Voice response to the Care planning, placement and review
(England) Regulations 2010 and care planning, placement and
review statutory guidance and IRO Handbook
Introduction
Voice welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on the Care
planning, placement and review regulations and guidance and IRO
Handbook. Voice is one of the UK's leading voluntary organisations working
and campaigning for children and young people in care of the state. We are
committed to empowering children and young people and we campaign for
change to improve their lives.
We provide advocacy for children and young people who are looked after, in
need and who are care leavers. Voice runs a national helpline providing
advice and advocacy support to children and young people who have
concerns about their care. We provide community based and visiting
advocacy for children and young people in children's homes, foster care, and
in the secure estate and employ specialist advocates for unaccompanied
asylum seeking child, mental health, disability and over 16s. We also
provide an independent visitor service.
Voice has a young people’s policy forum with whom we discussed this
consultation. Their views and the experiences of children and young people
with whom we work inform this response.
We are responding to the consultation by reference to the format of the
regulations bringing in guidance and the IRO Handbook where appropriate.
General comments
Overall we welcome these documents in promoting the child’s voice,
developing a child centred approach to practice and providing mechanisms
to protect the rights of children. There are of course areas where we think
that this should be strengthened and this is set out below.
We understand the benefit of a separate Handbook for IROs but have found
there is not always consistency between the guidance and the Handbook. It
is clearly important that this should be so. We wonder if it would be more
helpful to remove the sections of the guidance about reviews and IROs and
replace that with the contents of the Handbook. It could still be a stand
alone document for IROs.
Advocacy
As a children’s charity providing advocacy services and having campaigned
for many years for its extension we welcome the reflection of the then
Minister’s assurances in debate of the 2008 Act that the child’s right to
advocacy would be highlighted in guidance and in particular that the
concept of ‘representation’ was intended to be read widely. However, we
1
note that the contents of the guidance and the IRO Handbook are not
consistent. Not only should policy statements be consistent for all those
who are involved in the care planning and review process but we are
concerned that those who are not IROs will not necessarily read the IRO
Handbook.
In our view the formulation of advocacy in the IRO Handbook is clear and
put well showing clearly that the right to advocacy is broader for children
wishing to make representations about their lives without having to invoke
the complaints procedure. There is also an understanding in the Handbook
that while advocacy is about empowering children and young people to
express their wishes and feelings it is also about promoting children’s rights
reflecting Standard 2 of the National Advocacy Standards.
We would therefore propose that paragraphs 3.8.1 – 3.8.3 in the Handbook
are inserted into paragraph 1.10 of the Guidance under a separate heading
of advocacy.
All the young people we consulted with (not all of whom had experienced
advocacy) supported advocacy as of right and highlighted the importance of
independence. They thought that as well as providing support to them an
advocate made a big difference in speeding up the review process and
ensuring that things got done. They valued the independence of advocates
compared to their experience of the IRO whom they did not perceive as
independent of the local authority.
However, they recognised that resources will limit availability they came up
with proposals for when advocacy should be provided at key stages in their
lives. This included in relation to health issues, for younger children who
would lack the skills to speak up for themselves, in relation to separation
from siblings, before leaving care, while in custody and when about to leave
custody.
In other parts of this response we will also indicate where we believe that
advocacy for children and young people could be strengthened.
Part 2 – arrangement for looking after a child
Planning and contact
We welcome the inclusion in Schedule 1 of the regulations that contact
between siblings should be explicitly considered in relation to the care plan.
We hope that para 8.15 of the guidance can also highlight the importance of
contact between foster siblings. For children these relationships can be as
significant as between birth siblings given the number of years in which they
may have been living together. We have experienced one very long standing
case in which in two groups of siblings had been placed together for five
years; one sibling group of two was moved and for various reasons contact
was not allowed causing enormous distress to the three children who
remained in placement and for whom we provided advocacy.
2
The young people with whom we consulted also felt strongly that advocacy
should be available to children and young people where there was a dispute
with the local authority about sibling contact.
Part 3 - Placements - general provisions
Placements – general
While there is a great deal about the placement plan in regulations and
Schedule 2 we note that there is nothing that explicitly requires the local
authority to consult with the child about the placement and obtain their
wishes and feelings. Paragraph 10.10 of the guidance states that it is
particularly important to discuss priorities of placement with children and
young people and take into account their views. This is in the context of
placements with a ‘connected person’ and is not identified as a feature of
good practice in relation to placements in general.
