A recent judgment by HHJ Trotter-Jackson has attracted our attention in relation to financial support for kinship carers.

Case details

Three children, aged 8, 4 and 2 were looked after by their grandparents since March 2024. The grandparents wished to care for their grandchildren under a Special Guardianship Order (SGO), a position supported by the parents and, eventually, the local authority. However, controversy occurred when it came to a financial offer of support.

Initially, the local authority was proposing that under an SGO, the grandparents receive a third of the financial support that they had been receiving as foster carers. The grandparents set out what they would be willing to accept which the Local Authority did not agree to. Subsequently, the grandparents did not make an SGO application, on the principle that they should not be financially penalised for stepping up as special guardians.

When worked out over the children’s minority, long-term fostering would have cost the Local Authority £657,000 more than what the grandparents had been prepared to accept under an SGO.  During evidence given by the local authority, it was conceded that the only reason for the care order being sought was due to finances, rather than the child’s welfare which should be of paramount consideration in such cases. At the last minute, the local authority changed their position.

The Judge commented that the local authority had in fact already exceeded their budget and yet, were intent on repeatedly trying to force the court to make care orders despite this costing them significantly more.  The court, concerned about the local authority stance, likened it to “computer says no”. It did not, in the court’s opinion, seem to be a stance based on common sense or the paramount concern of the children’s welfare.

As a result of the local authority’s frequent change of position, the matter returned to court for a fourth day, funded, of course, at a further expense to the public purse, to finalise the plan for the children.

Despite the disagreement over financial support, what was not in dispute was that the children in this case could not find better carers and the description of the grandparents care was exceptional. Finally, the Local Authority changed their stance, agreed to provide what the grandparents sought under an SGO and the court had no hesitation in making the orders.

Helen Moody, partner/solicitor in the public law team at Ridley & Hall Solicitors commented;

“It does not come as a surprise to me, as a kinship specialist, that the Council have acted in this way. I have represented many kinship carers both locally and nationally, in similar positions. In fact, I have recently had a similar case with Wakefield where the Local Authority refused to provide any financial support to the kinship carers under a Special Guardianship Order resulting in there being a final Care Order granted instead. Whilst in this case, the carers had other reasons to warrant there being a final Care Order, it still serves to highlight the unnecessary lengths that some Councils go to in order to preserve their budgets rather than offer stability to kinship families. In the reported case, it is unbelievable that the Council actually favoured an option that would cost them more money in the long run, simply because they didn’t want to back down. It is positive to see that sense won in the end, however at what cost given the probable court time that was used to reach an agreement that could have easily been agreed otherwise”

If you consider that you are in a similar situation and require legal advice, please get in touch with us on our freephone 0800 8606265.

To read the full Judgment, please click here.

Helen Moody – Partner & Solicitor