Aberlour Child Care Trust welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations. Our comments are informed by Aberlour’s rich history of providing services to children and families since 1875 and we hope that they enable the Government to make regulations which will allow it to achieve its ambitions for Scotland’s children.
Aberlour recognises that the draft regulations build on existing regulations and believes that this consultation provides another opportunity to strengthen practice by taking a more child focussed approach to the new proposals.
PART I – GENERAL
Regulation 1- Citation and commencement
Regulation 2-Interpretation
Q1. Please consider the definitions and comment as you feel appropriate.
No comment.
PART II- PLANNING FOR LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN
Regulation 3- duty of local authority to make a care plan in respect of a child
Q2. In line with Getting it Right for Every Child, we have been asked to consider using the term 'child's plan'. Do you agree with this suggestion?
Aberlour proposes for children looked after ‘child’s care plan’ is appropriate. There is a different status for children who are under statutory measures and this should be reflected in the use of the term ‘care’.
Q3. Statistics published in November by the Scottish Government indicates that 25% of looked after children do not have a current care plan. How could regulations be strengthened to ensure this important requirement is met?
Aberlour believes that the challenge in ensuring that this requirement is met requires detailed consideration of why there is an issue in ensuring that all looked after children have a care plan - this appears to be a problem of implementation at local level, rather than the wording of the regulation that requires a plan to be produced. Aberlour believes that SWIA inspections should pick this up and that the Care Commission through its reporting should also ensure that this matter is also considered as part of the inspection of care services.
Q4. Should the regulation contain a timescale e.g. 2 weeks by which the care plan should be drafted?
Aberlour acknowledges that in most instances, children subject to statutory measures will have been previously known to agencies. In these cases it is reasonable to propose a 2 week period for a draft plan. However, there will be instances where the child or family may not be well known (e.g. Place of Safety or Section 25) and it may require a longer period. The regulations could be amended to include a caveat for such instances and increase the period in such circumstances to 4 weeks.
Q5. The regulation states that the information about the child in Schedule 1 should be obtained and recorded. Should anything else be added to Schedule 1?
Aberlour suggests that it would be helpful to have:
• A requirement to detail information on named persons with whom the child should not have any contact; and
• A requirement to have taken account of the child’s views on being looked after, involvement in the planning process and demonstrate how this was achieved (or not, as the case may be)
Q6. Should adherence to the Code of Practice on records management be specifically mentioned?
Aberlour believes that it may be appropriate to amend these in light of the requirement to demonstrate how the views of the child were obtained and taken into account.
Q7. Is the list in Schedule 2 complete? If not what needs to be added?
Aberlour suggests that it would be useful to add ‘Health Authority’ in Part 1 under the ‘respective responsibilities’ section.
Q8. Do we need to add anyone else? Should there be any caveats or exceptions e.g. for child protection purposes?
Aberlour is aware of occasions where it is desirable to have foster carers details remain anonymous and suggests that this be included as a caveat.
Q9. Government is keen to ensure children and young people are enabled to participate in planning and decision making around their care, for example through independent advocates. Is this an area that should be covered in these regulations?
Without question! Aberlour proposes that all looked after children and young people have access to independent children’s rights officers or advocates and this should be incorporated. The regulations should explicitly mention of the need to take account of the views of the child.
Q10. Are there any further matters that need to be considered when placing children elsewhere than with their parents?
Aberlour believes that the stability of school placements is a critical issue in the removal of a child from their home. Wherever possible, school placement should remain the same, unless there are compelling reasons why this is not desirable. Essentially, more stringent efforts should be made to limit the number of school placements for looked after children.
Aberlour also believes that where practicably possible there should also be continuity of health services for children to ensure that the local knowledge of the health care provider is not lost.
Consideration should also be given to the contact arrangements for parents/carers and supervising local authorities where children are placed outside their host authority. For example, case work pressures can make it difficult for social workers to visit children at least monthly in services provided on a national basis such as in school care and accommodation settings.
Additionally, Aberlour believes that the regulations should make provision for resources required to ensure that the needs of children which are assessed as appropriate are met.
Aberlour proposes that looked after children should have a ‘right’ to the option of access to independent children’ rights officers or advocacy services. This would place a ‘duty’ on the local authority to:
• Bring to the attention of a child, their entitlement to rights and advocacy services
• Where necessary provide rights and advocacy services as requested by the child
• Respond to requests for independent rights or advocacy services throughout the period of a child being looked after.
Aberlour acknowledges that this will require additional resources and believes that scoping on the costs of such a measure should accompany the consideration of the implementation of the new regulations.
Q11. Do you agree with the 6 month timescale? If not what would you propose and why?
