Social Worker register:
 http://www.gscc.org.uk/The+Social+Care+Register/Check+the+register

Evidence released

[Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section-
Registered Social Worker, Practice Manager]
01/09/2006 08:11:34 >>>

Dear All,

Further to our discussions before I went on annual leave, I have now
briefed the reviewing officers about those discussions. For all
Hillingdon Judgment young people who are looked after, the expectation
is that the first review will be held within 28 days. At that first
review, a date will be set for the young person to begin receiving
services under the Leaving Care Act 2000. This date will coincide with
the 13 week requirement for a young person to have been looked after
under the terms of the Children Act 1989.

On this basis, there will be no need to set a date for a second review
and no expectation that the young person shall remain looked after past
13 weeks unless there is an exceptional reason. The threshold for a
young person to remain looked after would have to be extremely high and
would need to be agreed by a Service Manager.

Obviously problems will arise , if any of these young people have been
placed in foster care settings. I hope we can avoid making these
placements in the first place. However, I think all the young people in
MCH and other semi-;independent settings such as Halls Terrace can
receive a leaving care package from 13 weeks and this policy can be
applied to them with immediate effect.

The reviewing officers will be expecting an assesment to be done by the
first review , and the ongoing work to be carried out on the basis of a
Pathway Plan. We will look at streamlining the documentation to fit with
statutory requirements in due course. The pathway plan will be the key
document after the first review.

I hope this will help the throughput of cases from the AIT team and will
enable the YAT team to concentrate on the Pathway Plan .

It is important that the admin support systems do work in harmony with
this proposal. In other words, the care episode and placement ,needs to
be closed down on carefirst soon after the first the thirteen week
mark, otherwise the system may begin to show reviews as being overdue.

I will be setting up a checking system in the reviewing section to make
sure this happens. If the first reviews are chaired by external Aid Hour
revieiwng Officers, I will be expecting them to implement the same
policy.

Please don't hesitate to contact me, if you wish to discuss further.

Regards



['Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section,
Registered Social Worker]
Child Protection & Reviewing Section
CP & RS Civic 4 South/07
ext 0410

>>> [Assistant Team Manager, -
Registered Social Worker] 05/09/2006 16:53 >>>
FYI
 http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/Templates/System/PopupPage.asp?NodeID=90994
(copy below, see Appendix)


From: [Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section,
Registered Social Worker ]
To: [Assistant Team Manager, -
Registered Social Worker]
Date: 06/09/2006 09:08:14
Subject: Re: Hillingdon Judgment Cases

Hi [Assistant Team Manager, -
Registered Social Worker],

I have read the link.
( http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/Templates/System/PopupPage.asp?NodeID=90994)
Thanks for the information.

The policy will still stand. It has been endorsed by the Council and
DMG. If it is challenged through the judicial process, then the Council
will have to make its case at the time. The same policy has been adopted
by Croydon and other Local Authorities.Hopefully next time there will be
a "Croydon Judgement" rather than another "Hillingdon Judgement"!

I genuinely believe this will be a better use of resources and will aid
the throughput of work, and enable the workers to concentrate on the
pathway plan rather than wasting time on paperwork for a second review.
In reality it will make little difference to the services provided to
the young people. If i am asked in Court this is what I will say.

Regards



[Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section,-
Registered Social Worker]
CP & RS Civic 4 South/07
ext 0410

>>> [Acting Team Manager, -
Registered Social Worker] 01/12/2006 12:41 >>>
Hi [Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section, -
Registered Social Worker],

We are having enormous ongoing problems with booking initial reviews.
Last week Sandra phoned me on Tuesday wanting to book 5 reviews on
Thursday, 4 of which were for clients who had just arrived on Monday. I
said no because if we had reviews in less than 4 days after young people
arrive, with one days preparation time, we would have absolutely nothing
to base the reviews on other than EDT reports. Sandra was also asking
that all of the reviews occur in the same location, resulting in reviews
not being scheduled at Charville or in the foster placements as they
should be.

I spoke with [Child Protection & Review Section] several times this
past Monday and Tues, including a 30 minutes conversation specifically
organizing a plan for all of the Intake reviews for the next month. She
was only able to offer me 3 days between now and 2 Jan for all Intake
reviews. I agreed to having all current reviews on those 3 days,
including 5 on the following Thurs, even though it meant having many
reviews just 10 days after young people arrived. I strongly disagreed
with these short timescales, but agreed to this plan to get us through
the holiday period.

