🧵Our charity's name comes from Article 39 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This entitles all children to recover from abuse and other serious rights violations in environments which nurture their health, self-respect and dignity.
1/6
The Home Secretary's pledge (on behalf of whole government) to strengthen reporting duties in respect of child sexual abuse and exploitation must be backed by significant resources and comprehensive arrangements to help children to *recover*.
2/6
The risks of child sexual abuse and exploitation have consistently been part of our warnings about supported accommodation for children in care aged 16 & 17.
Children in these properties have no caregivers or consistent adult supervision.
Perpetrators know this.
3/6
@uknewsmedia asked 152 English LAs for data on safeguarding concerns raised about children in care living in unregulated and/or unregistered accomm (anywhere in UK) Jan 2019-Dec 2020. Only 21 LAs gave full info. Showed high level of known/documented safeguarding concerns ⬇️
4/6
We included this in our recent submission to Department for Education's consultation on care-less standards and three-yearly selective inspection of supported accommodation. We shared our own FOI research too.
Our warnings, and the warnings of others, made no difference.
5/6
🧵 Ofsted has updated its children's social care data.
Includes this information ⬇️ about establishments potentially operating as children's homes, but not registered.
Let's ponder on the 'many' of the 83 settings where registration wasn't deemed necessary. 1/10
This would have been because the children living there - children in care - were not actually receiving any day-to-day care or consistent supervision. Children would have had full responsibility for their meals, their health and handling their £. If they wanted to stay out 2/10
overnight - or someone else wanted them to stay out overnight - there would be no carer to seek permission from, to tell them they can't or to take protective action. Adults could be living in the property too. Adults who've recently left prison and/or adults who have their 3/10
🧵Two weeks today, secondary legislation comes into force which guarantees that children in care in England always live in places where they receive day-to-day care - but only if they are aged 15 or younger. Government has done this by specifying the 'other arrangements' 1/14
that can be made for children this age, and they all involve care.
The Children Act 1989 sets out where local authorities must try and find homes for children in care, starting with a parent or someone with parental responsibility, then a person who has an order from the 2/14
family court, then a relative, friend or other connected person, then foster care, and then a children's home. 'Other arrangements' is next, and for children aged 15 and younger the new secondary legislation lists permissible places from 9 September.
@Mr_Al_Coates here's a quick tour from the exemption clauses to now (after @tom_perkins4 prompt - thanks!).
In May 2016, a Bill was introduced into Parliament which contained clauses allowing councils to opt out of any number of their children's social care statutory duties 1/
for up to six years. These were duties from 1933 to even those contained in the Children and Social Work Bill itself. The Secretary of State was to be empowered to force councils who were struggling to meet their statutory obligations to opt out of those obligations. There 2/
had been no Green or White Papers. This was a shocking attack on the legal framework for children's social care. Government called it innovation. In relation to adoption, Lord Nash told Parliament adoption panels "add little value" (see below). Fantastically, Peers deleted 3/
We heard this afternoon that our legal action against the MoJ's authorisation of pain-inducing restraint during children's journeys to/from secure children's homes (also only made possible by wonderful support from others) has succeeded. 1/4
Tomorrow is the 16th anniversary of 14-year-old Adam Rickwood dying. This young boy hanged himself after being inflicted with a pain-inducing technique - the so-called 'nose distraction' - in a child prison run by Serco. We're not finished with this particular legal challenge 2/4
(we're after other protections) but for now the threat of judicial review (we got as far as applying to the High Court) has stopped the infliction of pain as a form of restraint being authorised for use on children as young as 10 during their journeys to/from custody. 3/4
The High Court has just started to hear our case - Article 39 v Secretary of State for Education- arguing that Statutory Instrument 445 was made unlawfully. Wonderful to see so many supporters of the #ScrapSI445 campaign watching the (virtual) hearing. Updates to follow...
Jenni Richards QC from @39PublicLaw starts with discussion of Article 39's work as a small charity fighting for the rights of children institutional settings. Highlights that our concerns are shared by a number of organisations - full list here: article39.org.uk/scrapSi445/
The @ChildrensComm has repeatedly called for the regulations to be revoked & a witness statement from @MindCharity highlights the impact of the regs on the mental health of children in care. Although we are bringing this case, Article 39 is not a 'lone voice' in the sector
What has become of our care system? Serious case review newly published by NSPCC. About Sasha who entered care for the second time aged 17 (she had been the subject of a CP plan as a young child, and had also been in foster care aged 6-7). Now, there were serious concerns 1/7
that she was being exploited, she had reported substance misuse, violence from former boyfriend, anxiety and panic attacks and was no longer doing well academically. On becoming looked after, Sasha was placed in an 'independence unit' "with five hours staff support per week; 2/7
this being the type of service thought to be appropriate for a young person of her capabilities". Professionals then wanted to move her to a different area because she wasn't safe and "there was no 24-hour staff presence"; she strongly objected. Having been moved to a second 3/7