It could be incompatible with Article 8 ECHR to refuse to provide support to a woman engaged in care proceedings involving her childrenZambrano carers:immigration control, persons subject toZambrano carers:care proceedings

Facts: Ms PB was an unlawful overstayer, with an outstanding application for LTR under a child concession policy: she had five children and although one lived with the father and four were in foster care and subject to care proceedings, she had regular contact with them all. Ms PB was destitute and Haringey was refusing to provide her with accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, in part on the ground that the sole cause of her need to ‘care and attention’ was destitution and/or its physical effects.

Judgment: Deputy High Court Judge Nicol held that Haringey had erred in law by failing to consider whether Ms PB’s needs were also caused by her moderate depression and by failing to scrutinise with appropriate care her submission that if she had to return to Jamaica because of destitution, that would breach her rights under Article 8 ECHR: even if she applied for entry clearance from Jamaica to participate in the care proceedings, she would miss a crucial social work assessment of her relationship with the children.