Young people have consistently told us that they want to be a have a say
about the type of placement and wherever possible for there to be a choice
about the placements offered to them.
We suggest the following addition to regulation 9
‘(aa) C’s wishes and feelings about the proposed placement having
regard to C’s age and understanding’
Placement moves at KS4
We welcome the requirement for decision making about moves at KS4 to be
taken by the Director of Children’s Services as this reflects the serious
impact that such a move can have on the young person’s education and
general placement stability. In our experience, young people have been
moved from placements outside the authority round about their 16 th
birthday, which inevitably impacts significantly on their education and life
chances. This has become less pronounced but still occasionally happens.
Where having given due consideration to the young person’s views the DCS
considers that the move should go ahead and the young person disagrees
with this decision we would propose that the decision is frozen and the child
is offered an advocate as reflected in the following proposed new paragraph
in the regulation:
Add new paragraph
Other than where there is an immediate risk of significant harm to C
or serious injury to others, the responsible authority must freeze the
decision to change C’s placement –
(a) where C requests an advocate
(b) where C submits a complaint under section 26 Children Act 1989
(c) where the IRO initiates the dispute resolution process.’
3
Termination of placements
We welcome the requirement in regulation 14 for a review to be held before
a placement is terminated. Together with section 22D this means that
decisions about placement change must be considered at a review unless
there are immediate safeguarding concerns.
However, we find the wording of this regulation rather confusing. Reg 14(2)
reads as if the decision to terminate the placement is quite separate from
the outcome of the review. Unless there are safeguarding issues in which
urgent decisions clearly need to be made we would have thought that the
local authority should have considered alternative placements before a
review is convened and should have already informed the IRO of its
intentions and the child and others to whom notification needs to be made.
In our view, the regulation should distinguish between a proposal to
terminate a placement and the process to be followed once that decision
has been made.
We would therefore propose that reg 14(2) is amended to read:
Line 1, after ‘before’ delete ‘terminating’ and insert ‘proposing to
terminate’
Line 3, before ‘make’, delete ‘make’ and insert ‘consider’
Line 4 – 8 - delete
And then a separate paragraph to reflect the existing paragraph (2)
It is very important that children and young people are given the
opportunity to express their views about their existing placement before it
may be brought to an end. All too often in our experience, children and
young people are told that they have to move, often at very short notice,
without the opportunity for the decision to be reconsidered and the only
way for this to be challenged if the local authority do not agree to freeze
the decision pending a complaint is to take legal action. We appreciate that
in our work we encounter situations which have gone wrong for young
people but these occasions can be very distressing for the children and
young people concerned.
It is our view that a proposed move, other than for safeguarding reasons,
may constitute a breach of the child’s article 8 rights to respect for private
and family life. In those circumstances, the local authority must ensure
that the child is offered access to an independent advocate at their review
and that the review does not take place without the appointment of an
advocate unless the young person elects not to appoint one.
We therefore propose the following additions to the regulations as follows:
Add new subparagraph to (2)
‘(d) give due consideration to the wishes and feelings of C regarding
the placement having regard to age and understanding’
4
Add new paragraph
‘Subject to paragraph (3) the responsible authority must freeze the
decision to terminate the placement –
(a) where C requests an advocate
(b) where C submits a complaint under section 26 Children Act 1989
(c) where the IRO initiates the dispute resolution process.’
Another matter of concern is the exclusion from the requirement to review
children in kinship placements where the temporary approval has expired
and the carer has not been approved as a foster carer. The child may have
been in placement for 24 weeks and more if the carer has applied to review
the decision. We are concerned that the child may have no opportunity to
express their views at the conclusion of the placement. At the very least at
the four month review alternative placements must be considered for the
child as a contingency in the event of full approval not being granted and
contact with the carer and their family must be considered.
Part 4 – provision for different types of placement
Placement – foster care
We welcome the new provisions for emergency placements and the
extended period for placement on temporary approval of foster carers who
are connected with the child. However, in everyday usage the term
‘connected person’ does not convey its meaning which is generally
understood as kinship care. The guidance should refer to these placements
as kinship placements or placements with family and friends.
There is reference in these regulations to the Fostering Services Regulations
2002 which we understand will be revoked entirely. We are not sure
whether the contents of these regulations fit better in the revised Fostering
Services Regulations as at present or in these regulations. There needs to
be clarity and link up also with the NMS.
