Boy faces final rejection

Kent - 06 October 1997;The Guardian

EIGHTEEN-year-old I David Caddell, who has I been shunted between 60 different foster and children's homes in his short life, was left in limbo once again last night after two local authorities denied it was their responsibility to fund him through college. David, who was taken into care by Lambeth because of abuse and neglect when he was very young, has been living with a foster mother, Irene Jones, in Kent for the past five years. In September 1995, he started a foundation course in art and design at the Medway College in Chatham, to be followed by a two-year National Diploma course and then, he hopes, a career in graphic design in advertising.

Ten weeks into his course, Lambeth, which had parental responsibility for him, told him that from his 18th birthday it would no longer pay his living or educational expenses. He should move out of Mrs Jones's house, into a flat, and seek help from income support and Kent county council.

David's solicitors sought a judicial review of Lambeth's decision. Yesterday, in the High Court, Mr Justice Connell said Lambeth was within its rights, arid that David must apply for support to Kent.

Within hours, Kent said that if David applied to them, they would probably take his case back to court. Kent has 582 children from London boroughs in foster homes, placed by many lucrative private agencies that have sprung up in the counties bordering the capital.

Peter Smallridge, Kent's social services director, said the ruling was a legal nightmare for youngsters and had enormous implications for the counties where large numbers of London children had been fostered.

David's solicitor, Canterbury-based Sarah Harman, said: "The whole situation has been very distressing for David. He is an innocent between two local authorities, neither of whom want to accept their financial obligations. Although I feel morally that Lambeth should pay, I can see no reason for further legal action. The fact that Kent may now go to court concerns me greatly, because David has already had more than a year of uncertainty."

The law as it stood was unsatisfactory. The judge's ruling against Kent would allow "unscrupulous or cash-strapped authorities to avoid their obligations" by placing children out of their area.

David and his foster mother were shocked by the judgment. "Considering I'm from London, I feel that the responsibility should be Lambeth's," said David. He added that anxiety over his future had been affecting his work.

Mrs Jones said: "I'm absolutely disgusted that Kent are being made to pay for David. Its like having your own child and saying when you are 18 don't come knocking on this door any ore, go and knock on one two doors down for your food and what you need."

Lambeth has been severely criticised over its handling of David who is, said the judge, "a vey vulnerable young man whose ability to live independently remains open to question."

David took his case to a complaints review panel last November. "They decided that the way Lambeth had handled the applicant's transition from care to independent living was totally unacceptable".