[2024] UKUT 159 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 159 (AAC)

Fecha: 27-Mar-2024

Core finding 1 (the DJB did not sufficiently safeguard C by adhering to expectations re: B, which caused end of placement and distress to C)

Core finding 1 (the DJB did not sufficiently safeguard C by adhering to expectations re: B, which caused end of placement and distress to C)

30.

Breaking down this core finding:

a.

we have made findings above (regarding core finding 3) about DJB’s breaching expectations with the fostering agency as regards her relationship with B;

b.

there is no dispute that these breaches caused the fostering agency to end the placement;

c.

equally, there is no dispute that ending the placement caused distress to C;

d.

the key area of contention (apart from the arguments around what expectations were breached, which we have already given our conclusions on) is whether those breaches indicated that DJB did not sufficiently safeguard C.

31.

DJB argues that she did sufficiently safeguard C; in particular, that she never left C alone with B; and that, in other respects, she was a good foster carer. She also argues that, whilst she did not tell the fostering agency about B’s cautions for sexual offences, she repeatedly asked the agency to “check” B (such that, presumably, those offences would have come to the fostering agency’s attention earlier).

32.

In our view, DBS did not make a mistake in finding that, by failing to tell the fostering agency about B’s cautions for sexual offences, and letting B stay overnight at her home on a number of occasions, DJB did not sufficiently safeguard C. The fostering agency was “in the dark” as regards the serious potential risk to C’s safety posed by someone who had cautions for sexual offences, one involving a child of C’s age; it was a situation that ought not to have persisted, from a safeguarding point of view i.e. the fostering agency should have been informed. We accept that DJB was keen for the fostering agency to “check” B and, periodically, asked them to do this; however, that does not render this core finding “mistaken” – as we have said, from a safeguarding viewpoint, DJB should simply have imparted the relevant information to the fostering agency; it was not sufficient, in the circumstances, to stop short of this, and just encourage them to undertake “checks” that might bring that information to their attention.

33.

We therefore find no material mistake of fact in core finding 1.