It is important to note that an agreement under Article 20 does not confer parental responsibility on the local authority. If there is concern about a parent`s ability to exercise parental responsibility, it should be determined whether the local authority or a family member is required to share parental responsibility. If such a need exists, proceedings should be initiated. The children were then placed on S20 and could not be returned at first because the parents had a bail condition of not having access to the children while the police investigation continued. During this period, parents were asked to sign a safety agreement regarding the subsequent placement of the children, which was considered capable of giving their consent and raised no objections. The subsequent involvement of the parents` lawyers was ultimately not seen as a clear revocation of consent, but as an offer of cooperation between the parents in order to avoid the need for a care procedure and to obtain the return of the children, which eventually took place. The applicants claimed that their rights under Article 8 of the ECHR had been violated because the children had remained in illegal housing. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. In the case of P (A Child: Use of Section 20) [2014] EWFC 775, the child was in a section 20 shelter for 2 years while the case was drifting. Then there were huge problems for another LA to agree to help the parents with the apartment. The judge commented at paragraph 30: The case law makes it clear that agreements concluded under article 20 must be used sparingly after birth and only for short periods. Local authorities are encouraged to exercise particular caution when obtaining such agreements from mothers after birth, especially when there is no imminent danger to the child and no order is likely (Coventry Council v C and Others [2012] EWHC 2190 (Fam)). It is very likely that LA will not be satisfied with his case for the EPA or the IPO.
I`m just a parent like you, not a professional counselor, but the answer to your question is that all you have to do is contact the local authority and let them know that you want to revoke the S20 you signed, and then take it home after contact or ask the social worker, to bring them home now. I don`t know their age, but it`s quite possible that they have already been traumatized and emotionally eliminated by the withdrawal, and it seems that there are no real reasons for this. I suggest that an immediate return could be in their primary interest at this time. God knows what they are suffering in care, and while they are there, they will not feel free to tell you everything about it during contact. They are often too scared or forbidden to do so. If they`re very young, they won`t understand what`s going on anyway, just desperate like you. While children are under an S20, sometimes instead of arranging support for you when you need it, and without conducting a full and impartial investigation (including questioning and checking domestic conditions, etc.), all they do is conduct a witch hunt and gather outrageous evidence from hearsay, police information, etc., for the sole purpose of: make sure they receive the order next time. In addition, especially with very young children, they interrogate them and collect false evidence from them with the offer of rewards or punishments. The LA can`t always be trusted to be impartial, and if it`s already been hindered by the court, you can`t be sure. Do you know if the judge watered down the orders because the children were already under the S20 away from you, or if that was irrelevant? Ask your lawyer for advice.
The details of previous cases assessed by the Court are too long to discuss here, but for the sake of clarity they include babies taken from their mothers at birth, keeping a child in local care if one or more parents have expressed a wish for the child to be returned, whether a parent can actually consent or if it is actually necessary, and lack of action in situations where parents have no objection to accommodation, but there is no constructive planning for the future. In these situations, it is the local authority that holds all the power. I think it is likely that the mother was informed that if she did not accept P`s placement, the LBR would initiate proceedings. Parents are unlikely to want to get the local authority to initiate proceedings, so the weak are almost powerless to oppose it. In the meantime, the child is “parked” and the local authority is not under pressure or control to ensure that it handles the case appropriately and in a timely manner. .