Councils have been warned that charging parents for taking children into care will undermine safeguarding and increase costs.
The Family Rights Group (FRG) delivered the message after Derbyshire council set out plans to charge parents who agree to have their children accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
The council’s cabinet is due to vote next month on introducing the policy, which is designed to deal with “unprecedented financial challenges”.
However, FRG chief executive Cathy Ashley said that, in the charity’s experience, such policies had incurred costs for councils while also damaging the partnership working with families that was critical to effective safeguarding.
Existing charging policies rarely used
The Children Act permits councils to seek contributions from parents whose children are in care, but few authorities appear have a formal policy to apply charges, while those that do rarely do so, if at all.
Community Care identified five authorities with a charging policy – Brighton & Hove, East Sussex and the three councils whose services are run by the Achieving for Children social enterprise: Kingston, Richmond and Windsor and Maidenhead.
Of these, only Brighton & Hove said they had ever applied their policy and had done so fewer than five times since it was introduced.
The law on charging for children’s care
Under part 3 of schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989, councils may require a contribution to the costs of caring for a looked-after child if they consider it reasonable to do so. Where a child is under 16, the contribution would be from each parent; where over 16, from the child themselves.
Parents may not be charged when they are on means-tested benefits, while contributions may not be sought when the child is on a care order at home, an interim care order, a child assessment order or an emergency protection order, under police protection, on remand or in detention. In practice, council charging policies only apply to section 20 arrangements.
Councils must serve a formal notice to initiate a charge and may not levy more than the relevant fostering allowance or what is reasonably practicable for the person to contribute.
Where a person does not pay the required contribution, the council may make an application for this to be enforced by an order from a magistrate’s court.
‘Unprecedented financial challenges’
Derbyshire held a consultation in May this year on introducing a policy of charging parents between £89.60 and £113.35 – 50% of the relevant weekly fostering allowance – for section 20 care arrangements.
At the time, cabinet member for families and children Julie Patten said: “Despite not being legally obliged to fund this kind of care we have been prepared and able to do so in the past, but unfortunately now find ourselves in a position of unprecedented financial challenges creating the need for us to consider changing our contribution to care policy.”
She added that she hoped the policy “may encourage parents who are struggling, to work with their social worker and all the support services available before considering we take their children into care to help us ensure accommodation in these cases is only used where absolutely necessary”.
The authority said that, were the policy introduced, it would carry out a financial assessment to ensure any charge did not unreasonably affect household income and that expected between 14 and 28 families to be eligible for charges.
While 49% of respondents backed the proposal, against 41% who disagreed, 59% feared it would worsen relationships between families and the authority, a concern raised by Ashley.
Parents ‘already facing huge financial hardship’
“It’s very rare for a parent who can’t cope, or whose child is out of control, to ask the social workers to place their child in the care system if they had any other options, like money to pay for respite care or for a residential or for support at home,” she said.
“You are already talking about parents who are likely to be facing huge financial hardship. And the danger is that it deters parents from coming forward to ask the local authority for help.
“If it applies to children who are voluntarily accommodated and not those on care orders, the danger is that it pushes the parent to withdraw agreement and the council into care proceedings, where that is going to cost a lot more and may not be helpful.”
Charging ‘works against partnership working’
Ashley said that families seeking a section 20 arrangement were often very vulnerable, including where parents were very young, had mental health needs or learning disabilities, or where children were being groomed.
She added: “[Charging] works against the very partnership working we need to happen between families and local authorities, where children need to be effectively supported and safeguarded.”
Ashley said the FRG would be carrying out a freedom of information request to councils across the country to understand the scope and scale of current charging policies.
Councils under ‘unprecedented pressure’
The Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) said councils were having “to consider a range of measures to balance their budgets” in the face of “unprecedented financial and demand pressures and the absence of sufficient and sustainable funding from central government”.
“This includes seeking financial contributions for children who have been voluntarily accommodated under cection 20 of the Children Act 1989, in some circumstances,” said immediate past president John Pearce.
“How individual councils choose to arrange their services or respond to pressures on their budget is for local determination. ADCS will continue to work with government towards a sufficient long-term funding settlement for councils and for children.”