Aberlour agrees that the long term needs of a child should be addressed within 6 months of first being looked after. This will avoid drift and provide for permanency planning where this is appropriate.
Q12. Do you agree with these timescales? If not what would you propose and why?
Aberlour can see no case for different reviews requirements dependent on a child being looked after at home or away from home. There should be the same expectations in terms of review requirements. There may be capacity issues to deliver, but the approach should be standard.
Q13. We believe there is scope for improvement in the process here and would be interested in your comments.
No comment
Q14. Do you have any comments?
Aberlour suggests maintaining a 6 monthly review requirement which can be cancelled by the agreement of all parties, with an absolute requirement for an annual review. In addition, Aberlour suggests that yearly visits by a children’s rights officer or independent advocate would be prudent in allowing the child an opportunity to express their view – especially in relation to the safeguarding role.
Regulation 10 - Recording review information
Aberlour suggests that there should be a requirement to disseminate review minutes within 4 weeks of the review date.
Q15. Is this provision satisfactory for identifying needs and ensuring they are met, particularly while the child is looked after and accommodated?
Aberlour proposes that a child’s place of residence should carry a specific entitlement for their health needs to be addressed. This should fall directly on the health authority where they are placed, especially for CAMH services.
Q16. Is this provision satisfactory for identifying needs and ensuring they are met, particularly while the child is looked after and accommodated?
Aberlour believes that this provision is satisfactory for identifying needs and ensuring they are met and believes that there would be added value for the protection of children if broad examples of what constitutes serious incidents as
suggested in regulation 12.
PART III- PLACEMENTS
Q17. Do these cover the requirements in full? If not, what is required?
Aberlour suggests that the regulation would be more child-focussed if the wording was amended to ‘ascertain and take account’.
Q18. The Scottish Government propose to accept this recommendation from APRG. Do you have any comments?
Aberlour agrees with the Scottish Government proposal to accept the APRG recommendation.
Q19. Do these Schedules contain all the appropriate material that a carer and an agency need to have discussed before the child is placed with that carer?
Aberlour agrees that Schedule 3 and Schedule 5 are appropriate and suggests that there would be added value in including “The procedure for supporting children when complaints/allegations are made about the foster carer or any other person in the foster family.”
Any assessment for placement of a child should be required to take account of the views of the child and demonstrate that this has been done.
Q20. Do you agree that, if they are willing, any adults remaining in the household should be assessed with a view to approval as foster carers for the child and that the child should be allowed to continue to live in that household during the approval process?
Yes.
Q21. Do you agree? Does this provide sufficient protection for the child? The carer? The social worker?
Yes.
Q22. Do you agree? Does this process and timescale provide sufficient safeguards for the child and those responsible for his or her care?
Yes.
Q23. Do you agree? Does this process and timescale provide sufficient safeguards for the child and those responsible for his or her care?
Yes, subject to the comments made at Q4 on the appropriate time for the production of a draft care plan.
Q24. Do you agree with these proposals?
Yes.
Q25. Does it cover all the requirements for children who are placed in residential establishments? If not, please specify.
Aberlour understands the proposal to replicate Regulation 17 of the Residential Establishments Regulations, but can see no reason why there is different means to do this through a Schedule for those in foster placement and detailed in regulation for residential establishments. There is an opportunity to standardise the approach to this and the same information should be sought on a child whether entering foster care or residential care; both aspects of care are relevant to children looked after by the local authority.
PART IV - PANELS
Q26. Do you agree with prescribing these numbers in Regulations, or should it be at an agency's discretion?
Aberlour believes that it is appropriate to prescribe the minimum numbers that a fostering panel should have.
Q27. If you agree, what is a reasonable number of members for a fostering panel, to achieve the balance between each member having sufficient expertise, but not being unduly overloaded? What about for a joint fostering panel, across agencies? Should the number of members be the same?
Aberlour suggests that the panels should ideally reflect a broad perspective of interests and have a minimum of 5 people sitting on each panel, including a member to be able to present a children’s rights perspective on the panel.
Q28. Do you agree with these provisions? Should there be other provisions, such as the need for panel members to be Disclosure Scotland checked?
Yes. There may be added value in prescribing the types of reference which should be provided for prospective members and how frequently disclosure checks should be reviewed.
Q29. Is it necessary to have a medical adviser or could this role be covered in some other way e.g. by written reports from the applicants' GPs?
Yes.
Aberlour regards it as crucial for the panel to have access to a medical advisor. It is often difficult to obtain medical information required on applicants via the G.P. and it requires a medically trained person to fully assess the information when it is provided.
Q30. Should there be a duty on agencies to review the membership of the panel on a regular basis?
Yes.
Q31. Is this a reasonable approach? What should the quorum be set at?
