Source: GOV.UK published on this site Monday 27th February 2017 by Jill Powell

The changes are:

Chapter 2: Preventing, reducing or delaying needs

Paragraph 2.51

…(also see chapter 6, paras. 6.44 to 6.53, about the whole family approach to assessment)

now reads:

…(also see chapter 6, paras. 6.65 to 6.71, about the whole family approach to assessment)

Paragraph 2.60 changed from:

‘2.60 The regulations require that intermediate care and reablement provided up to 6 weeks, and minor aids and adaptations up to the value of £1,000 must always be provided free of charge (see also 8.14).’

to:

‘2.60 The regulations require that intermediate care and reablement must be provided free of charge for up to 6 weeks, as must aids and minor adaptations (ie. adaptations up to the value of £1,000) (see also 8.14).’

Chapter 6. Assessment and eligibility

Source: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions published on this site Wednesday 6th May 2015 by Jill Powell

This is the transcript of the decision of Lord Justice Moses who stated that the Section does not introduce fresh criteria for determining intentional homelessness.

LORD JUSTICE MOSES: When Mrs Huzrat claimed that she was homeless and eligible for assistance the London Borough of Hounslow was under a full duty to accommodate her, her three children and her husband pursuant to section 193(1) and (2) of the Housing Act 1996 if it was satisfied as to four facts. It had to be satisfied that she was homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the 1996 Act, eligible for assistance -- that is someone not falling within the provisions of section 185 of the 1996 Act -- had a priority need, as identified in section 189(1) of the 1996 Act and was not satisfied that she had become homeless intentionally within the meaning of section 191.

Hounslow was satisfied that she was homeless, was eligible for assistance and had a priority need. But it was also satisfied that she had become homeless intentionally. Accordingly, its duty was confined to that identified in section 190(2)(a) and (b); that is it was required to ensure that such accommodation was available for such a period as it considered would give her a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation for her and her family's occupation, and secure that she was provided with advice and assistance in any attempts she might make to secure that accommodation became available for her and her family's occupation.

Moreover, pending the inquiry into whether she was homeless and as to whether she was homeless intentionally or not, it exercised its powers under section 184 and once she appealed, under section 204(4) to provide temporary accommodation, where I understand she and her family remain.

She was entitled to a review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 of the issue as to whether she had become homeless intentionally. This appeal is concerned with the local housing authority's independent officer's conclusion on the review that she was homeless intentionally.

Mrs Huzrat says that in reaching that decision Hounslow failed to act in conformity with its duty under section 11 (2) of the Children's Act 2004. It says that in considering the issue as to whether her homelessness was intentional or not it was required to make arrangements for ensuring (a) that its functions were discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and (b) that any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of its functions are provided having regard to that need.

His Honour Judge McDowall at Willesden County Court on 18 January 2013 rejected that argument when considering her appeal, restricted as it was to a point of law. Mrs Huzrat now appeals against that decision.

Source: gov.uk published on this site Friday June 3rd 2016

Alan Wood, in his summary says:

“This report sets out a new framework for improving the organisation and delivery of multi-agency arrangements to protect and safeguard children. It contains recommendations for government to consider. These recommendations suggest that appropriate steps should be taken to recast the statutory framework that underpins the model of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs), Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) and Child Death Overview Panels (CDOPs). The report argues that on a scale of prescriptive to permissive arrangements, the pendulum has locked itself too close to a belief that we should say how things should be done as opposed to what outcomes we want for children and young people. Taken together, the recommendations I have made propose fundamental reform to the way we do things. “

It’s recommendations are:

Multi-agency arrangements for protecting children

1. To replace the existing statutory arrangements for LSCBs and introduce a new statutory framework for multi-agency arrangements for child protection.
2. To require all areas to move towards new multi-agency arrangements for protecting children within a prescribed period. Local areas/regions would need to establish a plan which would describe how services would:

• meet the new statutory framework;
  § be coordinated;
  § be led by senior officials;
  § be evaluated for their effectiveness;
  § involve a role for independent scrutiny;
  § engage with children and young people; and § be held to account.