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Oxfordshire County Council 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Webinar: building a practice framework with the influence of practitioner voice 
‘They don’t have to retell their story’: building long-lasting relationships with children and young people 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
How managers are inspiring social workers to progress in their careers 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
How can I respond to this I feel very strongly that this is detrimental to children and to their families and as a parent who the state thinks has willingly agreed to a section 20 but to me this was a massive decision with a lot of factors to consider let along the psychological distress of weighing up the costs and benefits of this decision for our family. I would like to be able to put my story across to those in charge of this decision and let them assess the mental cost it takes to make this decision and the implications financial payment towards this could have on looked after children and there families. Please inform me who I can discuss this with
Kind regards Nicola Daykin
90% of parent are pressured into signing a section 20 and don’t ever clue what they’re signing. Then trying to get there child back never happens due to a full care order is given in court.
If one parent signs it the other parent stuffers.
If the local authority can’t afford to take a child into care they should just be a support or sign post then to a home help support. They should have the rights to have their child removed and then be expected to pay for the privilege of having their children removed.
That don’t just cause the child damage but it causes the parents emotionally and financially damaged as they might lose any source of income. If a parent loses their child there jobs (depending on the position job they hold could be lost)
Local authority shouldn’t be charging parents for taking their rights away to a child they gave birth or raised.
Does make sense especially for first few weeks as parents can still claim the benefits. May encorage more engage with parenting support. If safeguarding…get an Order
Considering how frequently section 20 is abused to avoid court but not offered as voluntary to parents this sounds like a very abusive practice
I was placed in foster care under section 20 it caused massive trauma. My parents loved me and desperately wanted help to support my neurodiversity. Social care forced them to give me up.
To expect them to pay for the privilege is horrific.
I went home and have seen how horrifying support for neuro diversity is now and frankly think if LA can’t afford to support parents or house children their position is untenable and putting children at risk
The council needs to appreciate sending children and young people into care, is to predominantly to safeguard these vulnerable children and young people with no voices.
Many of these children and young people will otherwise be at risk and lack protection of sexual assault and abuse. Rich people or other businesses’ men crawling their cars to pick up children and young people. Once captured, they’re used under the basements for all sorts. We have witness many cases in England and Wales. Some children and young people might even need protection from their extended families and parents
How low can the country get, if we can protect our vulnerable children and people for that matter. Why is the cost of everything has to come down to money. Who would be taking responsibility for these children and young people and even their parents who might equally be at risks and vulnerable. Where is our council and government accountability. Obviously, we are paying inexperienced people to give our government and the councils wrong advice and information. When would it end
Some advisers must have advised the government about the cuts in the fuel payments. We need government and the councils with their advisers who are trained adequately in the subject to advice and guidance as to holistic approaches to problems solving in humanitarian approaches to problems solving.
In terms of under 16’s, implementing this policy will only lead to parents refusing to sign section 20 (because they have no choice, considering the overwhelmingly poor socioeconomic statuses of the vast majority of families with social services involvement; this will in turn lead to more children being unnecessarily looked after, and increased pressure being placed upon the already bulging-at-the-seams family court system.
In terms of over 16’s, I understand the logic in asking them to supplement a part of their living allowances as ‘rent’ (life skills, etc.) however at the same time I believe ethically it’s very rocket ground and doesn’t sit right with me at all.
Is this simply a situation whereby local authorities desperate for cash are looking for any which way to claw back a fraction of their outgoings…if so, it’s a very short-sighted and oppressive strategy in my view.
Absolutely this. Couldn’t have said better.
A colleague sent me this article last week. Initially I thought it was a joke.
This is an absolute disgrace. How can the state ask families to contribute when most times it is the state removing the children. As others have already pointed out they often abuse s20 arrangements and coerce parents into signing it.
Generally the families we work with are on the lower socioeconomic bracket. I would love to see them try this with a family from the upper socioeconomic bracket.. They would, and rightly so, get challenged.
Instead of trying to charge families to save a few bucks… Why not address what’s really costing them the money… Expensive resi, Ifa, project and agency social workers.