After all of that, all the reviews scheduled for Thurs were cancelled
just before 5pm on Wed. All of duty on Thurs had been reserved for these
reviews and all of Duty on Wed was spent preparing (informing the young
people, contacting Charville Lane, the foster carer, MCH, arranging
transport, arranging interpreters, and preparing the paperwork). This
meant my time on Tues, and all of Intake duty time on Wed and most of
Thurs was wasted. This was time that could have been, and needed to be,
used for outstanding pending assessments on new arrivals. A foster
carer had taken a day off of work unnecessarily. The late notice also
meant our team still incurred all of the interpreting costs for four
reviews that never took place.

I understand that this was a genuine mistake, however the haste with
which all of this is happening, and has been happening, will continue to
create more mistakes and waste more time for everyone.

[Child Protection & Review Section] has since come back to me wanting to
reschedule those missed reviews in 3 days time and stating that RO's
will do them with an e-mail summary.

I understand the pressures the reviewing section is under, but an
enormous amount of Intake's time and energy go into first, coordinating
these reviews with [Child Protection & Review Section], and then making
all of the necessary arrangements for them to occur. As we've discussed
before, Intake is endeavouring to make all improvements necessary to
have Initial Reviews within timescale. While we endeavour to work
together, Intake does not have the capacity, with its own history of
staffing constraints, to absorb the issues created by staffing
constraints in the reviewing section.

Intake does have the capacity to do the 1st review effectively and
properly within the 28 day statutory requirement, which our operational
procedures are based on. However, we cannot re-organize our
practice procedures around unrealistic expectations (ie. unrealistic
timescales, late notice, frequent changes of agreements reached, doing
so many back to back) being put upon us by the constraints the Reviewing
section are currently experiencing. Our role is a front line service
provision and it is important that our processes are independent of the
section set up to review it.

There has been a great deal of momentum behind the changes of the
reviewing system to UASC's since mid August and, since then, the
accepted standards for the initial reviews have continuously been
slipping. If it will be common practice to de-accommodate UASC's
without holding second reviews, then we need to go back to maintaining
higher standards for the initial reviews. The Intake team needs time
and space to distinguish and deal with the differences between the
issues created by the proposed changes in the review processes and the
issues created by staffing constraints in the reviewing section. The
team feels strongly that their practice is being compromised and they
struggle to see the value in all of this for the young people.

From here, I will need to put Intake's focus back on bringing higher
standards to these reviews.


Thank you,

[Acting Team Manager, -
Registered Social Worker]

From: [Service Manager, -
Registered Social Worker]
To: [Acting Team Manager-
Registered Social Worker], [Interim Service Manager Child Protection
and Review Section-
Registered Social Worker]
CC: [Assistant Team Manager-
Registered Social Worker]
Date: Sunday - 3 December 2006 14:08
Subject: Re: Problems with Initial Reviews

[Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section-
Registered Social Worker] - Can we
please discuss. As you know we are seeking to ensure that
first reviews are booked and held on time and that timely decisions are
made as to the need for a second review to take place. However [Acting
Team Manager-
Registered Social Worker]
makes some valid points in relation to the entire review process being
negated, irrelevant and potentially dangerous if the first review is
rushed through within days of the young person's arrival.
Hopefully we can discuss on Monday

Thanks
[Service Manager-
Registered Social Worker]

[Service Manager-
Registered Social Worker]
Service Manager for Asylum
London Borough of Hillingdon
Weir House
50 Riverside Way
Uxbridge
UB8 2YF

From: [Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section-
Registered Social Worker]
To: [Acting Team Manager-
Registered Social Worker]
Date: 04/12/2006 07:13:48
Subject: Re: Problems with Initial Reviews

Hi [Acting Team Manager-
Registered Social Worker],

All the points you have raised are well made . I don't disagree with any
of them. I am concerned about the drop in standards and the impact on
young people. I did not realise that it had become this bad. This was a
different message that i was receiving from my staff.

Thanks for drawing it to my attention . I will look into it and get back
to you.