The heading of regulation 23 refers to placement with a local authority
foster parent and yet regulation 23((2)(a)(ii) and (3)(c) refers to another
fostering service provider and independent fostering agency. This is
confusing.
Ideally we believe that children and young people, unless babies and very
young children, should be able to visit the foster home before the
placement. We do appreciate that it may not always be possible to arrange
this and it may not always be appropriate. However, we do believe that it
is important for the child to at least meet with the new foster carer before
placement so that they have every possibility to be fully prepared before
the placement starts. We would suggest the following new regulation.
‘Before placing C with F the responsible authority must, having
regard to C’s age and understanding arrange for C to meet with F
unless it is not reasonably practicable or appropriate to do so’.
5
Placement - children’s homes
You specifically ask for comments about children’s home both in the
regulations and guidance.
There is clearly a link between the revised Children’s Homes Regulations
and NMS and these regulations and guidance. However the former relate to
the responsibilities of providers and the latter to those who are responsible
for placement decisions in the care plan. It is noticeable that there is no
reference at all to placement in children’s homes in either the regulations
or guidance in contrast to all other placement options. We believe that this
should be rectified.
It seems to us that there needs to be an equivalent regulation to regulation
23 in relation to foster carers, namely conditions to be complied with before
placing a child in a children’s home. The local authority will need to be
assured that the home is registered and meets the requirements of the Care
Standards Act and amended Children’s Homes Regulations in relation to the
provision of the service and has considered any OFSTED inspection reports.
Children who are placed in residential care tend to be older and it is
essential that they have the opportunity to visit the home before a final
decision is made. We therefore suggest the following regulation:
‘Before placing C in a children’s home the responsible authority must,
having regard to C’s age and understanding, arrange for C to visit the
children’s home unless is not reasonably practicable or appropriate to
do so’
Guidance needs to set out clearly how the social worker works with
residential care staff to support the placement. This should include:
 Visiting placement prior visit, ensuring that child has an opportunity
to visit placement prior to placement and worker from placement to
visit child prior to placement (unless not in best interest of child. If
not in best interest this must be documented and explained).
 Ensuring that the placement plan is completed within the time scales
and that the necessary paperwork is provided in accordance with the
residential placements procedures and on admission.
 When social worker visits young person they must ensure that they
look at communal areas within the placement and the child’s
bedroom, to ensure that it continues to meet the child’s needs.
Placements – ‘other arrangements’
The 2008 Act and these regulations allow for young people under the age of
16 to be placed in other arrangements. We cannot see any justification for
placing young people under 16 in a non regulated placement and we would
urge the guidance to reflect the expectation that this will not happen other
than in very exceptional circumstances in which case the child would have
to be accompanied by an adult.
6
We welcome the requirement in regulation 28(b) for the local authority to
arrange for the child to visit the accommodation. However, we believe that
it is too restrictive as drafted and that the emphasis should be shifted to
reflect a presumption that the child should always be given the opportunity
to visit the accommodation. We can see no reason for this being limited to
the child’s age or understanding given that these young people will be 16
plus. We would suggest the following amended wording:
‘must arrange for C to visit the accommodation unless it is not
reasonably practicable’
It seems to us that the factors in Schedule 6 need to be strengthened. At
present the emphasis is very much on the nature of the accommodation
and, while this is clearly important, it is not sufficient. Our particular
comments are as follows under the headings of the schedule:
 Location – this should also reflect the importance of sustaining
relationships with family and friends. It may also need to include
the need for the young person to move out of a particular area to
give themselves the opportunity a fresh start away from the area
in which they may have been involved in criminal or gang
activities or at the receiving end of such activities.
 Support – this needs to be related to the young person’s identified
needs in the care and pathway plan.
 Tenancy status – this is too prescriptive as young people under 18
are generally not granted tenancies but a licence. They still need
to understand their responsibilities but this paragraph should
clarify who will facilitate this on their behalf and support to be
offered where difficulties arise.
 Young person’s views – again this seems to be too prescriptive
without giving the opportunity for the young person to express
their views about the proposed placement and their support
needs.
Part 5 – visits by the responsible authority’s representatives etc
We welcome extension of the legal requirement to visit children in all
placements (not just those in foster care) including those on care orders
who are detained in custody and by implication any other placement such as
a hospital.
