Preparartory Reviewing for a Social Worker Child Case
This certificate is only valid 72 hours after printing. For the latest version please visit
Children in our Care Reviews
Contents
- The Purpose of Children in our Care Reviews
- Frequency of Children in our Intendance Reviews
- Chairing of Reviews
- Convening Reviews
- Invitations and the Child'due south Participation
- The Role of the Social Worker
- Supporters and Interpreters
- Independent Reviewing Officer's Responsibilities
- The Role of the Review in Achieving Permanence for the Child
- Reviews Concerning Children in Long Term Foster Placements
- Reviews on Children who are the Subject of Kid Protection Plans
- Recording of Reviews
- Review Decisions
- Monitoring of Review Decisions
- Problem Resolution and Direction Alert
ane. The Purpose of Children in our Care Reviews
A Children in our Intendance Review must take identify before whatever significant alter is made to the kid's Care Programme, unless that is non reasonably practicable, including a decision to terminate looking later a child.
Reviews should normally be conducted at a meeting although this may not be required in respect of a kid who has been in a designated Long-term Foster Placement for over 12 months (come across Department ten, Reviews Apropos Children in Long Term Foster Placements).
The purpose of the Children in our Intendance Review is to:
- Ensure that appropriate plans are in place to safeguard and promote the overall welfare of the kid in the most effective mode and achieve permanence for them inside a timescale that meets their needs;
- To monitor the progress of the plans and ensure they are existence progressed effectively;
- To make decisions, as necessary, for amendments to those plans to reflect any change in cognition and/or circumstances;
- To ensure the needs of children who are 'Looked Later on' as a result of a secure remand are met;
- To ensure that an Eligible Young Person moving into semi-independent accommodation is ready and prepared to move;
- For a immature person living in foster care, the kickoff Children in our Care Review following their 16th altogether should consider whether a Staying Put arrangement (whereby the young person remains in the foster abode after the age of 18) should be an option.
It is important that decisions made at Reviews are implemented and responsibility for deportment clearly defined.
The primal plans that should be considered at the Children in our Care Review are:
- Care Plan;
- Permanence Plan;
- Health Care Plan;
- Pathway Program if applicative;
- Personal Didactics Plan (PEP).
The review should likewise take account of the child's Placement Plan (recorded on the Placement Data Record) and any other plans or strategies (due east.m. behaviour management strategy), ensuring that they are upwardly to appointment, or that arrangements are in place to update them.
2. Frequency of Children in our Care Reviews
| 2.i | Normally, Children in our Care Reviews should be convened at the post-obit intervals:
|
| ii.2 | In relation to children placed with prospective adopters or where in that location is Authority to Place for Adoption, encounter the Adoption Reviews Procedure. |
| two.iii | Reviews should be brought forward by an IRO where the circumstances of an event has a significant impact upon the kid'south intendance plan, every bit suggested in the following sorts of circumstances:
This is not an exhaustive list and the IRO may approximate that other events are significant and crave an before review. The parents and child should also be consulted about the need for an additional review. |
three. Chairing of Reviews
Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) volition chair reviews. They are located within the Safeguarding, Inspection and Audit Service and are independent from Children'south Social Intendance.
The IRO'due south responsibilities are outlined in Section 8, Independent Reviewing Officer'due south Responsibilities.
Encounter also Appointment and Role of Independent Reviewing Officers Procedure.
If the allocated IRO cannot attend the coming together and it is important that the review meeting is non delayed, the meeting will be chaired/attended by a substitute IRO.
4. Convening Reviews
4.1 Arranging the first review
As soon as a child becomes 'Looked After', their social worker must notify the Safeguarding, Inspection and Audit Service past completing the becoming looked afterwards procedure on Lancashire Children's System (LCS).
This will trigger the engagement of an Contained Reviewing Officeholder (IRO) for the child. The Safeguarding, Inspection and Audit Service will then accommodate the date, time and venue of the child's beginning Review.
The venue will exist agreed with the kid / young person (dependent on their historic period and understanding), the social worker and the allocated IRO. Ideally the review should have place in the placement.
4.2 Arranging second and subsequent reviews
At the end of each review the IRO will set the date, time and venue of the adjacent review, taking business relationship of what is user-friendly for review participants and the wishes of the child / young person.
Review dates cannot exist rearranged unless there are exceptional circumstances and then only if the rearranged meeting can take identify within statutory timescales, in which case the new date should be agreed past the IRO and the social worker, who will inform the other participants.
In the consequence of a key participant being ill or unable to nourish the review, the meeting can go ahead but the IRO may determine that the review should exist adjourned to a new date when all participants can attend - run into Section eight, Independent Reviewing Officer's Responsibilities.
Should the child terminate to exist 'Looked Later' earlier the review appointment, the child's social worker volition notify the IRO and other prospective attendees that the review is cancelled and why.
