![[2024] UKUT 391 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The material relied upon by the DBS at the time of barring in support of the findings of relevant conduct
The material relied upon by the DBS at the time of barring in support of the findings of relevant conduct
Failing to sit with DM in hospital
The LADO notes of June 2021 record that on 22 May 2021 DM self-harmed whilst AVS was on a driving holiday in Scotland (without DM). When AVS returned on 23 May 2021 he contacted ‘out of hours’ around 8pm for advice and after hours of delay he eventually contacted CAMHS. He then took DM to D[]Infirmary late on the evening of 23 May 2021 and, due to no beds being available, DM was sent to S[] hospital on 24 May 2021. AVS had stated he was fatigued and could not take DM so his fostering social worker took DM to S[] hospital around 2 AM on 24 May 2021. The fostering social worker sat with DM all night.
AVS then made a call stating that someone needed to release the fostering social worker. He was advised that he needed to go back to S[] and sit with DM as the foster carer. The Appellant informed the team that he needed to pop into work and would go then. He then informed the team stating he had to be at work and could not get to the hospital until 3-4 PM that day. He was informed by his fostering team that he needed to go to hospital immediately. In the meantime, the fostering team arranged for another foster carer to sit with DM [37].
This incident is also dealt with in the August 2021 D[] children’s services strategy meeting notes. The social worker PS had a discussion with AVS and during that discussion she explained to him his roles and responsibilities as a foster carer and that he needed to put DM first, and he needed to be with DM because at times like this is when DM as a young person would need his carer the most. AVS maintained he had work commitments and that he could not go to the hospital. DM remained in hospital and was discharged on 25 May 2021. Because of this occurrence and because of the history leading up to it and the concerns around AVS in regard to him not prioritising DM in a specific time of need he was removed from his care on that date [56-57].
There are STAR NHS notes dated 24 May 2021 related to DM’s period in S[] hospital at [117-121]. The notes document the self-harming incident in more detail, including DM’s state of mind at the time.
- 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