Agenda item

Ms M Lowe, Performance and Quality Assurance Officer, Children in Care, was in attendance for this item.

Mr Kirby declared an interest as a Member of the West Kent Adoption Panel.

Mr Koowaree declared an interest as the Grandparent of a child who is in the care of the County Council.

1.         Ms Lowe introduced the report and explained that the draft response to be sent from the County Council was presented in the report for Members’ comments. Ms Lowe, Ms MacNeil, Mrs Whittle and Mr Ireland responded to comments and questions from Members and the following points were highlighted:-

a)         parts of the draft response contradict each other around the suggested maximum size of an adoption panel, stating in one place ‘6 Members with a quorum of 4’ and in another ‘8 Members with a quorum of 5’.  The view the KCC wishes to give will need to be clarified before submission;

b)         delegation of various responsibilities to Foster Carers will depend on the circumstances of the child concerned.  If they are in care voluntarily (under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989), the County Council would not delegate responsibility in the same way as if the child had been placed in care following care proceedings (Section 31).  The Council’s aim is always to make life as ‘normal’ as possible for a fostered child;

c)         with regard to an age limit for Foster Carers or Adopters, it is not so much the carer’s age that is important but their ability to nurture and care for a child and meet the child’s needs.  Matching a carer to a child is most important, and the carer’s age does not necessarily affect a decision to place a child;

d)         openness and transparency are vital in helping the public to understand how the Council undertakes its fostering and adoption duties and the issues that social workers deal with;

e)         the draft response makes no reference to the legal process. Mrs Whittle said it is important to be open and transparent about the Courts process and the delays which are experienced.  Coram had expressed surprise at the level of parental challenge that Kent’s Courts allow and the delays that this causes.  Transparency would be helped if Courts were to publish figures for the number of cases heard and the length of time each case took to be resolved.  Mrs Whittle serves on a Courts Working Group with representatives of the Judiciary and other stakeholders, and this is an ideal place to tackle such issues;

f)          Coram will respond separately to the consultation, and it will be interesting to see their views when these and all other responses become public later in the process;

g)         the priority should be finding Foster Carers for children, never the other way round;

h)         openness with Foster Carers who are deemed unsuitable after KCC received covert evidence about them is important but there needs to be a balance between openness and discretion in what Foster Carers are told;

i)          Members who serve on Adoption Panels challenged the concern expressed in the Department of Education’s document, that large Panels can lead to delays, and said that, in their experience, delays most often arise from poor standards of reporting. Reporting needs to be good to make best use of Panels’ time;

j)          a view was expressed that, as Corporate Parents, KCC Members should serve on Adoption Panels as this complements their Corporate Parenting role; and 

k)         the process that prospective adopters go through should be simplified to make it less onerous and oppressive for them.

2.         RESOLVED that the draft response to be sent from the County Council be endorsed, having regard to Members’ comments set out above and with the addition of a paragraph about transparency and openness around Courts delays.