Aberlour suggests that a reasonable quorum could be set at 5 members.
Q32. Should there be any other provisions made e.g. the meeting cannot be held without the medical adviser/without sufficient secretariat support to record discussions and decisions?
Aberlour suggests that it is necessary to have medical advice - see Q29.
Aberlour believes that it is important to ensure that secretariat is provided and the minutes sent out within 4 weeks of the decision.
Q33. Do you think anything else needs to be added?
Aberlour suggests that under 1(c) ‘deregistration of a foster parent’ should be added.
Q34. Should any change be made to this list? Should any changes be made to Schedule 4?
No.
Q35. Is it useful to have this provision? Are there any problems that might arise?
Aberlour does not see the need for this provision and believes that it is necessary to maintain assessment of carers within each agency. Otherwise, it raises complex issues about carer accountability and agency decision making. For
instance, who would make the ultimate decisions about placements and their suitability and what if there are differing viewpoints between agencies?
Q36. Do you agree with the proposals generally? Is there anything else that should be included?
Aberlour generally agrees with the proposals, although it is too early to comment as we are aware that kinship placement will be subject to further discussion.
Q37. Are there any of the provisions set out in Schedule 4 which should not apply to relative carers?
No. See answer at Q19.
Q38. Do the contents of the Schedule cover all that is needed?
See answer at Q19.
Q39. Using the draft Schedule 5 as a model, what should such a Schedule contain?
See answer at Q19.
Q40. Do you have any views on these provisions? Could they be strengthened in any way?
Aberlour believes that the review should take account of the views of the child in making decisions about the continuation or termination of the placement and these should be included in the regulation 28.
Q41. Do you have any views on these provisions? Is there anything that might prevent this happening?
Aberlour believes that this is appropriate to add to the welfare and protection of children in general.
Q42. Do you agree with this approach?
Yes.
Q43. Do you have any comments?
Aberlour agrees with proposal for the payment of allowances and fees up to the age of 18 years and suggests that consideration should be given for this to be extended to age 21 years.
PART V - ARRANGEMENTS WITH VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
Q44. Is there anything else that should be listed here? Do the matters in Schedule 6 cover all the issues to be dealt with in an SLA?
Aberlour is aware that Schedule 6 is primarily focussed with issues relating to the placing of children and for this purpose it suggests that it would be helpful if there was mention of appropriate quality standards within any Service Level Agreements.
Aberlour suggests that it is appropriate to consider Service Level Agreements in respect of safeguarding children’s rights for those who are looked after.
Aberlour suggests that under 1(b), it would be helpful to detail the services that will be provided by the local authority. These could usefully include: visits to the child; assistance with parental contact; assistance with any schooling arrangements; assistance with any specific health needs.
Q45. Do you agree with these reasons and timescales?
No.
Aberlour understands the reasons and timescales suggested. However, this regulation is not sufficiently robust and Aberlour suggests that there should be a minimum visiting requirement, of say 4 to 6 weeks, by the placing authority. If this was fulfilled, it would obviate the need for some of the other suggestions in this regulation.
Aberlour does not agree that it is appropriate to pass on of responsibility from one authority to another for visiting a placement and that there would be problems with the administration of this in terms of responsibility and accountability. Instead Aberlour believes that it is better for children to be visited by someone who knows their history well, irrespective of how far away they live from home.
Q46. We propose that the final version of the Regulations will contain similar provisions for children placed in a residential care home outwith their local authority area, except that they should be visited every 3 months. Do you agree? If not, please specify your proposed alternative.
No. Aberlour suggests that there should be similar visiting requirements for all children looked after away from home. See Q45.
Q47. Are there any other ways we can ensure that a child's 'home' local authority continues to be involved when the child is placed outwith the area?
Aberlour also believes that the ‘home’ local authority should visit each child following any allegation, complaint, child protection or any unauthorised period away from the foster placement within reasonable timescales and not exceeding 7 days after the event.
PART VI – RECORDS
Q48. Is there anything else that should be recorded?
Only to ensure that the views of the child are included in the record.
Q49. Do you feel that adherence to the Code of Practice on records management should be required through guidance?
Yes.
Q50. Is there anything else that should be recorded?
Aberlour suggests it may be worth adding a section on ‘issues arising’ for carers records.
Q51. Should there be a similar record for kinship carers?
Yes, subject to comments at Q19.
Q52. Do you agree that this should happen?
Yes and it should be available for inspection by the Care Commission.
Q53. Regulations 35(1) and (2) replicate existing provisions with regard to retention of records. We are considering whether these should be updated. In your view, what should the retention period be and why?
Aberlour suggests a 10 year retention period for foster carer records, for child protection purposes.
Q54. Do you have any comments?
No Comment