We also welcome the clear obligation on the local authority that the child
can request visit at any time and that the child must usually be spoken to in
private. We are concerned by regulation 30(c) which states that the child
may not be seen if ‘R is unable to do so’. This seems like a let out clause
and guidance should specify the circumstances in which this might be
relevant such as if the child is out. Paragraph 14.8 is also concerning when
it states that the need to see the child alone will be decided on during the
course of the placement. Speaking to the child in private is an important
principle which should not be diluted unless the child refuses to do so.
7
In our view, all visits should be recorded in the usual way with the child
having access to their record if they wish. We do not believe that it is
necessary or appropriate for a more formal written report to be made of
each visit. We are concerned that this may tend to a bureaucratic exercise
rather than focusing on forming a relationship with the child so that they
feel confident with speak openly with their social worker. All the young
people with whom we have been involved say clearly that they want
consistent relationships with their social worker.
Clearly, where there are safeguarding concerns the normal systems must
apply. We are in particular concerned about the requirement to give copies
of the report to those with whom the child is placed as there is no caveat as
there is with parents ‘unless to do so would place the child at risk of
significant harm. Given that one of the key features of the visits is of a
safeguarding nature and children must feel safe to disclose anything that is
worrying them.
The young people whom we consulted consistently highlighted the
importance to them of having information about their rights including their
right to an advocate and how to find one. Get it sorted guidance states
that children should be informed about their right to make a complaint and
about advocacy when they are first looked after and at each review. We
propose that the LA representative should inform the child about advocacy
at each visit and also in between visits reflecting their duty under regulation
33 to provide advice, support and assistance to the child.
Part 6 - reviews of the child’s case
Reviews
We welcome the changes in the regulations about when a review must be
held and when the time frame must be brought forward in order to reflect
the reality of the issues in the child’s life such as at the end of a period of
remand or custody or where there is a proposal to terminate a section 20
placement and where the IRO considers this necessary. We support the
additional circumstances in the Handbook in which IROs will call a review.
Child centred care
When asked what would make participation in their review most useful, our
young people said having an advocate and also being helped with selfadvocacy skills to help them speak up for themselves in those difficult
situations with their foster carers and social worker present. As one young
person said ‘How can I really be expected to be honest?’ They also spoke
about being supported after the review, a recognition that they have to go
back to the carer whom they may have criticised in the review. They also
commented that they would like a cooling off period after the review with a
fun activity planned.
As well as the views that young people give to us direct, Voice has also
carried out project work with Kirklees Council in developing an exemplar for
8
child centred reviews and the delivery of training, It’s my Review, how
reviews can be more child centred. Voice together with Kirklees Council,
won the winner of winners 2009 Accolades Award co-sponsored by Skills for
Care and Department of Health. We would be happy to give the
Department further assistance in relation to the development of child
centred reviews.
We strongly support the emphasis in the IRO handbook which highlights the
importance of the review process being child centred. In paragraph 3.6.1 it
refers to the review as being the child’s meeting stresses the importance of
child centred reviews. This is in contrast with paragraph 15.17 in the
guidance which reads in much the same way as the existing guidance. In
our view the ingredients of child centred care need to be spelled out more
specifically. Our experience has taught us that this comprises active
participation of children and young people in setting the agenda, making
choices about venue and timing, being properly prepared and supported to
attend the review meeting and being assisted to input into key decisions.
The requirement for local authorities to develop a policy about reviews
gives the opportunity for adults and children to develop this together. In
our experience this was a key element in progressing child centred care in
Kirklees and the resulting dramatic increase in the participation of children
and young people in their reviews.
As already suggested we would like to see the contents of the IRO handbook
replace the sections in the guidance on reviews and the IRO.
Reviews being held with other meetings
We understand that there are differences of opinion about whether LAC
reviews should be held at the same time as other meetings particularly child
protection conferences.
Our young people did not specifically address this issue. However, in
general they do not like endless meetings which talk about the same issues
with a large number of people. They would like everything to be sorted at
the same time. Young people have also been clear that they want their LAC
reviews to be child centred with them playing a key role in how they are
conducted. There is therefore greater flexibility in relation to LAC reviews
than there is in relation to child protection conferences where specific
statutory requirements need to be followed. Each conference has a specific
purpose which is different.
On balance we believe that a LAC review should be held separately from a
child protection conference with the child protection conference being held
first. Ideally they should be held on the same day so that the child has the
opportunity of attending both if they so wish but without the burden of a
long gap between the two.
However, in our view it makes sense for a review to be held in conjunction
with the resettlement review meeting (held a month before discharge from
9
custody) as many as issues such as plans for accommodation and education
for example are common to both.