The existing legislative framework underpinning LSCBs should cease to operate as new arrangements come into being.

1. To require the three key agencies, namely health, police and local authorities, in an area they determine, to design multi-agency arrangements for protecting children, underpinned by a requirement to work together on the key strategic issues set out in this report and referenced in recommendation 2.
2. For new statutory arrangements to require health, local authorities and the police to make clear their leadership responsibility for multi-agency arrangements, to include the identification of a chief officer in each of the agencies to have responsibility and authority for ensuring full collaboration with those statutory arrangements.
3. For government to provide guidance on:
   1. Drawing up a local proposal to provide strategic multi-agency arrangements to protect children.
   2. The meaning of the terms Child Protection, Safeguarding and Wellbeing, clarifying the part of this spectrum to be covered in multi-agency statutory arrangements.
4. For government departments (Department of Health, Department for Education, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office) to provide a clear, joint statement explaining their commitment to multi-agency arrangements and explaining how all local partners will be supported and required to play a full and committed role.
5. The Department for Education should review what approaches to early cross agency intervention and intelligence gathering to identify children and young people at risk are most effective, including considering whether the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs model offers an effective approach.
6. NHS(England)should consider how their Accountability and Assurance Framework for safeguarding vulnerable people could be amended to place greater emphasis on how local health agencies fully participate in multi-agency practice.
7. Keeping Children Safe in Education should be reviewed to ensure it covers child protection and safeguarding issues in respect of unregistered school settings, independent schools and home education. There should also be clearer guidance on the role played by the police and the NHS in that process. Keeping Children Safe in Education should make clear what role, if any, academy chains will carry out in respect of child protection and safeguarding children.

10.The role of schools in providing early help to children and young people should be included in the Department for Education’s review of the role of a local authority in education. This should include the role of the police and health services.

11.To consider whether the statutory guidance in relation to Directors of Children’s Services and Lead Members is necessary in light of the new White Paper and recommendations made by this review.

12.To consider issuing new guidance on the responsibilities of a chief officer nominated by each of health, the police and local government to agree the multi-agency arrangements and processes in an area.

13.The Care Quality Commission, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation should review their inspection frameworks to ensure they focus on child protection practice without being burdensome on service providers. Their inspections should be proportionate and always assess the contribution the agency they inspect makes to successful multi-agency working.

14.There are too many separate inspections of local authority children’s services: this is over burdensome, costly and needs urgent attention. In replacing the Single Inspection Framework (SIF), Ofsted should be encouraged to develop a model that is not burdensome, is unannounced, short in duration (five days), and focuses on the child protection practice. It should identify strengths and areas for development in the local authority.

15.The Joint Targeted Area Inspection (JTAI) should not replicate the inspection of the child protection front door. That should be a discrete inspection. The JTAI should concentrate of key themes in the life and experience of children and young people e.g. domestic violence, child sexual abuse, children with a disability, missing children, youth violence, gangs and neglect. In carrying out these thematic inspections the focus would be on the multi-agency approach and the outcomes for children achieved by it.

16.The review of an LSCB as part of the SIF should be discontinued at the earliest possible time.

17.For the Home Office and Departments of Communities and Local Government, Health, and Education to issue joint advice and guidance on the critical importance of effective and speedy sharing of information and data in relation to protecting and safeguarding children. This should focus on the expectation that unless there is specific legal impediment information must be shared.

18.To incentivise all applicants for devolution deals to include in their proposals arrangements for establishing multi-agency arrangements for protecting children.

19.Government departments should review the range of Boards and guidance (e.g. Health and Wellbeing Boards, Local Family Justice Boards, Community Safety Partnerships) with a view to reducing the burden, and therefore cost, on the health agencies, the police, local government and other agencies.