Regards



[Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section-
Registered Social Worker]
Child Protection & Reviewing Section
CP & RS Civic 4 South/07
ext 0410

Asylum Intake Team minutes of 10 11 06, Extract

Present: [Acting Team Manager-
Registered Social Worker], [Assistant Team Manager-
Registered Social Worker],
[Registered Social Worker], [Registered Social Worker],
[Administrator], [Personal Adviser],
[Registered Social Worker], [Registered Support Worker],
[Personal Adviser]
Apologies: [Personal Adviser] (out on duty), [Personal Adviser]
(A/L)
Chair: [Social Worker]
Minutes: [Personal Adviser]

Agenda item

Reviews: [Acting Team Manager, Registered Social Worker] informed the team that
[Service Manager, Registered Social Worker]
has met with Reviewing
Officers and raised AIT’s concerns. Staff to keep [Acting Team Manage,
Registered Social Worker]
informed of any
Issues they may have. Staff raised their concerns when RO’s make
decisions to de-accommodate at the 2nd Review. It is up to staff to
request a second review date if they consider an assessed reason exists.
The following points will be borne in mind:
In the case of unallocated clients staff to enter the date of 13th week of
accommodation in the duty diary.
Discuss and raise with managers issues of concern
Ensure RO’s meet with clients alone
Ensure client has completed consultation documents independently.
Use interpreter if necessary
Ensure young people’s informed opinion has been recorded
Recommendation for staff to aim for at least one meeting with young
person.
Staff on duty who also have to prepare and attend a review of an
unallocated client will be given time to prepare.
[Acting Team Manager] stated that within constraints of services, the team
has managed to maintain some standards and have successfully challenged some areas of concern.


Asylum Intake Team minutes of 08 12 06, Extract

Present: [Assistant Team Manager, Registered Social Worker],
[Acting Team Manager, Registered Social Worker],
[Administrator], [,Registered Social Worker],
[Registered Social Worker], [Personal Adviser],
[Personal Adviser], [Personal Adviser], [Registered Social Worker],
[, Registered Social Worker], [Assistant Team Manager]

Apologies: [Support Worker], [Personal Adviser]

Chair: [Acting Team Manager, Registered Social Worker]
Minute taker: [Registered Social Worker]


Agenda item: Review

Summary of discussion: [Acting Team Manager, , Registered Social Worker]
has sent a long email to
[Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section,
Registered Social Worker] about the concerns we all had about the reviews and
[Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section ,
Registered Social Worker] has come back to [Acting Team Manager,
Registered Social Worker]
and said that he was going to look into it.

[Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section, ,
Registered Social Worker] came to
the office without any notice and posed a question in the office about
the reviews. He had a discussion with one of the members of staff. The
team wasn’t happy that he just chose to talk to only one member off
staff and that it wasn’t an organised meeting. Some off the staff didn’t
hear his question or noticed his presence. He didn’t advise [Acting Team
Manager], the team manager, that he was coming to the team. The team
would have preferred that he came to a team meeting. We will invite him
to a future team meeting.

He talked to one off the staff and he said his team is also unhappy they
have last control. They have a plan that they could do like the Children
and Families team. The children will remain on section 17 CA 89 until
the initial assessment has been conducted. If upon assessment a need for
accommodation is identified, then the child can be supported under S20
of the CA89. The first review would then take place 28 days after
accommodation. He believes this would save unnecessary accommodation if
an age assessment then identified that the child did not qualify for
services. Our team thinks that the Core assessment is the assessment
that will decide if a client should remain looked after and not just an
initial assessment.
The problem is that every child should be accommodated on Sec 20 CA 89
at point of referral, with the presumption they are children, as our
clients have no adult carers with PR in the UK. The problem is if they
get accommodated after 3 weeks and then are de-accommodated after 13
weeks they only get 10 weeks that they have been looked after and they
wont be entitled to after care support, or help after 18.
The team thinks it’s not right for a child to not be accommodated on
arrival
The proposal from [Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review
Section, Registered Social Worker] is for us to deliver an assessment.
The review section is an
independent section and they shouldn’t be telling the team what to do.
[Personal Adviser] said [Interim Service Manager Child Protection and
Review
Section, , Registered Social Worker]’s view when he posed the question was
to seek staff’s views on
his proposals. Staff feel that he was in fact making a statement which
his team had already made a decision on.

Our understanding that the proposal from the review section about doing
the paper only reviews might be coming from the DMG not just the Child
Protection and Review Section. This seems unlawful. It’s like the team
has been pulled back. Everyone has worked very hard to produce a good
service and we have received extra staff. It seems like they are pulling
us backwards. The information isn’t consistent and it’s lot of
information from different directions that is quite confusing for the
team.

