For full story on BBC click here
In a landmark decision London Borough of Tower Hamlets has been struck down due to discrimination against family & friend foster carers.
Mrs X, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has won a long legal battle against Tower Hamlets.
She cares for three of her brother’s children, all of whom have special needs. The 3 children, now aged 15, 14 and 7 years all have learning difficulties, emotional problems and bed wet. The middle child also has autism, Tourette’s syndrome, features of ADHD, self harming behaviour and when he first arrived into Mrs X’s care he was doubly incontinent. The youngest child also has autism, ADHD and severe development delay, he requires constant supervision, including throughout the night and can be prone to violence, attacking other children and nursery staff.
The children’s parents were unable to look after them and the council took the children into foster care. The children were placed with professional foster carers. After three separate placements, the council asked Mrs X if she would be willing to look after the 3 children as they could not find a professional foster carer willing to take on all the children.
In 2009, at the request of the council, Mrs X gave up her professional job and financial independence, became reliant on state benefits, moved to the countryside and started to care for the children. She received very little help in caring for the children. Also the fostering allowance that she received was significantly below that which the professional foster carers received.
Due to her concern about her ability to manage with the children, the level of allowance and the lack of action taken by social service when she asked for help, Mrs X decided to instruct specialist law firm Ridley & Hall Solicitors.
Throughout 2010 detailed correspondence took place requesting help so that Mrs X would be able to cope with the children and asking the council to pay her the same allowance as they would have paid to a professional foster carer. The matter was complicated by an ongoing family court case concerning the children and who should have had parental responsibility. Support was delayed to find out the result of various reports required within the family proceedings. In September 2010, the family court decided that the local authority should have parental responsibility and granted an interim care order, which was eventually made into a full care order.
By December 2010, Mrs X was extremely concerned that she would not be able to continue caring for the children due to the level of exhaustion she felt and the lack of support. Emergency High Court judicial review proceedings were issued requesting practical support to be provided to Mrs X and that she was paid the same allowance as a professional foster carer.
In January 2011, the council agreed to fund respite care, where someone else would look after the children over a weekend to allow Mrs X a break. In addition they also agreed to fund a babysitting service. Therefore the only challenge left in the High Court case was the level of allowance the Mrs X was receiving.
Rebecca Chapman of Ridley & Hall Solicitors said,“It has to be noted that although the council agreed to pay for the support there was enormous difficulty in finding someone who would be willing to look after the children due to their special needs. I believe that the council approached over 60 agencies and did not manage to find someone to care for the children. By 2012 the council agreed to pay Mrs X’s brother, who was not the father, to provide respite on a temporary whilst they looked for a professional carer.
By around October 2012 professional respite carers had been found but this was only after the decision had been made to separate the children for respite.”
In April 2011 the council issued a new foster care policy which clearly stated that they were paying family and friends foster carers £171 per week less than professional foster carers. The council issued a further additional policy in November 2011 which stated that the £171 per week for professional foster carers was a fee/reward and family and friends carers were not eligible for the fee/reward.
Rebecca Chapman said, “I was shocked to read the council’s new policies particularly because in early 2011 the government issued guidance called Family and Friends Care: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities which made it clear that councils should make sure family and friends carers are fully supported to care for the children placed with them and that they should not be treated unfavourably because they knew the child before they came to live with them.
“The family and friends guidance was issued at around the same time as a number of other guidance which made the same point. Although the guidance was pointed out to the local authority they decided to continue with their discriminatory policy.”
The council issued a further policy in April 2012 in order to make sure that the extra expense of looking after children with special needs was covered by paying an enhancement to the fostering allowance. However, half of the new enhancement was payable to meet the extra expense of looking after the children and the other half was a fee/reward element only payable to professional foster carers. This was on top of the £171 per week per child fee/reward element the professional foster carers were receiving under the 2 previous policies. Mrs X, as the children’s aunt, could not receive the fee/reward elements, even though she was succeeding to care for 3 difficult children where professional foster carers had failed.
The High Court heard the case in February 2013. The judgment was given on 8th March 2013 that found the council’s policies were unlawful because they discriminated against family and friends carers as they were not eligible to be paid the fee/reward part of the fostering allowance.
Mrs X commented,“I am absolutely delighted with the result. I am pleased that this judgment has recognised that family and friends carers should be treated fairly and should be paid the same amount as a professional foster carer when they are doing the same job.
I cannot thank my solicitor and barrister [Rebecca Chapman and Fiona Scolding] enough.
However I am disappointed that it has taken a High Court ruling and all the additional legal expenses to make the council do what the government directed them to do in early 2011. At this difficult economic time, I expect the legal expenses will add to the financial pressures faced by the council.”
If you require any more information please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Chapman on 01484 538421 or email@example.com.