H, R (on the application of) v Kingston Upon Hull City Council

Mr Brendan Roche (instructed by Sills and Betteridge Solicitors) for the Claimant Mr David Phillips (instructed by Kingston upon Hull City Council) for the Defendant Miss Joanne Jenkins (instructed by Hamers Solicitors) for KS (Interested Party) Miss Naomi Madderson (instructed by Burstalls Solicitors) for AS and SS (Interested Parties) Mr Simon Hirst (instructed by Pepperells Solicitors) for TS and FS (Interested parties through their guardian) Hearing dates: 22nd and 25th February 2013 ____________________

A little later the justices indicated that there was no evidence the LA had looked at placements within the family or friends prior to deciding foster care was best. The justices continued:

The report acknowledged the passion for caring for the children by the grandparents and the potential benefits for placing the children with family members, but the concerns outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the report concluded in this way:

There are further entries upon the computer system of the LA revealing the decision making process. On 1 st February 2013 there was a meeting between senior social workers and those closely involved with the family. The decision made on 31 st January 2013 was reinforced to the effect that foster placement should occur with " immediate effect ". The reasoning was:

The LA plainly decided to remove the children speedily and was seemingly concerned about the parents seeking to remove the children from the care of the grandparents. I am slightly concerned that the latter aspect of the decision appears to have been entered upon the sequentially numbered computer system as "17" when events recorded for the following day are recorded as being "15". I hope the entry is not part of any attempt to justify what happened after the event. I am troubled by the sequential entries, but I will, for present purposes, not assume anything untoward.