Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 159 (AAC)

Fecha: 27-Mar-2024

The decision

The decision

The decision was made under paragraphs 3 and 9 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (the “Act”). These provide (in very similar terms as regards both children and vulnerable adults) that DBS must include a person in the relevant barred list if

it is satisfied that the person has engaged in relevant conduct,

it has reason to believe that the person is, or has been, or might in the future be, engaged in regulated activity relating to children/vulnerable adults, and

it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list.

Under paragraphs 4 and 10, “relevant conduct” includes, amongst other things, conduct which endangers a child/vulnerable adult or is likely to endanger a child/vulnerable adult, or which, if repeated against or in relation to a child/vulnerable adult, would endanger them or would be likely to endanger them; and a person’s conduct “endangers” a child/vulnerable adult if she (amongst other things)

harms them or

causes them to be harmed or

puts them at risk of harm.

The letter conveying the decision (the “decision letter”):

stated that DBS was satisfied that DJB had engaged in relevant conduct in relation to children, on the basis that she had engaged in conduct which endangered a child or was likely to endanger a child;

ii.

stated that DJB had also engaged in conduct which, if repeated against or in relation to a vulnerable adult, would endanger that vulnerable adult or would be likely to endanger them;

iii.

stated that DBS was satisfied that DJB

did not sufficiently safeguard her foster child (“C”) by adhering to the expectations with regard to her (DJB’s) new partner (“B”) which caused the end of C’s placement with DJB – causing distress to C

did not disclose that B had two convictions for sexual offences

engaged in deceptive behaviour regarding B by breaching the statement of expectations she (DJB) signed, with regard to B spending the night at her home, being present when C was there, how long the relationship had been going on, and for how long she had known about B’s conviction;

(we refer to the findings above as DBS’s “core findings”);

iv.

stated that DBS was satisfied that a barring decision was appropriate, because DJB had caused emotional harm to C by causing her placement to end in an unplanned manner; DJB’s actions could have placed C in a position where she could have been harmed;

made further factual findings (in addition to DBS’s core findings), as follows:

DJB did not adhere to the statement of expectations set out by the fostering organisation;

DJB knew about B’s offences and chose not to disclose them in a timely manner;

given her extensive experience working with vulnerable adults and children, DJB would have been fully aware of the implications (for her position) of entering into a relationship with someone who had previous sexual offences; and the importance of disclosing such offences. This was especially relevant as one of the cautions was that B, when aged 19, sent an picture of his erect penis to the 13 year old sister of his ex girlfriend: B had pretended to be a boy the 13-year-old liked at school and told her he loved her. B had said his motivation was revenge rather than sexual as he was angry that his girlfriend had ended the relationship. Given that C was almost 13 at the time DJB started the relationship with B, DJB should have been aware of the similarities in ages of the victim (of B’s offence) and C;

DJB engaged in deceptive behaviour to cover up that B stayed overnight by saying that B had to leave his work van outside her house as it was a safe place; and that B left his car there overnight due to safety factors. No evidence was provided to support this - such as employer information. The scenario seemed implausible as B would need his car to retrieve his van in order to go to work;

DJB had placed her needs for a relationship ahead of C’s needs. DJB did not consider the impact her new relationship (with B) would have nor did she consider B's convictions and how they could affect C's safety. DJB had only considered herself;

DJB did not seem to understand the legitimate concerns that social services raised about her relationship with B. DJB did not comply with the expectations they set for a gradual introduction of B into DJB’s home.