Very interesting Maik. My comment was based on a BBC TV News report and interview with the mother. The Grauniad covers the story with forensic thoroughness - not surprising given the number of social workers and family law practitioners who read the paper.
I certainly wasn't aware of the Re CD court judgement last year which allows a court to exempt councils from notifying fathers without PR in circumstances such as these. I would certainly expect the council's lawyers to know about it - whether in-house or a contracted in private firm.
The TV report led me to believe that the mother had approached the council voluntarily to request that they "accommodate" her son, i.e. take him into care. The Guardian is clear that this is a council application to a court for a Care Order inder the Act. This suggests there are important facts not in the public domain as the council has to prove that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer "significant harm", which is quite a high threshold. . It is well established in case law that the presence of a child abuser in the household, such as Hussain would fulfill the significant harm test - though of course this is not the issue here. One odd thing in this case is that in my experience it is unusual for a council to "accommodate" a teenager, let alone apply for a Care Order.
The reaility is that a particularly nasty abuser like Hussain would never be allowed within a million miles of this kid or any other. Like you Maik I'm not sure why there is so much grandstanding, though it is right that a rather technical legal point is cleared up.
Tony