Case studies

The following case studies provide real-life examples of how children have been or will be affected by the government's proposals. These are real children who individuals involvedwith the campaign have worked with, but their details have been anonymised to protect their identities.

 

Child A

 

Child  A fled her violent mother to live with her father, whom she had never met. Her father lives in one of the trial local authorities. In spiteof a great deal of effort, the relationship between  A and her new family became strained and broke down. A ended up attempting suicide.

 

Social services became involved at this point and moved A into alternative accommodation, away from her father. However, in moving her, no assessmentwas undertaken. Under the current guidelines, they should have carried out an initial assessment within seven working days. However, because the authority was exempt from the timeframes, they did nothave a set time in which they had to carry out an assessment. In spite of the clear problems A faced, an assessment was not prioritised.

 

A was moved into a hostel, where she was living with men in their 40s and 50s. She suffered inappropriateadvances from a number of these men, including one very serious incident. After a number of weeks, she again contacted social services, who had still failed to assess her and were not providing herwith any support. She was told that if she did not stay at the hostel, she would be made homeless.

 

She instructed solicitors who contacted the local authority to inform them that they had to carry out an assessment of her needs. Solicitors were able to ensurethat an assessment was undertaken, which identified the young person’s vulnerabilities. She was moved to suitable accommodation and provided with appropriate support to meet her needs.

 

Child B

 

Child B is a 17 year old girl. She found herself homeless, and unable to live with her parents. She went to her local authority, a trial authority, andasked them to provide her with accommodation and support.

 

Social Services failed to undertake an assessment for a number of weeks. When the assessment was eventually done, the trial authority concluded that the youngperson did not require accommodation from social services and she was referred to the housing department. She was provided with minimal support by social services and was placed in inappropriateaccommodation. B challenged this decision through her advocate. The assessment was amended, but the conclusions remained the same.

 

B instructed a solicitor who threatened legal action against the authority’s assessment. The authorityresponded, stating they required a further ten days to assess the young person. She was ultimately reassessed and the authority accepted a duty to provide her with support andaccommodation.

 

The huge delays in this case resulted in the young person being in unsuitable accommodation and without essential support for a number of weeks. Had the localauthority been required to act within the current timeframes, she should have been provided with the appropriate support and accommodation far sooner.

 

If you have examples of how the removal of minimum standards has affected children in the trial authorities, please contactus .