Decision: invite [Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review
Section , Registered Social Worker] to a future team meeting

Action by: [Acting Team Manager, Registered Social Worker]

Decision: the discussion about reviews to continue

Action by:

By when:

Hi [Assistant Team Manager, Registered Social Worker],

Thanks for reminding us what our role is.I am very happy to have a
debate with you with you about the legal issues separately if you think
it would help.We could also involve someone from our legal section, if
you would feel happy with this.

I've had discussions with the IROs and they are more comfortable with
the current proposal than the existing arrangements , which often
leave them in an impossible position trying to chair a review with
virtually no information. I think it would also improve matters for the
AIT team who may be better prepared for reviews, with more time.

It is important to remember that we are opening a dialogue about these
issues in order to improve the current situation for our young people,
which has not been acceptable either to the social work staff , nor the
Reviewing section.

We are living in a world of limited resources, and we have to make some
adjustment within that to improve the services, albeit marginally, for
our young people.

The proposals I am making are not new. They have already been discussed
with the [Acting Assistant Director-Children's Services, ,
Registered Social Worker] , and with
[Service Manager-Asylum Services, , Registered Social Worker].
I see no reason at all , why young
people referred to our asylum service over 16 , should be deemed immediately
looked after at the point of referral , especially in the absence of key information
about age, or any assesment of need. This only creates problems , and
does not affect the actual service provided to these young people.

Of course we will have to deem some of them looked after at some point,
but after we have done an assessment, to entitle them to a leaving care
service. However,some of them may not qualify , if they are age assessed
over 18.

I did have a dialogue with staff members in the AIT team because it is
important for them to see that we are actually interested in improving
matters for them as well as the young people.The staff need to
understand that we all share the same aims, but we need to be realistic
about what is achievable within our limited resources and timescales.
They need to be part of the dialogue in order to own the process.

None of us can take the moral high ground and pretend that what we are
doing is ideal for our young people. But we are all working for the same
local authority, and we have to adapt to this reality.

I will be coming to the managers meeting next week and will go through
the proposal in more depth. It will be important that carefirst entries
are adjusted to fit in with the proposal. I have some ideas on this ,
based on what happens in our referal and assessment team.

I look forward to further discussions on this topic.



[Interim Service Manager Child Protection and Review Section,
Registered Social Worker]
Child Protection & Reviewing Section
CP & RS Civic 4 South/07
ext 0410

Appendix

Support for unaccompanied children and children in families

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?

A.Duty to accommodate unaccompanied minors under s.20 of the Children Act
1989
The duty to accommodate an unaccompanied minor arises under Section 20
(1) (a) [i] of the Children Act 1989 on the basis that the minor is in
the United Kingdomunaccompanied by any adult who has parental
responsibility for him or her. The Local Authority Circular "Guidance on
Accommodating Children in Need and Their Families [ii]" confirmed that
"where a child has no parent or guardian in this country, perhaps
because he has arrived alone seeking asylum, the presumption should be
that he would fall within the scope of section 20 and become looked
after, unless the needs assessment reveals particular factors which
would suggest that an alternative response would be more appropriate".
This approach was endorsed by the leading case of The Queen on the
application of Behre & Others [2003] EWHC 2075 (Admin), more commonly
known as the 'Hillingdon' judgement.


When would an alternative to section 20 be appropriate?

An alternative response may be more appropriate where, for example, an
unaccompanied child had been trafficked or subjected to abuse and he or
she is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm unless he or
she is taken into care under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989.
The local authority guidance [iii]also states that in some cases if the
unaccompanied minor expresses a desire not to be accommodated when his
or her wishes are ascertained in accordance with the requirement
contained in Section 20 (6) of the Children Act 1989 and the local
authority judges that he or she is competent to look after him or
herself, it may be appropriate to merely assist him or her (with
accommodation) under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 [iv].
However, any expressed wish by a child to be assisted under Section 17
must be considered in the light of that child's 'age and understanding'
in order to comply with Section 20(6) (b). Any expressed wish by a child
to be assisted under section 17 must be contingent on their being
informed of the distinction between being assisted under Section 17 or
accommodated under Section 20 and the consequences of the choice for
his or her entitlement to support after reaching the age of eighteen. If
the unaccompanied child is not informed of the full implications of
expressing such a wish, informed consent to being "de-accommodated"
cannot be said to have been lawfully given and will be open to challenge
by means of judicial review.

This informed consent is a necessary pre-requisite to any assessment of
whether the unaccompanied child is competent to look after him or
herself. Mere additional competency in an unaccompanied child's ability
to cook, clean, travel on public transport or speak English is not
sufficient on its own.