5. Invitations and the Kid's Participation
Word should take place betwixt the social worker and the child (subject to age and agreement) at least 20 working days before the meeting about who the child would like to attend the coming together and where the meeting volition be held.
Invitations to reviews will be arranged past the social worker who volition ship the invitee list to the CLA Business Support Team who volition then process and distribute the invitations, consultation forms etc. Invitations to reviews and consultation documents should be sent out to carers, parents and those with parental responsibility, at least 10 working days before the meeting.
The post-obit people should normally be invited:
- The kid. At that place is a presumption that the kid will attend the review. A child's disability must not exist a bar to the child's attendance;
- The parents and those with parental responsibleness, carers and any significant people or specialists involved in the child'due south case, (except every bit set out below);
- The supervising social worker, if the kid is placed with foster carers;
- The fundamental worker if the kid is in residential care;
- The almost advisable teacher at the child's schoolhouse (commonly the Designated Teacher for Looked Subsequently Children);
- A Personal Adviser, if the child is over the age of 16;
- An Independent Visitor/Advocate, if involved;
- If required, an interpreter;
- Any other person with a legitimate involvement in the child e.one thousand. health intendance professional, GP, a representative from the Local Potency in whose surface area it is proposed that the child will be placed; (Such attendance should e'er be discussed with the child before invitations are made and their views obtained);
- The officeholder with pb responsibility for implementing the authority's duty to promote the educational accomplishment of its looked after children.
A remainder must be struck in relation to who the child wishes to exist present and the demand for information and input from the professionals and family members involved. Efforts should exist made to proceed the number nowadays at the review as small as possible. Information technology may be appropriate for information to be provided in writing or at a separate meeting where the contribution is strictly factual.
Children and parents should too exist informed that they tin arrange to meet the IRO separately if they wish or bring a supporter or interpreter to the review.
Where the child does not wish to attend the review, the IRO must at the very least speak to the child before the review - wherever possible in a face to confront meeting.
The child'south social worker must ensure that children and families take been given information virtually the Complaints Procedure. They should provide the child with details of independent advocacy services who may provide support if the child requires information technology.
Come across Section 7, Supporters and Interpreters.
A conclusion not to invite a child, parent(s) or person(southward) with parental responsibility to a review should only exist made in exceptional circumstances and must exist fabricated in consultation with the IRO, prior to the review. The decision should be recorded, together with reasons, on the review document and child's record.
There may be exceptional circumstances where the child's social worker, in consultation with the IRO decides that the attendance of the carer at all or part of the review meeting volition not be advisable or practicable. Where this is the instance, a written explanation of the reasons should be given and other arrangements made for the carer to contribute to the review process. Details of the reasons why a carer is excluded and a record of their input should be placed on the kid's case record.
Where any other invited person cannot attend, the IRO may concur that a delegate nourish instead.
The child'south social worker must hash out the purpose of the review with the child, parents and carers and consult the kid about invitations at least 20 working days earlier the review coming together.
Where the child wishes to chair their own review, the social worker should inform the IRO.
In all cases, the child, parent(south) and person(s) with parental responsibility should be encouraged and supported by the social worker to set for the review in writing or other means if they wish. For example past arranging to see the IRO separately. The social worker should concord with the IRO how this will exist achieved. This requires early consultation between the social worker and the IRO and should be part of a thorough preparation of all the cardinal problems for the review.
The child'due south social worker must also ensure the child'due south IRO is kept informed of any significant changes in the kid's circumstances and the outcomes of whatever other meetings held as part of the review process, which consider aspects of the child's Care Plan. In addition, the social worker must notify the IRO if they believe that decisions made at a review are no longer advisable because of a change in circumstances.
Where the child has been or is the bailiwick of court proceedings, the social worker should ensure the IRO has articulate information of the child's legal condition and the court timetable.
Prior to the review, the social worker must ensure the child's records and plans are upward to date, for case, that they include records of the placement visits and the concluding date when the kid's sleeping accommodation was seen. Any changes in household membership demand to be clearly recorded.
The social worker must complete the post-obit documents three working days earlier an Initial Review and 5 working days before a subsequent review:
- Child / Young Person'southward Review Pre-Meeting Study;
- Care Plan or Pathway Program.
Copies of these documents should be provided by the social worker for all review participants.
In addition, the kid's social worker should provide the following documents to the IRO:
- All completed consultation documents (the social worker is responsible for sending these to the carers and family members equally appropriate and completing them in person with the kid);
- Health Care Plan;
- Personal Education Plan;
- Whatever other relevant reports by professionals.
Information technology is non necessary to re-create these for all participants. The IRO may have a pre-meeting with the social worker to review the relevant aspects of the Health Action Plan and Personal Teaching Programme. The IRO volition then summarise these documents during the review and provide data about the discussion with the social worker as advisable.
