24.23A and S (Children) v Lancashire CC [2012] EWHC 1689 (Fam), (2012) 15 CCLR 471
A failure properly to place looked after children with a view to securing their adoption breached their rights under Articles 3, 6 and 8 ECHRZambrano carers:adoption
Facts: A and S were brothers who came into Lancashire’s care as infants but, instead of securing their adoption, Lancashire provided a succession of short-term placements. A and S had been subjected to abuse and neglect and became increasingly unsettled and disturbed. When Lancashire sought to move A (again) from a placement, where he felt settled, A sought legal advice and brought proceedings.
Judgment: Peter Jackson J transferred A and S’s damages claims to the QBD and sent a copy of his judgment to the Children’s Commissioner, the President of the Family Division and to Designated Family Judges in the North West, in the light of the wider failures identified by him, and granted the following declaration:
IT IS DECLARED THAT:
Lancashire County Council has acted incompatibly with the rights of A and S, as guaranteed by Articles 8, 6 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, in that it:
(1) Failed to provide A and S with a proper opportunity of securing a permanent adoptive placement and a settled and secure home life. (Article 8)
(2) Failed to seek revocation of the orders freeing A and S for adoption, made on the 19 March 2001 pursuant to Section 18(1) of the Adoption Act 1976, which effectively deprived them of:
(a) The protection afforded to children under the Children Act 1989;
(b) Contact with their mother and/or other members of their family;
(c) Access to the court and the procedural protection of a Guardian.
(Articles 6 and 8)
(3) Permitted A and S to be subjected to degrading treatment and physical assault and failed adequately to protect their physical and sexual safety and their psychological health (Articles 3 and 8).
(4) Failed to provide accurate information concerning A and S’s legal status to the Independent Reviewing Officers. (Article 8)
(5) Failed to ensure that there were sufficient procedures in place to give effect to the recommendations of the Looked After Child Reviews. (Article8)
(6) Failed to promote the rights of A and S to independent legal advice. (Article 6)
(7) Specifically, failed to act as the ‘responsible body’ to enable A and S to pursue any potential claims for criminal injuries compensation, tortious liability and/or breach of Human Rights arising from their treatment by their mother, or by the Hs or by Mrs B. (Article 6)
Mr H, the Independent Reviewing Officer for A and S, has acted incompatibly with the rights of A and S, as guaranteed by Articles 8 and 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, in that he:
(1) Failed to identify that A and S’s Human Rights had been and were being infringed. (Articles 6 and 8)
(2) Failed to take effective action to ensure that LCC acted upon the recommendations of Looked After Child Reviews. (Article 8)
(3) Failed to refer the circumstances of A and S to CAFCASS Legal. (Article8)