Content warning – this article discusses domestic violence. Reader discretion is advised.

For two years, Jessica (name changed to protect identity) – a survivor of both modern slavery and domestic abuse – has fought for help from Camden Council for support with her child, who is under the age of 10. They have been unable to attend school for two years due to the support requirements around their autism and ADHD.

And now, after repeatedly and unsuccessfully asking for help with their worsening behaviour, Camden Council have threatened to contact her ex-abuser – a man who has a criminal record for GBH linked to domestic violence, under the pretext of “procedural fairness”. Jessica is also autistic and has complex PTSD. As such, Camden Council are placing both her and her child in danger.

Legally failing

Jessica first asked for help in July 2023, after her child was excluded from a mainstream school. She requested respite care, along with support to meet her child’s social and inclusion needs, which was not provided.

Under the Equality Act, Camden Council have consistently failed to make reasonable adjustments to her child’s education. Despite needing a specialist school, the council failed to consistently provide alternative provision, and social care assumed her child could access mainstream social support. She took them to a tribunal and won, yet nothing has changed.

Over the next year, without access to the appropriate social care or education, her child’s disability related needs got significantly worse. Jessica recorded several incidents where her child’s disability-driven behaviours physically injured her. Yet still, the council repeatedly failed in their legal requirements to support her.

Multiple failures

For six months, the council failed to implement a plan to support her child. In total, they did three assessments, but at no point did they share a plan with Jessica. In July 2025, they finally shared one, but it stated that her child was not disabled, despite their ADHD diagnosis.

But this is factually untrue. Under the Equality Act:

A person (P) has a disability if—

(a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and

(b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Instead, the council framed the problem as a parenting issue, blaming Jessica for being unable to meet her child’s needs and claiming she will not engage with support. That’s in spite of the clear evidence trail of Jessica fighting for her child’s needs. However, they still did not provide relevant support.

Camden Council have repeatedly claimed that Jessica’s child does not meet the threshold to get disability support – despite their extreme behaviour challenges and emotional dysregulation.

Jessica told the Canary:

When my child was first out of school, I asked to access SEND-specialist after-school clubs and holiday provision. Every mainstream option had already said they couldn’t meet need, and I wanted to ensure my child still had the social connection and structure essential for development. Even after applying to Tribunal, this was denied — and the absence of support caused needs to deepen further.

Later, I requested respite — the same kind of short-break provision other families receive when schools can meet need and provide daily routine. It wasn’t a request for anything additional, simply for equal access so that our family could live with stability and dignity. Instead, those requests were pathologised — our autism and burnout reframed as the problem, rather than recognised as the predictable result of systemic failure and unmet lawful duty.

Retaliation

In October, Jessica put in a complaint to the council, along with several deputations to the Children’s Scrutiny Panel. From that point, she says it has felt like retaliation.

Soon after, Camden council escalated her case to Child Protection and attempted to impose a Section 20, voluntary care order.

Now, the only service that Jessica can access when things reach a crisis point is calling the emergency services. Last month, after her child was hospitalised, social workers once again tried to pressure her to agree to a Section 20.

Jessica says she felt a lot of pressure, and they kept asking:

Are you sure you don’t want to put them in care?

Within days of the child protection order coming into play, they immediately escalated her case to a Public Law Outline (PLO). This is the formal pre-court procedure when local authorities have serious concerns about a child.

Jessica told the Canary that she does not understand why the council moved so quickly from a Child Protection Plan to a PLO. Especially given that they have not provided her with any of the support that she needs. Jessica told us that the reason they gave was:

we don’t think you can keep them safe even with support.

However, they hadn’t given her any support, and she thinks it was purely retaliatory. Jessica said:

They’re literally cornering me over stuff I have no control over. They’re saying things like I asked for a padded room, which is ridiculous. I was actually referencing a sensory room. The housing that we’re in is not really appropriate for our needs. There are adjustments that would help my child but this is being framed as parental risk.

Contacting a domestic abuser

Now, the council is attempting to contact Jessica’s ex – a convicted domestic abuser. He has no parental responsibility, yet they are claiming “procedural fairness”. This places both her and her child at direct risk.

Obviously, that is not lawful and will actively re-traumatise Jessica.

This is not the first time the Camden Council has come under fire for its lack of trauma-informed services. Previously, a report found that they were placing survivors in both mixed-sex accommodation and housing that was near where her abuser lived. It took an MP’s involvement for the council to remove one survivor from a mixed-sex hostel.

Reports from other survivors in Camden confirm that the Borough routinely contacts perpetrators of domestic abuse, disclosing personal details such as contact information.

A systemic problem

The evidence seen by the Canary shows that, beyond Jessica’s case, Camden’s Functional Needs Assessment model and SEND processes are systematically producing ambulance call-outs and hospitalisations for autistic children who receive no social-care provision. The council are using emergency services in place of lawful care plans.

Another woman, also living in Camden, told the Canary a very similar story. When she approached the council for support regarding her child’s autism, the child was also put on a protection register. She said:

I reached out to social services for support because of domestic violence and to protect myself and to my children. And instead, my son ended up on a child protection plan. I was misled with information. I was manipulated by social services. They were they were very coercive and manipulative.

When she complained to the council about them putting her child on a protection register, they decided to add her other child.

This is not a localised pattern. It mirrors national policy direction under the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It risks embedding a framework that reframes disability-related need as safeguarding ‘risk.’ Many councils are now funnelling families into child-protection pathways and forced removals as a direct result of systemic neglect.

And when parents or carers try to get support for their child, themselves, or dare to complain? Instead of helping, the council meets them with retaliation and child protection orders, rather than disability-related support.

Additionally, similar stories told to the Canary suggest that Camden council are targeting autistic single mothers – many of whom are also domestic abuse survivors. Because, of course, it’s easier to blame the parent and claim a child is “at risk” than provide support.

Camden Council did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Feature image by HG

By HG

From Canary via this RSS feed