After the review, the social worker is responsible for updating the Care Plan inside 10 working days, in relation to any changes to the Care Program agreed at the review.
The social worker should likewise update the Permanence Program, Health Intendance Programme and Personal Educational activity Program as required, and suit for a Pathway Programme to be completed/updated, if relevant.
The social worker should also ensure that the child's Placement Plan (recorded on the Placement Data Tape) is updated.
Where the child, parent(south) or person(s) with parental responsibility are unable to attend the review, the social worker must ensure that they are informed in writing of the outcome.
See besides Appointment and Role of Independent Reviewing Officers Procedure, Duty of Social Worker to Keep IRO Informed.
7. Supporters and Interpreters
The social worker and IRO should consider prior to the review whether either the child, parent(s) or person(s) with parental responsibleness would do good from the presence of a supporter or advocate. If and so the social worker should ensure the necessary arrangements are made. A supporter may be either an advocate on behalf of the kid/parent(s)/person(s) with parental responsibleness or a person with specialist skills or knowledge.
Information technology may as well be necessary for the social worker to make arrangements for an interpreter to attend. Special needs, for instance those arising from disability, should e'er be considered and appropriate adjustments arranged where relevant.
Whatsoever request by the kid, parent(s) or person(s) with parental responsibility for their legal adviser to attend as their supporter should exist notified to the IRO prior to the review and arrangements fabricated where appropriate for the attendance at the review of a local authority legal adviser.
8. Independent Reviewing Officer'southward Responsibilities
The IROs role is to chair Reviews and monitor the appropriateness of the Care Plan (on an ongoing basis including whether any safeguarding issues arise), its implementation and to found whether the milestones prepare out in the plan are being achieved in a timely way.
Come across also: Appointment and Office of Independent Reviewing Officers Procedure, which sets out in detail the role of the IRO outside the Review.
In relation to their role at reviews, a key task for all IROs is to ensure that the review process is child centred and that the child and family'due south views are heard. They should be satisfied that contributions made by children with disabilities are obtained and effectively presented in the review.
The IRO should consult the child about their Care Plan at each review and at any time that at that place is a significant change to the Care Plan. The IRO should, where possible, meet the child before the get-go Review and adapt to meet the child as advisable in advance of subsequent Children in our Care Reviews.
The IRO must be satisfied that the wishes and feelings of the child's parents, any person who is not a parent only who has parental responsibility and the current carer (foster carer or registered person in respect of a children's home) have been taken into account as part of the review process.
Wherever possible, the child should be encouraged to chair the meeting and in these circumstances the IRO will aid the child. In all other cases, the IRO will chair the review - see Section 3, Chairing of Reviews.
More than one coming together may be required to ensure the views of relevant people inform the review without the meeting condign too large. For instance it may be appropriate to hold a meeting involving the kid prior to a meeting involving the parent to obtain information and ascertain the views of both, where the child does not wish to attend a review with their parents present.
The IRO is responsible for ensuring that all relevant people, including the kid, parents and person(s) with parental responsibility, sympathize the purpose of the review and have been given advisable opportunities to contribute and express their views. The IRO should also ensure that relevant consultation has taken place with those professionals who are non in omnipresence at the meeting.
Where participants' views are not followed, an explanation of the reasons why needs to be provided past the IRO and/or the social worker. Any differences of stance should be recorded in the minutes.
If the parent(s), person(southward) with parental responsibleness or the child brings a supporter, the IRO volition need to explain their role, ensuring that the supporter understands that they may clarify information but may not cross-examine any contributor.
The agenda for each review will be agreed at the beginning of the coming together and each participant volition exist invited to contribute their ain items to the agenda and accept the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
The IRO will make up one's mind on what actions in principle are necessary to meet the child'south reviewed needs and make decisions as to how these should be accomplished.
Where a review considers that adoption or long term fostering is the well-nigh appropriate manner to meet the child's needs, the recommendation is so submitted to the Adoption Panel for consideration - come across Placement for Adoption Process.
The IRO may curb a review meeting once, for not more than 20 working days, if they are non satisfied that sufficient information has been provided by the Local Dominance to enable proper consideration of whatsoever of the factors to be considered.
The IRO should consider the effects on the kid of delaying the meeting, and seek the wishes and feelings of the child, carer, parents or person(s) with parental responsibleness where advisable.
No proposal under consideration at the adjourned review can be implemented until the review has been completed.
