KENT MADE TO PAY AS LOST CHILDREN FINALLY FIND A HOME

A Kent family who came to the rescue of a sister and brother have had their claim for financial support finally settled by Kent County Council.

The family’s solicitor, Nigel Priestley from specialist Family and Friends Solicitors, Ridley and Hall, Huddersfield said
“The children’s story has an uncanny resemblance to “A Series of Unfortunate Events”. The difference is that finally it has a happy ending!

But this ending has only come about after a fierce battle to get Kent County Council to accept its responsibilities.”

The children’s carer who cannot be identified for legal reasons takes up the story.

“K was 14 and her brother R, 11 when their mother died. K had been a child carer for many years prior to her mother’s death due to her ill health. The children were entrusted into the care of their uncle who within a couple of weeks decided he could not look after them.

The family home was sold. There’s now a legal battle as to what has happened to the sale proceeds which were to be used for the children.

K and R were passed from pillar to post in various private fostering arrangements – they went through 7 different placements in 2 years. They lost contact with their extended family then threatened by Kent with Care Proceedings for R they ran off to the coast.

They eventually found themselves living in squalor in a flat with a woman who had a child on the ‘at risk’ register and where K started to suffer domestic violence. She was sleeping on bare floorboards. Kent knew all about this and did nothing.

Miraculously the children were still at school. K passed her GCSE’s and got into 6 Form College.”

Mr Priestley continued the story
“At College K made friends with a fellow student. It was this friend’s mother who finally came to the rescue of the children – but not before an almost catastrophic mistake by Kent CC Social services.”

The carer went on
“This was the point at which I came to know K and started to put pressure on social services to intervene in a greater capacity than they were currently doing. K was then 16, had given up school and was supporting her younger brother by working in a residential care home. Kent CC were actually paying K £50 per week to look after her 13 year old brother.

During that time K’s employer offered both her and R free accommodation in a little cottage on the site of the care home. Social services agreed to the move of both youngsters even though (as they admitted later) they knew that K’s employer’s husband was a section 1 offender, who had recently been released from jail on licence. It should have rung alarm bells for Social Services when K was being offered free driving lessons and flying lessons. R was told he could decorate the cottage as he wished!

At exactly the same time I became aware of this, K informed me that her employers husband was coming into their cottage uninvited. He was subsequently charged with breaching his prison licence.

At that point I brought both brother and sister home to live with us where they are now feel they belong and are totally integrated into our family. ”

After Kent refused financial support for the children – apart from the £50 per week they had been paying to K, the carer sought the help of Nigel Priestley.

Commenting on the case Mr Priestley said
“It took 2 years from when the children moved in with their present carers for Kent to accept their responsibilities. It was blindingly obvious to all but Kent that the County Council had significant responsibilities to these two children. From paying £50 per week the Council agreed to pay £330 per week for both children. In addition Kent have made a 5 figure back payment. Kent only acted when threatened with legal proceedings.”

“I am delighted that both children have done well at school and face a much brighter future. But it has come at a significant emotional cost to the children and a significant financial cost to their carer.

“If she had not stepped in it is frightening to think what might have happened to them.”

Their carer concluded:
“Mr Priestley did an amazing job for us. But I never expected a 2 year battle with Kent.

I have to say I continue to be utterly dismayed by the County Council. There seems to be such little or absolutely no sense of a duty of care towards vulnerable young people in Kent. When I spoke to one of their officials recently I was told that despite the apparent success in terms of the likely education achievements of both K and R, both their schooling and my care of them are against KCC political stance! “

For more information, contact Nigel Priestley on 01484 538421 or his mobile 07885 430085.
The carer may speak to the media but it must be on an anonymous basis as the children cannot be identified. Arrangements can be made through Nigel Priestley’s assistant Jane Boulton