Social workers “face pressure” to use section 20 arrangements to avoid care proceedings and kinship care arrangements, according to a report published this week.
Research carried out by the Your Family, Your Voice Alliance said the partnership working that underpins voluntary care arrangements was under threat from “high levels of professional anxiety” in an environment of staff vacancies, turnover and high workloads.
“Struggling families are too often seen through the lens of ‘risk’, even if they are not formally subject to child protection enquiries,” the report said.
Get up to speed with section 20
Are you struggling with section 20 arrangements? Then sign up now for your free place at Community Care Live London for essential learning on this topic. Barrister Oliver Millington will identify current misuses and misunderstandings of the law on section 20 and highlight appropriate ways of using these arrangements. Register now for your free place.
“This hinders, if not actively prevents, effective cooperation between families and the state. Yet section 20 is predicated on partnership being in the interests of the child and on a system being in place with the intent, resources and culture to facilitate cooperation with families.”
Coerced
The research was carried out amid growing concern over use of section 20 arrangements, a voluntary care agreement where parents give consent for a child to be placed in local authority care.
It identified various examples of families feeling “coerced” into undertaking section 20 arrangements, while social workers described pressure to use the arrangement to avoid proceedings.
“Practitioners may be aware of the risks and impacts of ‘soft’ or other coercive practices but [a] lack of tools and guidance as well as caseload and time pressures appear to impact adversely on their ability, or in some instances their willingness, to address this issue,” the report said.
It also raised concerns about local authorities using section 20 arrangements to achieve the placements of children in foster for adoption foster care, “notwithstanding government guidance identifying that to do so is ‘unusual’”.
A freedom of information request carried out by the researchers found 163 children in care under a section 20 arrangement had been placed with foster carers who were approved to adopt.
Limited direction
The report said there was “limited direction” for practitioners working with section 20 and patchwork guidance was likely to make variations in practice worse.
It recommended the government address “severe financial pressures” children’s services are under, and ensure families get free, independent legal advice around these arrangements.
It also called on the government to issue general guidance about the law and how it currently applies to social work practice in this area.
A trauma-informed approach to social work: practice tips 
Problem gambling: how to recognise the warning signs 
Find out how to develop your emotional resilience with our free downloadable guide 
Develop your social work career with Community Care’s Careers and Training Guide 
‘Dear Sajid Javid: please end the inappropriate detention of autistic people and those with learning disabilities’
Ofsted calls for power to scrutinise children’s home groups
Seven in eight commissioners paying below ‘minimum rate for home care’
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
On a practical basis S20 can often become a minefield-
I recall a child who could not stay with her mum due to her level of intoxication. I then knew that I needed to drive the child and his things to the father’s. However, I phoned my team manager who then became paranoid that this could look like I/The local authority had ‘placed’ the child into the father’s care. So I was told to tell the father to get the child on the bus- I knew that this would take ages. So I ignored the instruction and drove the child and his clothing etc to his father.
Really, I question the status of the leadership and would like to understand the local authorities, which this relates to.
I feel the guidelines for section 20 are clear enough. Social workers dislike section 20 due to how clear and directive the guidance had become BECAUSE managers feel they are above the on-going guidance and continue to force social workers to use section 20 when court action is more appropriate.