DBS’s other factual findings
DBS’s other factual findings
DBS’s other factual findings, for the most part, echo (i.e. do not materially add to) DBS’s core findings. However, some of the findings summarised at paragraph 4v e. above – that DJB placed her needs above C’s, and that DJB considered only herself – go further, and were especially hurtful to DJB, who maintained that she always did her best for C. In our view, it was a mistake to find that DJB considered only herself – she clearly did consider C, and was trying to do her best in a complicated personal situation. However, we do not consider this to be a finding that was material to the decision – it is clear enough, given the core findings DBS made, that it would have included DJB in the lists even if it had found that DJB considered C as well as herself. For completeness, we do not consider that DBS made a mistake in finding that DJB put her needs above C’s – however, it is an “academic” point, as this, too, was not a “material” factual finding. In short, the material factual findings for this decision were DBS’s core findings.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Respondent made on 23 March 2023 (reference DBS6191 00986829326 ) to include DJB in the children’s and adults’ barred l
- The decision
- Jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal
- Grant of permission to appeal
- Documentary evidence before the Upper Tribunal
- The Upper Tribunal hearing
- The background facts
- Summary of DJB’s main arguments and evidence on contested matters
- Knowledge of B’s cautions for sexual offences and efforts to get B “checked”
- B’s overnight stays at DJB’s home and arrangements for parking his vehicles
- Discussion: did DBS make mistakes of fact or law in the decision?
- Core finding 2 (the DJB did not disclose B’s two convictions for sexual offences)
- Core finding 3 (the DJB was deceptive re: B by breaching statement of expectations re: spending the night at DJB’s home, being present when C there, length of relationship, and how long DJB knew about
- 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)
- DBS’s other factual findings
- Mistake on a point of law?
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 159 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)