![[2024] UKUT 391 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Contacting DM between 25/5/21 and 12/821
Contacting DM between 25/5/21 and 12/821
In a letter before action dated 3/6/21 [29]-[34]in response to a letter from Children’s Services on 1 June 2021, AVS acknowledged that on 25 May 2021 he received an email from PS, Social Worker, stating they would appreciate it if he did not contact DM at this stage as he was not well and that it could impact on his well-being, with this also followed up in a telephone conversation on 27 May 2021 [32-33].
The August 2021 strategy meeting notes state that following DM being discharged on 25 May 2021 into the care of different foster carers concerns continue to be raised because AVS was continuing to make inappropriate communication with DM [57]. The notes also state that PS had discussions with DM about not having communications with AVS and about this being in his safety plan.
The team manager Katie Fisher met with AVS on 11 August 2021 and at that time they met to discuss his fostering registration but during the conversation AVS informed her that DM had visited his place of work on 9 August 2021. AVS was told that should this happen again he would need to ask DM to leave immediately, however AVS did not agree with this course of action. The notes of the meeting stated that AVS was clearly not adhering to any advice, guidance or any recommendations that was being asked of him by the social work team or fostering team [58-59].
AVS response to this may be found in his submissions at [98-99] and attachments. In short AVS says that he was not told the reason for DM’s removal for four days and he believed that this was a respite break and that he would be returning. Direct contact only took place until 27 May 2021 because on that date he was told why DM was being removed and the LADO review. The contact was in his view supportive and to help DM. In respect of the contact in August 2021 this followed an unsolicited visit at his place of work by DM. He did not send a message to DM and it was DM that asked AVS that he wanted an advocate and the trust would not allow it. AVS therefore advised him to write down his concerns. The letter was not fabricated it was a genuine letter written by DM.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal of the Appellant
- Rule 14 Anonymity Orders and directions
- The Background
- "Based on the enclosed information, it appears, on the balance of probabilities, that
- Fostering review meeting minutes, 27 January 2022
- Character references
- The Respondent’s barring decision dated 20 June 2022
- Findings of Relevant Conduct
- The material relied upon by the DBS at the time of barring in support of the findings of relevant conduct
- Contacting DM between 25/5/21 and 12/821
- Waking DM early and bringing him to work
- Failing to dispose of medication with which DM then overdosed 6/6/21
- Showing pornography et al in 2018
- Failed to sit at hospital with [DM] on the morning of 24/25 May 2021, as alleged or at all
- Failed to dispose of medication which DM no longer required, as alleged or at all
- Shared with DM his wishes for the outcome of the D[] Children's Services Trust investigation Caused DM physical and/or emotional harm
- Came to conclusions based on inferences that it was not entitled to draw from the evidence Came to a barring decision that was, in all the circumstances, disproportionate
- The decision to include the Appellant on the Children's Barred List was, in all the circumstances, disproportionate Law
- it is satisfied that the person has engaged in relevant conduct, and
- it is satisfied that it is appropriate to include the person in the list
- on any point of law
- If the [ Upper] Tribunal remits a matter to [DBS] under subsection (6)(b)–
- a. “on any point of law” (section 4(2)(a) of the Act)
- remit the matter to DBS for a new decision
- DBS’s submissions
- No material mistake of fact
- The decision was disproportionate
- Transferability/Proportionality
- Conclusions on the Appeal
- Discussion: Findings of Fact and Analysis of grounds of appeal
- The Appellant’s evidence
- Post Hearing application for the admission of late evidence
- The Appellant’s representations from 3 June 2021 and assessment of his reliability
- Ground 1
- Finding 2: On dates between 25 May 2021 and 12 August 2021 you continued to contact DM, aged 15, despite having being [sic] re-quested not to for the wellbeing of DM following DM being removed from yo
- Finding 3: On dates between 20 August 2020 and 24 May 2021, you woke DM, aged 15, at 5.30 a.m. on mornings before school, bringing him to work with you and having him complete work/school work prior t
- Finding 4: On a date prior to 25 May 2021 you failed to dispose of medication which DM, aged 15, no longer required, leaving remaining medication in DM's possession who subsequently took an overdose o
- Finding 5: On a date in 2018, you showed a pornographic image of oral sex that you had as your computer screensaver, showed an air gun and pellets in your drawer, and repeatedly asked three school gir
- Conclusions on mistakes of fact in five findings of relevant conduct
- Erroneous Inferences – Appellant submissions
- Remedy – Remittal to the DBS pursuant to section 4(6) (b) & 7 of the Act
- Mistake of Law - Proportionality
- Appellant’s submissions on Proportionality
- Discussion
- Conclusions