This case is about a young person, Jessa*, who experienced significant neglect, instability and harm throughout her childhood. Despite years of clear warning signs, the organisations responsible for protecting her failed to take the steps necessary to keep her safe. As a result, Jessa spent much of her childhood without the stability, security and legal safeguards she urgently needed.
Human rights are everyday protections that every person should be able to rely on, especially children. They include the right to be safe from harm, to have a family life, and to receive proper care. When these essential rights are not upheld, it becomes a human rights case.
Early concerns about Jessa’s safety
Throughout Jessa’s childhood, police attended Jessa’s home on numerous occasions due to domestic incidents. When she was five years old four referrals were made to children’s services, prompting a core assessment. That November, Jessa was placed on a child protection plan.
Concerns included:
- Frequent neglect – Jessa was often arriving at school hungry, unkempt and overtired
- Exposure to unsafe and chaotic environments
- Fighting and domestic conflict in the home
- Her mother’s mental health difficulties and alcohol misuse
- Both parents’ involvement with individuals with criminal histories
Jessa enters section 20 accommodation
When Jessa was eleven years old, the local authority accepted that the legal threshold for care proceedings had been met. Despite this, they did not issue proceedings. Instead, they chose to accommodate her under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, which is intended to be a voluntary and short‑term arrangement.
Section 20 allows a local authority to provide accommodation for a child when the parents cannot safely care for them, or when the child has nowhere suitable to live. It is designed for temporary situations. Parents keep full parental responsibility throughout and can remove their child from section 20 accommodation at any time, unless the court has made an order restricting this. Because it relies on ongoing parental consent and communication, it is not a substitute for long‑term care planning or court‑led protection.
By this time, Jessa was already highly vulnerable due to her early experiences. She needed stability, permanence and consistent, nurturing care.
Six years without legal protection
Jessa’s time under section 20 was never temporary. She remained in section 20 accommodation for almost six years, during which important decisions about her life were made without legal authority or court oversight.
Instead of the stability she needed, she faced constant disruption. She was moved ten times and separated from her siblings, all without a judge ever reviewing her situation. The placements she experienced during this period were often unstable and unsuitable. Although the council later described her early placements as “stable,” the timeline and Jessa’s own account show that many placements broke down and did not meet her needs.
After her first foster placements broke down, she was moved through a series of short‑term arrangements and residential units that could not keep her safe. She reports that she was sometimes locked in rooms, exposed to people who posed known risks, and placed in environments where bullying and unsafe behaviour were common. In some placements, Jessa was expected to take on caring duties for other children. In others, she lacked emotional support or consistent schooling. She was also placed alongside individuals with serious behavioural or criminal risks, and in one residential home she ran away and was harmed.
These repeated moves and unsafe environments caused significant harm. They compounded the damage of being left for years without court oversight and without any permanence planning, contributing directly to the emotional and behavioural difficulties she developed as she grew older.
The impact on Jessa
The consequences for Jessa were far‑reaching. The lack of a consistent, long‑term care plan left her facing years of instability, uncertainty and emotional distress. Without care proceedings, she was also denied key legal protections, including the support of an independent Children’s Guardian who would have represented her interests in court.
Given her vulnerability, the failures of the local authority had a significant and lasting impact on her well‑being and her ability to form a secure sense of identity, family life and belonging.
Why is this a human rights claim?
Jessa brought a claim under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, arguing that the council’s actions were incompatible with her Article 8 rights.
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. It ensures individuals can live their lives with minimal interference from public authorities, covering autonomy, physical integrity, personal data, and relationships.
Her claim centred on:
- Unlawful interference with her private and family life, including:
- Making major decisions about her care without any legal authority
- Separating her from her siblings
- Using section 20 for long‑term arrangements, contrary to its intended purpose
- Failure to meet positive obligations, including:
- Ensuring her physical, emotional and educational needs were met
- Developing and pursuing a plan for permanence
- Unjustified delay in issuing care proceedings, which:
- Denied her essential procedural safeguards
- Prolonged uncertainty
- Prevented timely permanency planning
The delay of almost six years was serious, unreasonable and highly damaging, particularly given the authority’s repeated acknowledgment that proceedings were necessary.
Why Jessa brought a legal claim
Jessa’s case shows how the long‑term use of section 20 accommodation, combined with a serious delay in issuing care proceedings, can lead to a breach of a child’s basic human rights. Because the local authority failed to act when it should have, Jessa went without the legal protection, stability and care planning she urgently needed. This left her vulnerable to years of avoidable disruption, emotional harm and uncertainty about her future.
As part of her human rights claim, Jessa sought damages for the impact of the delay and lack of legal protection had on her life. This included loss of earnings, as her deteriorating mental health has affected her ability to work, and the cost of psychological treatment.
Claims of this nature are generally brought under Article 8 for failure to provide timely care planning and court oversight.
These claims aim to reflect the real‑world consequences of the local authority’s failures, and the long‑term impact on Jessa’s well‑being, independence and future opportunities.
How Enable Law can help
If you experienced neglect or abuse as a child, you have the right to seek legal advice. We know that talking about these experiences can be incredibly difficult, and no one should feel pressured to do so before they are ready. When the time is right for you, a member of our specialist team can offer a free and confidential conversation to help you understand your options and discuss whether you may have a civil claim. To have a chat with Helen or a member of our team call us on 0800 044 8488 or fill in our contact form.
*Name changed
