in breach of Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR. The main provision for UASC is a dedicated children’s home - ‘Charville Lane’. Where there is no placement available here they are generally placed with a private fostering agency ‘out of borough’. Domestic children with a ‘local connection’ are placed in foster placements that are directly contracted by the local authority. The decision to de-accommodate at 16 raises the same issues as de-accommodation after 13 weeks. But, in addition, for these children, de-accommodation at 16 can lead to placement change, and as a result, loss of a school place, or difficulty in reaching the school, as the local authority are not under a duty to provide transport and children cannot afford to pay for such. transport. Children moved at the age of 16 are also likely to lose valuable social and professional networks.
Reference:
[9] Charville Lane Children's Centre
http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/php/ebc.php?id=258 [10] Service Provision to Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children from a Hillingdon Perspective
http://www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?originx358mx_11582723155691g89b8353960000 Carolyn Hamilton, Senior Legal Adviser, Office of the Commissioner for Children
Adrian Matthews, Consultant, Officer of the Commissioner for Children
6.1.07
Reference:
Evidence to JCHR on de-accommodation policy and practice of the London
Borough of Hillingdon
https://www.childrenscommissioner.org/documents/written%20evidence_ de-accommodation%20final_CH_080107_0%201.pdf
Q. Can a local authority lawfully “de-accommodate” an unaccompanied minor who it has previsouly been accommodating under section 20 of the Children Act 1989?
http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/Templates/Topic.asp?NodeID=90133
Tess
