The Background
The Background
In broad summary, the background is as follows (page references in square brackets, [], are references to the hearing bundle prepared by the DBS).
AVS, the Appellant, was appointed and approved as a foster carer on 31 July 2020. During the course of his fostering career, the Appellant cared for four other children on a respite basis, with D[] Children's Services. These placements overlapped with the full time placement of DM. DM was his first full time placement, and this commenced on 20 August 2020. DM has had a traumatic family background, he is a looked after child under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 [21]. DM was a vulnerable teenager who had a history of self-harm. DM's father sadly took his own life in February 2021 during the course of his placement with the Appellant.
At the relevant time, the Appellant was an approved single foster carer for DM, aged 15 years old, placed by D[] Children's Trust. This placement commenced on 20 August 2020 and ended on 25 May 2021. It is noted that the placement took place within the context of Covid related restrictions.
Concerns arose during the course of DM's placement on 23 May 2021, when DM was admitted to hospital due to his deteriorating mental health. A supervising social worker attended D[] Infirmary on 24 May 2021 to relieve the Appellant, who was late attending hospital the following morning. Other concerns were raised about the Appellant prioritising work over DM's care, use of alcohol and the Appellant's willingness to act on professional advice. DM was moved to a new placement on 25 May 2021 on the grounds that the Appellant was not meeting DM's needs at a time of crisis [flag 2].
DM’s placement was formally terminated on 1/6/21 [24]. The Appellant wrote to D[] Children's Services Trust on 3 June 2021 in a letter before action responding to concerns [flag 4] and disputing the decision to remove DM from his care.
D[] Local Authority Designated Officer ("LADO") meetings were held on 3 June 2021 [flag 6], and 1 July 2021 [flag 5]. Concerns were raised that the Appellant had continued to have contact with DM when he had been asked by social services not to. A strategy meeting was held on 19 August 2021 [flag 7].
The August 2021 D[] Children’s Services strategy meeting minutes indicate that it was the unanimous decision that the threshold was met to initiate section 47 enquiries in respect of AVS. The scale of risk was assessed at five [69].
The Appellant was referred to the DBS by D[] Children's Services Trust on 12 September 2021, as discussed and recommended at the July 2021 LADO meeting.
An annual foster care review meeting took place on 27 January 2022 [flag 8], the conclusion of which was that the Appellant was not recommended to be re-approved as a foster carer for D[] Children's Services Trust. A reviewing officer report from RS dated 7 February 2022 does not recommend re-approval for AVS as a foster carer. She noted that between “6 April 2021 and 29 September 2021 there were four missed supervision dates as AVS had declined or asked for it to be postponed” [74]. It stated “I am concerned AVS has not understood the seriousness of what happened, and the concerns professionals had about his parenting behaviours and I feel concerned that after a year he thinks it would be appropriate for DM to return to his care…AVS has taken no part or no responsibility in any of his actions choosing to blame rather than to accept responsibility” [82].
The Barring process
On 14 April 2022, the DBS sent a Minded to Bar ("MTB") letter to the Appellant
[8-11]. The MTB included proposed findings as follows:
- 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
![[2024] UKUT 391 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)