IROs
We welcome the contents of the IRO Handbook and the more proactive role
of the IRO. In our experience, IRO practice varies enormously and this is
often tied in with their lack of independence from the local authority.
Some of the young people whom we consulted made comments about the
IRO which highlight the lack of independence that they have perceived and
poor practice. They also commented that they would have benefited from
the IRO giving them more information about their rights. Others had good
experiences, having met with their IRO well before the review who had
provided them with information about their rights and discussed the review
process.
We fully support IROs having a case load that will enable them to be able to
carry out their tasks effectively in the interests of the child but we are
unable to comment about what that caseload should be. We also support
the provision of independent legal advice to assist them in making decisions
in sometimes very complex cases.
Our comments about the IRO role focuses on the relationship between the
role of the IRO and advocacy and circumstances in which we consider that
children and young people should be assisted by an advocate to have their
voices fully heard and their rights upheld. It is not possible for the IRO who
chairs the meeting and is responsible for making decisions in the best
interests of the child to also act in the role of the child’s advocate.
We welcome paragraph 3.8.2 of the Handbook which says that IRO must give
information about advocacy to the child before every review. In order to
ensure consistency of information we would suggest that the National
Children’s Advocacy Consortium would be able to provide the best
explanation about the role of advocacy and we would be happy to assist.
In addition we propose that the IRO should take a more active role in
ensuring that the child obtains an advocate by adjourning the review in the
following circumstances until an advocate is in place, unless of course the
child says that they do not want an advocate:
 Where the child says that they do not agree with the care plan
 Where the child has already asked for an advocate and the local
authority has not facilitated this in time.
 Whenever there is a proposal that the child has to leave care before
legal adulthood
 Where there is a planned move to ‘other arrangements’ before 18
 Where there is a proposal to discharge a young person from section
20 accommodation
 In the following circumstances where the proposed events are
imminent:
o Move from a settled placement
10
o Unplanned change to accommodation which will disrupt
education at KS4
Paragraph 6.1.2 of the Handbook says that the IRO must inform the child
about complaints and advocacy where the informal dispute resolution
process has failed. We suggest that young people should be informed about
their right to advocacy at the outset of this process as earlier intervention
through advocacy, coupled with complaint if necessary, could be helpful
and contribute to twin track approach. We understand that many IROs
experience advocacy as providing a more effective way of achieving change
on behalf of the child.
We suggest also that where the IRO considers that there are grounds for a
referral to CAFCASS, if not before, they must give advice to child or young
person about independent advocacy and explain that the advocate will be
able to seek legal advice for the young person. Regulation 47 already
provides that they must ensure that the child knows of their right to seek
and apply for a section 8 order or to discharge their care order and to assist
the child seek legal advice if there is no-one else available to do so.
However, this does not relate to any potential human rights breach. In
relation to younger children and babies the IRO could directly approach an
independent advocacy organisation for the provision of non instructed
advocacy.
Part 7 – arrangements made by the local authority for ceasing to look
after a child
We do not think that eligible children should be included under this heading
as they do not cease to be looked after by the local authority. We do
however, agree that they should be included in these regulations and
guidance as this reflects the government’s intention that children and young
people should not in general cease to be looked after before legal
adulthood.
Termination of section 20 accommodation for a child under 16
We welcome the recognition that children discharged from section 20
accommodation prior to their 16th birthday can suffer significant
disadvantage as they loose entitlement to care leaving status. However,
both regulation 41 and paragraph 16.1 and 16.2 in the guidance appear
rather vague. A distinction is also drawn between those children who are
returned home to their parents or others with parental responsibility and
those who are not. The local authority is not obliged to hold a review for
those who are returned home to their parents whereas in accordance with
regulation 35(3)(e) they are obliged to hold a review for those for whom
they ‘propose to cease to provide accommodation’ and who will not be
returned to their parents.
We question the circumstances in which a local authority can deaccommodate a section 20 child other than to the care of the parents unless
11
the parents give notice to remove their child from accommodation and
place them elsewhere. However, we do have experience of local
authorities putting pressure on parents for their children to return to them
shortly before their 16th birthdays. This has appeared to them, and us, that
this has been done to circumvent their rights under the leaving care
provisions. We cannot see that there are any legitimate circumstances in
which section 20 accommodation is discharged prior to the young person’s
16th birthday unless the parents choose to discharge that young person from
accommodation. We would urge the guidance to make clear that it is not
acceptable for local authorities to seek to avoid their leaving care
responsibilities to young people.
