Skip to main content

Written Parliamentary Questions: 21st February 2007

Foster Care: Safety

Q:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will review the guidance on how many babies each foster (a) carer and (b) household is permitted to look after with a view to making an assessment of whether the safety of such infants is at increased risk in foster households caring for multiple infants and babies.

A:The Children Act 1989 does not allow a carer to foster more than three children unless the children concerned are siblings or an exemption has been made by the local authority in whose area the carer lives. This "usual fostering limit" applies regardless of the child's age. Volume 3 of the statutory guidance which accompanies the Act highlights the number of children who may be placed as an important factor in placement decisions. The guidance stresses the importance of considering the interests of each child, in cases where more than one child is to be placed, as well as the needs of the carer's own children.

The Government are committed to reviewing the statutory guidance and this review will need to take account of issues arising from the recent Care Matters Green Paper. However, detailed decisions about the content of the revised guidance have not yet been taken.
(Parmjit Dhanda, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills)

Child Protection

Q:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will ask local authorities to take steps to identify child protection cases to which they have been party since 1997 where requests for medical records were made by any party to the case of Gene Morrison, and to report to him any such cases.


A:Child protection cases are the responsibility of local authorities and the Government would not usually intervene in these matters. (Parmjit Dhanda, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.