View West Yorkshire Consortium Procedures Manual View West Yorkshire Consortium Procedures Manual

6.24 Children and Young People Placed with Parents

RELATED CHAPTER

Also see Placement with Parents Procedure


Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. PWP Care Plan at Final Hearing
  3. PWP Authorised after the Final Hearing


1. Introduction

  • It is necessary to ensure that no child remains subject to a Care Order longer than is consistent with their welfare.
  • Where a child or young person is placed at home with their parent(s) it is assumed that, in the majority of cases, this should be a prelude to the revocation or variation of the Care Order within a reasonable length of time.
  • The continuing need for a Care Order should diminish steadily after PWP arrangements have begun, and as the parent(s)  assumes total day to day care and control of the child, and the need for Social Services direct intervention lessens accordingly.
  • If the need for SSD support and intervention does not lessen, and new concerns arise regarding the welfare of the child, then consideration would need to be given to returning the child to a local authority placement.
  • Given the overall PWP numbers, coupled with the length of placement, the Division is keen to ensure that recommendations for PWP at a final hearing contain suggestions for the court as to an intended exit strategy and timescale
  • It is recognised that some applications to revoke or vary Care Orders where a child has been PWP for significant periods of time have been rejected by the courts, or opposed by GALs, for a variety of reasons.
  • The Division is therefore keen to ensure that a robust approach to such applications is taken, which clearly details the diminishing necessity for a Care Order and the future  support which the child and family will require, and how that is to be provided.
  • It is also the view of the Division that opposition by courts and Guardians to applications for variation or revocation can be reduced via clear statements of intent about the likely timescales for returning to court, and the circumstances under which that would happen, at the point of the final hearing and in context with the final care plan.


2. PWP Care Plan at Final Hearing

  • A Care Order should only be applied for at a final hearing where it is the most appropriate outcome under the circumstances, and where the alternatives – no order or other order – have been fully examined and found to be insufficient to appropriately safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.
  • There will have been close liaison with Legal staff regarding the appropriateness of application for a Supervision Order and the extent to which the support which would be afforded by a Care Order can be provided by a SO.
  • The PCM authorises the final care plan, and recommends PWP, but authorisation for PWP rests with Group Service Managers. Therefore the views of the DSM (and PCM) need to be sought as soon as the LAC review process indicates the likelihood of PWP as the final court care plan, or where PWP is recommended to start prior to the final hearing. The review recommendation will be discussed with the DSM by the relevant PCM (or SCM).
  • It is crucial that the issue of support to the child’s placement is addressed in detail in the final care plan. Without sufficient detail the plan will be vulnerable at the final hearing and may also weaken subsequent applications for revocation / variation as there will be an insufficient ‘bench mark’ against which to evidence progress. PCMs are unlikely to ‘sign off’ the final plan unless details of the support are contained in the plan.
  • The final care plan should therefore contain the depth of detail regarding placement support, roles and responsibilities, which is (or should be) evident in the PWP Agreement.
  • Vague descriptions of support such as ‘fortnightly visits’ are unacceptable in both the PWP Agreement and the care plan. The information needs to detail what will be provided, for what purpose, and by whom.
  • In terms of the final care plan those sections dealing with ‘proposed placement type’, ‘likely duration of placement’ and ‘aim of the plan’ should all link together regarding PWPs to provide a consistent “direction” for the plan and the opportunity to advise the court of future intentions regarding revocation or variation if the welfare of the child remains supported by the PWP arrangement.
  • It is anticipated that the court and GAL will be advised of the local authority’s intention to seek revocation / variation following the second LAC review after placement, assuming that progress has been made with the care plan overall and such a step is consistent with the welfare of the child. It is recommended that there is a LAC review no later than 3 months after placement, followed by a further review 6 months after that.
  • Variation to Supervision Order of 11yo+ case will result, as per current procedures, in the case remaining within the LAC Team.
  • In order to argue successfully for revocation / variation it is vital that ongoing support to the family – from whichever source – is made clear to the court.
  • Courts & GALs are likely to have increased concern about, or opposition to, the withdrawal or reduction of the local authority’s statutory role with the family if they feel that support to the child & family will be compromised by the removal of the Care Order.
  • Continuing support may not be provided directly from Social Services but could come from a variety of community based resources.
  • Where there may be anticipated resistance from the court or GAL to revocation because of school attendance problems there should be discussion with the relevant ESW manager regarding the support available form that service, plus the efficacy of considering an Education Supervision Order.
  • The IROs have the responsibility to ensure that the care plan is examined at each statutory review. They will have been involved in the care planning process since the child became Looked After, and will have been an integral part in looking at the recommendation for PWP. Therefore, they are part of the mechanism which ensures that a future exit strategy is clear, and the conditions which will need to be met in order to ensure that such a strategy is successful.
  • Minutes of LAC reviews (and reports) should go to Legal (from IROs) for advice where revocation / variation is recommended at a review.


3. PWP Authorised after the Final Hearing

  • As family circumstances change, particularly in cases involving older children, it can be possible to pursue rehabilitation at a relevant point after the final order has been granted. The possibility of future rehabilitation may have been recognised at the final hearing but the family’s circumstances did not support such a care plan at that time.
  • It is recognised that some young people absent themselves from care placements and return home against the advice of the local authority. They become PWP by default and careful consideration needs to be given to the options available at that time.
  • Where PWP has been authorised after the final hearing and the child / young person returns home from a local authority care placement or a ‘friends & family’ placement, similar considerations apply to the planning for subsequent revocation or variation as to those outlined regarding final hearing cases.
  • That is, it is expected that by the second LAC review following placement close consideration will be given to taking the matter to court to reduce or remove the local authority’s statutory role with the family.
  • Case and care planning, at the point of a PWP arrangement, should explicitly indicate the above timescale.
  • Any such application will need to describe in detail the type of ongoing support which will be provided to the family.
  • In order to ensure the care plan reflects the proposed PWP arrangements, no PWP submission will be authorised at PCM level unless the PCM has received both the PWP documentation and an amended care plan.

End