[2024] UKUT 159 (AAC)

This core finding contains a mistake, in that the written statement of expectations as between DJB and the fostering agency was not signed until 18 January 2022 i.e. just about the time when DJB stopped fostering. Again, however, we find this to be an “immaterial” mistake i.e. one that did not affect the outcome, since (we find) the expectations about the matters in this core finding were established, as between DJB and the fostering agency/supervising social worker, prior to the signature of that document, via conversations and emails between them over the course of 2021 (and, in particular, those that followed DJB telling the social worker about her new relationship with B in February 2021, and those in and following September 2021, when DJB told the agency that the relationship had restarted).

As regards expectations about B staying overnight at DJB’s house when C was at home, we are satisfied that DJB understood, from February 2021 (and this was reinforced in September 2021) that B was not to stay overnight, pending a “viability assessment” to be carried out by the fostering agency. There is no dispute that this expectation was breached three times – when B stayed overnight for two nights in September, and for a further night in early January 2022. DJB contends that this was the full extent of B’s overnight stays. We are not persuaded. We consider it likely, in all the circumstances, including evidence of B leaving clothing at DJB’s house and regularly parking outside it, that B also stayed overnight on other occasions, with some regularity, although we cannot, on the evidence, assign further precise dates. We are satisfied that DBS did not make a mistake in finding that this expectation had been breached. Nor was it a mistake for DBS to find that DJB was “deceptive” in the sense of trying to hide the frequency of B’s overnight stays from the fostering agency and supervising social worker: we note (1) that the 10 January 2022 overnight stay was only discovered as a result of an “unannounced visit”; and (2) as we have found, B’s overnight stays were more frequent than the three occasions DJB admitted to the fostering agency.

As regards expectations as to when, and for how long, the relationship with B was going on, we have found that DJB told the fostering agency in March 2021 that the relationship had ended – yet, even though it restarted in April, DJB did not tell the social worker this until September. Accordingly, in our view DBS did not make a mistake in finding that DJB had been less than open with the fostering agency on this matter: she kept the information from them, even though she knew it was relevant to her fostering.

As regards expectations as to telling the fostering agency about B’s cautions for sexual offences – we have found, above, that DJB knew about these, yet did not inform the fostering agency. Again, in our view DBS did not make a mistake in finding that DJB had been less than candid with the fostering agency about this matter; she kept the information from them, even though she knew it was (highly) relevant to her fostering.

We therefore find no material mistake of fact in core finding 3.