The competency of the unaccompanied child to look after him or herself
must also be considered in the context of the fact that his or her
entitlement to be accommodated under Section 20 (1) (a) will not come to
an end until he or she either reaches the age of eighteen or a person
with parental responsibility for him or her enters the United Kingdom.
This entitlement is not diminished by merely being in the United
Kingdomfor twelve weeks or more.

It would be an abuse of process for a local authority to use the
statutory review process to judge such competency if the unaccompanied
child in question has not already articulated an informed wish to be
provided with support other than accommodation under Section 20 of the
Children Act 1989.

If an Independent Reviewing Officer does not ensure that the
requirements of Section 20 (1) and 20(6) are being complied with he or
she will be acting unlawfully.

If it can be shown that a local authority has a policy or practice of
"de-accommodating" unaccompanied children before they have been
accommodated for thirteen weeks, thus depriving them of the right to
support as 'former relevant' children at a later stage, the local
authority would be unlawfully fettering its own discretion and any
decision it took would be subject to judicial review.

Notes

[i] Section 20 (1) reads: " Every local authority shall provide
accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to
them to require accommodation as a result of-- (a) there being no person
who has parental responsibility for him;
[ii] Local Authority Circular (2003) 13
[iii] ibid
[iv] Since the amendment made to the Children Act 1989 by the Adoption
and Children Act 2002 it is clear that accommodation is a service that
can be provided under s.17 of the Children Act which now reads at s.17
(6) "The services provided by a local authority in the exercise of
functions conferred on them by this section may include providing
accommodation and giving assistance in kind or, in exceptional
circumstances, in cash." Furthermore, it is clear from s.22 of CA'89
that being provided with accommodation under s.17 does not bring a child
into the 'looked after' system. S.22 reads: 22(1) "In this Act, any
reference to a child who is looked after by a local authority is a
reference to a child who is--(a) in their care; or (b) provided with
accommodation by the authority in the exercise of any functions (in
particular those under this Act) which are social services functions
within the meaning of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970,
apart from functions under sections 17, 23B and 24B." (emphasis added)


References

The submission of this further evidence has been necessary following a meeting between the Office of the Children's Commissioner and senior representatives of LB Hillingdon on Friday 26 January. At this meeting, Hillingdon's representatives refuted the existence of any policy of "de-accommodation"
 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/81/81we94.htm

1989 or 2004 what's the difference?

Before then, (2004) most councils and boroughs accommodated unaccompanied minors in their care as "children in need" under section 17 of the 1989 Children Act
 http://society.guardian.co.uk/asylumseekers/story/0,,2002061,00.html
That is until the High Court pointed out in the 'Hillingdon Judgement' that it was unlawful to just support under section 17 of the 1989 Children Act, rather than under section 20 of the Children Act
 http://society.guardian.co.uk/asylumseekers/story/0,,2002061,00.html
Court Rulling (Hillingdon Judgement)
The Queen on the application of Helen Berhe, Yorsmame Kidane, Wahdat Munir, Albertina Ncube (claimant) v The London Borough of Hillingdon (defendant) - Secretary of State for Education and Skills (interested party)
 http://www.asylumsupport.info/everychildmatters.htm

LAC (2003)13: Guidance on accommodating children in need and their families
For example, where a child has no parent or guardian in this country, perhaps because he has arrived alone seeking asylum, the presumption should be that he would fall within the scope of section 20 and become looked after, unless the needs assessment reveals particular factors which
would suggest that an alternative response would be more appropriate. While the needs assessment is being carried out, he should be cared for under section 20.
 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Lettersandcirculars/Localauthoritysocialservicesletters/DH_4003946

But in a judgment that will affect thousands of young asylum seekers, the high court ruled last month that they should have the same after care package and that support for 16 and 17-year-olds should be equal with that afforded British children in care. This means they must be assigned a social worker to regularly review their health and education needs.
 http://society.guardian.co.uk/asylumseekers/story/0,7991,1043290,00.html

Hillingdon Council denies discrimination claim by commissioner
Hillingdon Council, insisted the local authority was not operating a two-tier system
 http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2007/01/17/102808/council-denies-discrimination-claim-by-commissioner.html
Posted: 17 January 2007

Blatant discrimination? Children, Asylum and Hillingdon Home Office apparatchiks
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2007/02/361361.html