Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence

Councillor Judith Cooper declared a personal interest on Item 7 – Review on Adoption & Permanence for Looked After Children and remained in the meeting to discuss the item.

Councillor John Hensley declared a personal interest in Item 7 – Review on Adoption& Permanence for Looked After Children and remained in the meeting to discuss the item.

It was confirmed that all items were in Part 1 and would be heard in public.

There had been no items notified in advance of urgent.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2012 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Borough Solicitor attended the meeting to assist the committee in their consideration of the draft Elective Home Education (EHE) policy. 

The Borough Solicitor emphasised that it was the parents who provide home education and the Council undertakes safeguarding duties.  The Local Authority needed to ensure that the advice provided in the policy was lawful. 

The Children Act, sections 10 & 11 provided the legislative framework for developing children’s services, section 10 sets out a statutory framework for cooperation arrangements to be made by the local authorities with a view to improving the well-being of children in there area whilst section 11 sets out the arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However, this section does not place any additional duties or responsibilities on local authorities over and above section 175[1] of the Education Act 2002

Sections 17 & 14 of the Children Act 1989 set out the principle provisions that governed safeguarding duties.   This does not give the Council the power to routinely see a home educated child on an annual basis.   If there were any concerns about a child’s safety/welfare these and would be treated in the same way as any other case.

The committee was informed that the policy complied with the statutory framework and the 2007 guidelines.  A few anomalies had been found in the proposed draft policy and recommended adaptations had been circulated to the committee members.  The law in relation to EHE was extremely grey and had not been clarified since 2007 and no other guidance produced since that time.

The Borough Solicitor advised the committee that some parents that home educate felt that the Local Authority had a suspicious view of this choice and that the policy did not strike the right balance between home education and safeguarding.  The powers of intervention only came in to play if a Local Authority felt that a child was not being suitably educated.  The point that needed to be made was that the policy needed to be robust and also strike the right balance. 

The Borough Solicitor then took the committee through the changes that he was suggesting be made to the policy.

The committee thanked the Borough Solicitor for all the work he had undertaken on the policy.

 A member suggested that Recommendation 4 be changed to include ‘in consultation with interested parties’.

The committee felt that as the report already included the necessary degree of consultation it was felt that there was no need for an additional recommendation to be added.

Resolved – That the Committee

1.         Agreed the recommendations contained in the final report.

2.      Endorsed the policy, which was to be amended in accordance

with the advice of the Borough Solicitor.             

3.   Noted that the Chairman, in liaison with Democratic Services, would          make any minor amendments as required to the report prior to it’s   submission to Cabinet.

Officers introduced the report and informed the committee that the witnesses would focus on the Adoption Panel processes, what the adopters experience had been of adopting with Hillingdon and what the process had been like for them.

The Chairman of the Adoption Panel advised the committee that the adoption initiatives were set out in the Children’s Act 2002 and Adoption Law. 

Adoption Panel Chairman and Legal Adviser made the following points:-

• There was a central list of Adoption Panel members to ensure there was no delay in considering permanency for a child.
• There were national minimum standards in relation to timescales for Adoption.
•  A child’s wishes and the views of the birth parents had to be considered.
• Birth family had to be considered as an option for permanency, if this was felt to be in the best interest of a child.
• Black children are often older when placed for adoption so there needs became greater.
• For every year a child waits for a permanent placement the chance of  permanency decreased by 20%.

The remit of the Panel was to consider

• Permanency through various routes including Adoptio , Long Term Fostering or Special Guardianship Orders. 
• Contact Orders for a child post placement.
• Placement orders.
• Authority to place a child for adoption It was unclear whether this would continue under the Government review recommendations. .
• Prospective Adopters - number of children, age range, and sex of child
• Post placement resources if necessary to provide post adoption support.

Further information provided for the review.

• Feedback showed that 77% of cases were either good or excellent.
• 14% of cases were delayed by Court proceedings and 9% delayed for other reasons, but this had now improved.
• There were 16 children awaiting adoption, 9 adoptions approved this year, 20 children placed with adopters, 8 children had waited longer than the required 12 months.  These figures included hard to place children due to their age and those with additional needs.
• Currently the adoption process was taking about 55 week approval of adopters was taking 8 months from their application being submitted to being presented to panel for approval as adopters. 
• Prospective Adopters had access to the Adoption Panels medical adviser to obtain information on the needs of a child.
• Early intervention was critical for some family’s otherwise the same process would be required for any additional children they had.
• There was a need for post adoption support to be provided to ensure placements do not break down.
• There may be therapeutic work required before a placement was made.
• Timescales needed to reflect the needs of children and whether further research and counselling was required.
• Delay was necessary in some cases to allow issues to be resolved and safeguarding for a child and adopters.

Challenges that may arise from the Government Review

• The placement of sibling groups may require additional time to provide permanency. 
• The reduced timescale of 6 months for adoption would put pressure on Local Authority’s to meet the deadlines.
• There needed to be a quality  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

The committee received a report setting out the items on the Forward Plan relating to Education & Children’s Services.

The committee asked to be provided with an update on the current situation in relation to school places and school expansion programme.

Officers advised that 12 forms of entry would be required for September 2012 but not all would be permanent.  The last admission into reception classes had not been offered their first choice.  There had also been 2,500 in year applicants across the school age range.  A third were from other countries, a third hard to place children and internal moves and a third were from other boroughs.

An update on the school places would be provided at the next meeting.

Resolved – That the items on the Forward Plan be noted and an update on school places update would be provided at the next meeting.

The committee received a report setting out the Work Programme for 2011/2012.

Resolved – That report be noted.