Case No. Case-No.-CO-5942-2017

40.K was born in Sudan on 5 January 2000. He left Sudan because he had difficulties with the Sudanese government that had resulted in detention and ill treatment and arrived in the UK (having been accepted by the UK under the terms of the Dublin Regulation), with other young people including his cousin M, via “the Jungle” in Calais on 21 October 2016. They claimed asylum and now have refugee status and leave to remain in the UK. The Council was notified by the Home Office on 10 October 2016 that they would be arriving on 21 October.41. Prior to their arrival, a partially redacted Council ‘contact record’ dated 20 October 2016 made clear the vulnerable status of K and his cousin: “This case meets the threshold for Children’s Social Care assessment/intervention as K [BLANK]1 is unlikely to enjoy a reasonable standard of development or health and would be at continuing risk of negative outcomes without social care intervention. As K [BLANK] are new to the UK, this makes them both vulnerable young people, who requires a lot of support. Therefore a Child & Family assessment is required to explore, whether the uncle is able to meet their everyday needs and provide then with appropriate Basic care needs.”42.Having been contacted by the Home Office, on 20 October 2016 the Council’s Social Services Department conducted a viability assessment of K and M’s uncle, U. This was one of the documents only disclosed to the Claimant during the hearing and the substance of it had not been disclosed in the Council’s evidence. Indeed, I had been told at the hearing that it could not be found. It included the following:“U was unable to demonstrate that he had put much thought into caring for his nephews, other than to say that they could live there and that he would provide for them. It is understood that he was only contacted today regarding caring for the boys, however he has also alluded that he has been in frequent contact with them.U has limited childcare experience and although advising that the boys would listen to him as he was there uncle, he showed limited insight into the needs of adolescent boys and was unable to advice on how he would impose appropriate boundaries and safeguard. He referred to children during the assessment as men and felt that they would be mature enough to require limited supervision. There was no thoughts around a possible plan to get them into education.U has four birth children of his own and provides limited child care responsibility for them. He was unable to evidence how he would be able to meet the needs of all 6 children, particularly with his limited and inconsistent income.…It is fair to conclude that U may face further financial difficulty if he were to take on the responsibility of the children without support. U's rent arrears will also need to be explored to consider if there is a risk of homelessness. In any event, the accommodation is not in my opinion deemed suitable for the children and U to occupy the same sleeping area, particularly as there is no separate room or area of personal space. Visitors to the home would also prove problematic.In any event, the accommodation is not in my opinion deemed suitable to the children and U to occupy the same sleeping area, particularly as there is no separate room or area of personal space. Visitors to the home would also prove problematic.43. The viability assessment described the flat in terms which underline the difficulties of its accommodating the two teenagers and their uncle: “