Serious Case Reviews

20.To emphasise in all national guidance that the main purpose of inquiring into an event is to improve the systems we provide to protect children.

21.To discontinue Serious Case Reviews, and to establish an independent body at national level to oversee a new national learning framework for inquiries into child deaths and cases where children have experienced serious harm.

22.For the Department for Education to set out the key tasks for the new body to determine. These should include:

• the creation of a new national learning framework;
  §the process by which the notification of an event takes place; §the process for establishing a National Serious Case Inquiry (NSCI);
  best practice guidance on delivering a proportionate approach at local level to conduct a Local Learning Inquiries (LLIs);
  • providing new guidance to cover best practice in undertaking
  • single and multi-agency inquiries, including the importance of a rapid response and transparency in publicising how an area has learned for the event and what has changed in local practice; and
  • advising how learning can be reported through existing local accountability structures so as to ensure transparency and promote learning.

23.Once established, the new body to carry out consultation on the introduction of this new model.

24.For the new body to be required to report to the Secretary of State, identifying the lessons for government from learning derived for LLIs and NSCIs.

25.On the creation of the new body, to end the national panel of independent experts on SCRs.

26.To require the new body to be responsible for overseeing a new model for learning from serious events affecting children.

27.To ensure that this model is driven by proportionate LLIs, whose reports should be published and sent to the national body.

28.To ensure the new body has the capacity to commission and or carry out NSCIs.

29.To amend as appropriate the legislative framework to introduce this new model of inquiry.

Child Death Overview Panels (CDOPs)

30.That the national sponsor for CDOPs should move from the Department for Education to the Department of Health. It should consider how CDOPs can best be supported and sponsored within the arrangements of the NHS.

31.If the national study recommends the introduction of a national database for CDOPs, the Department of Health should consider expediting its introduction.

32.The Department of Health should determine how CDOPs can be organised on a regional basis with sub-regional structures to promote learning and dissemination. They should also give consideration to the membership of CDOP to ensure appropriate representation from both health and non-medical agencies.

33.In considering a common national standard for high quality serious incident investigations for child death the Health Safety Investigation Branch of the NHS should consider the role CDOPs will play in this process.

34.The Department of Health should consider the role that Health and Wellbeing Boards and the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment play in dealing with child deaths and the role of a CDOP.

 To read this report click 

http://www.safecic.co.uk/freebies/55-free-downloads-and-safeguarding-links/406-relrepo

Source: Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board published on this site Tuesday 27th August 2013 by Jill Powell

Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board has today published a serious case review into abuse at Little Stars Nursery in 2010. Paul Wilson, an assistant at the nursery, was jailed for 13½ in July 2011 after pleading guilty to raping a child in the nursery. He also admitted 47 counts of grooming of teenage girls over the internet.

The Review found that it was known by the nursery, Ofsted and the local authority that Wilson had a ‘special relationship’ with the child which should have raised the alarm and been examined in more detail.

Jane Held, Independent Chair of the multi-agency Birmingham Safeguarding Children Board said: “Responsibility for this awful abuse must, and does, lie with the perpetrator. He was clever, duplicitous and manipulative and took advantage of weaknesses in the system.

Parents should be able to trust the people they leave their children with to ensure that children are properly protected. In this case there were unfortunately a number of weaknesses in the way that nursery was run and a number of opportunities to intervene earlier and prevent the continuation of abuse.”

She added that “There are three key lessons arising from this review. One is that those in charge of settings caring for children must ensure there are strong clear practices and systems to minimise the risk of abuse .The second is to listen to and ask about children’s experiences directly with them rather than just speak to adults. The third, and potentially the most important, is that safeguarding children is a job for everyone, and every single person who looks after or cares for children needs to know how to recognise when something is not right and what to do about it, and have confidence they will get the right response when they do act.“

To read the full serious case review click http://www.lscbbirmingham.org.uk/images/stories/downloads/executive-summaries/Published_Overview_Report.pdf