We welcome the fact that the care plan will specify advice, assistance and
support to the child once they are no longer looked after. Given that this
will be provided under section 17 it is very important that social workers
continue to give priority to these young people.
Where a review is held we believe that all young people must be supported
by an independent advocate, unless they choose not to be, given the
significant consequences for them of losing their leaving care rights and the
possibility of being placed in unsuitable accommodation.
Part 8 – Independent Reviewing Officers and Independent Visitors
We suggest that the additional functions of IROs are transferred to Part 6
about reviews.
Independent visitors
The young people whom we consulted were positive about the function of
the independent visitor (IV) and felt that all young people should be asked if
they wanted an IV so that they had the benefit of having someone to talk to.
They were clear about the distinction between and IV and and advocate and
saw the IV as being someone independent of their social worker who was
consistent in their life over a long period of time who was there to talk to,
as a friend and mentor. Two of the young people had been told that they
would be offered an IV but it never happened.
Paragraph 9.7 states that the social worker will have been involved in the
process of identifying whether the child would benefit from an IV.
Experience from our IV service suggests that children and young people or
their carers should also be able to self refer as in their experience the overinvolvement of the social worker can sometimes make it feel as if the
independent nature of the role is compromised.
Our young people understood the need for record keeping but felt that this
should be kept to a minimum to reflect the distinct role and that together
they and their IV could complete the record.
Unless the child requests their IV to attend with them we do not believe
that it is the role of the IV to participate in meetings at the request of the
12
local authority as suggested in paragraph 9.28. This would severely
undermine the independence and specific role of the IV as long term
support to the young person.
We do not believe that the paragraph on advocacy (paragraph 9.29-9.30) is
appropriate in this section on IVs. It is something quite separate and is
reminiscent of the conflation of the role of IVs with advocacy in the Care
Matters Green Paper which was subsequently dropped by government. It is
of course very important for IVs to be able to identify when the child may
need support from an independent advocate. However, is should be
stressed that advocacy is not the role of the IV although there may be
circumstances where the child asks the IV to raise something on their behalf
with the local authority. In our experience this is best done by the IV
manager so that the relationship of the IV with the child is clearly
protected.
Additional comments
Youth justice
We very much welcome the separate section on youth justice in both the
guidance and the IRO Handbook. This is a complex area of law and it is very
helpful to clearly identify those children who have looked after status and
the distinctions between those on care orders and section 20 when
sentenced to custody. All too often in our experience there is insufficient
attention focused on those young people in the youth justice system with
young people not being offered the service to which they are entitled. Our
own specific experience derives from our visiting advocacy services in the
secure estate. Our focus therefore is on those children who are sentenced
to custody. Those providing this service welcome this guidance and state
that if followed would make a difference to young people in custody.
We would welcome clarification in relation to Paragraph 17.19 and the
reference to section 23ZA and separate guidance about the duty to visit
children who were section 20 accommodated. As we read regulation 29(3)
the requirement to visit is in relation to children on care orders only. We
wonder if there is in fact no duty but that good practice will be contained in
statutory guidance. For the sake of completeness it would be helpful to set
out in this section of the guidance the key points from the separate
guidance referred to.
This impinges on the section on planning for release in paragraphs 17.4417.45 which in our view at present requires considerable strengthening. We
appreciate that this is a difficult area and we would be very willing to have
additional discussions with you to get this right. We have a major concern
about children in custody who have been looked after under section 20.
There is a need to sustain important relationships and to have a positive
plan for resettlement that ensures that the future is secure. This is
particularly important when the child or young person is unlikely to return
home to their parents.
13
It is often in relation to planning for release that draws most heavily on
advocacy support for young people for whom no adequate plans have been
made. In our experience, the rights of those young people who have been
section 20 accommodated and are care leavers on release or are children in
need of section 20 accommodation on release are frequently not met by
local authorities despite the judgment in G v Southwark Council 2009.
Conclusion
We would be very happy to assist the department in relation to any matters
that we have raised in this response. We are also making a specific offer
with the National Advocacy Consortium to provide an explanation about
advocacy for IROs to give to children and young people, in relation to any
further work about developing an exemplar for child centred reviews.
Voice
12 February 2010
Contacts
Nicola Wyld, Legal and Policy Manager, 020-7520-3777
John Kemmis, Chief Executive,
020-7520-3778
14