Kent County Council v M and K (section 20 : declaration and damages) 2016
The judicial trend for curbing the worst excesses of section 20 continues (see for example https://suesspiciousminds.com/2015/10/21/fast-and-the-furious-tunbridge-wells-drift/ )
Apologies to the people of Kent, I know some of you are readers, and it is nothing personal, I just report the cases as they happen.
In this case, there was NO issue as to whether the original section 20 consent was lawful (the parents had capacity, and the principles laid down by Hedley J had been properly followed), but the drift and particularly here the failure to issue care proceedings in a timely fashion were what led to the human rights claim, and later damages. Most of the s20 drift cases involve very young children – in fact infants, but this one involved an older child whose difficulties were significant and got worse over time. This one is…
View original post 8,306 more words