Information technology will be necessary for the IRO to ensure decisions are articulate and institute who is responsible for each activeness and the timescales agreed for completion. The IRO should ensure that the following are considered and deemed for during the review:
- The effect of any alter in the child'due south circumstances since the final review, any change made to the Intendance Plan, whether decisions taken at the last review have been successfully implemented and if non the reasons why;
- Whether whatsoever change should exist sought in the child'southward legal status;
- Whether in that location is a plan for permanence;
- Arrangements for contact and whether there is any need for changes to the arrangements in order to promote contact between the child and parents/other connected persons;
- Whether the placement continues to be the most appropriate available, whether any modify to the placement agreement or any other aspect of the arrangements is likely to become necessary before the next review;
- Whether the placement safeguards and promotes the child's welfare, and whether any safeguarding concerns have been raised;
- The child's educational needs, progress and development and whether any change is likely to go necessary or desirable before the next review, including consideration of their most contempo assessment of progress and evolution; whether the arrangements are meeting the child's educational needs; whether the kid has a Personal Instruction Plan (PEP) and whether its content provides a clear framework for promoting educational achievement;
- The child's leisure interests and activities and whether the arrangements are meeting their needs;
- The child's health written report, and whether whatsoever modify in health care arrangements is likely to exist necessary or desirable before the next review; whether the content of the Health Plan provides a clear framework for promoting the child's wellness; whether the arrangements are coming together the child'south health needs;
- Whether the child's needs related to identity are being met and whether any change is required having regard to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural groundwork;
- Whether the arrangements for advice, support and assistance continue to be appropriate and understood past the kid;
- Whether any arrangements need to be made for the time when the child will no longer be looked after;
- The child's wishes and feelings and the views of the IRO about any aspect of the case and in particular near any changes made since the last review or proposed to be made to the Care Programme; whether the plan fulfils the duty to safeguard and promote the kid'southward welfare and whether it would exist in the child's interests for an Independent Visitor to be appointed;
- Where the child is placed with parents before an assessment is completed, the frequency of the social worker's visits;
- Whether the delegation of dominance to take decisions most a child's care continues to be appropriate and in the child's best interests;
- Other matters which may arise should also be considered with due regard to the circumstances of the child and the placement.
After the review, the IRO will record the style in which the child participated in the review, together with the event and the appointment for the next review.
Where there is evidence of poor exercise, the IRO will consider what activity is needed to bring this to the attention of the relevant and advisable managers - run into Section fourteen, Monitoring of Review Decisions.
It is besides the IRO responsibility to focus on problem resolution - see Section 15, Problem Resolution and Management Alert.
nine. The Role of the Review in Achieving Permanence for the Kid
The Independent Reviewing Officeholder (IRO) must check that the kid's Care Plan includes a Permanence Programme with measurable milestones and a contingency plan should the preferred plans not materialise.
At the 2d Review, there is a requirement to focus on the Permanence Plan, to ensure information technology provides permanence for the kid within a timescale which is realistic, achievable and meets the child'due south needs.
If information technology is considered that the called avenue to permanence is not viable, the IRO should ensure that the social worker arranges, every bit a matter of urgency, to consider the most appropriate permanent alternative.
At the third Review at that place volition be a need for a Twin Track Programme to exist made where a Permanence Programme has not been achieved. For example where a programme for rehabilitation of the child has not been achieved, the Review should seek to establish whether the lack of progress is as a result of drift or whether at that place are valid child centred reasons, properly recorded and endorsed by the social worker's manager. No further rehabilitation programme should be recommended unless there are exceptional reasons justifying such a programme or where further assessment is specifically directed by the Court. In this case, the Twin Track Plan must include the active pursuit of an culling placement for the kid.
All subsequent Reviews should review the progress and validity of the Permanence Plan.
x. Reviews Concerning Children in Long Term Foster Placements
Paragraph four.17 of The Children Deed 1989 Guidance and Regulations - Volume 2: Intendance Planning, Placement and Case Review sets out that where a child is placed in a designated long-term foster placement and has been in this placement for more than a year, consideration should exist given to whether it is necessary to concur a coming together as part of each review.
The guidance requires that the social worker should consult with the IRO and the child (where appropriate to historic period and agreement) in reaching a decision nigh holding a meeting. The consultation, information gathering and review process volition continue on a six monthly bike. In circumstances where information technology is agreed that a meeting volition non be held equally part of every review, a meeting should be held at least once a year. The factors leading to the determination to hold review meetings on a less frequent basis should be recorded in the child'southward Care Programme.
Where a determination is taken that the review process volition not include a meeting the IRO must ensure that full consultation with all relevant individuals, including the child, has taken place to inform the review of the child's case.
11. Reviews on Children who are the Subject of Kid Protection Plans
Where a 'Looked After' Kid remains the bailiwick of a Kid Protection Plan, there should be a single planning and reviewing process, led by the IRO, leading to the development of a single program.
For children who take dual status once it is accounted that the Child Protection Programme is no longer required, e.g. an Interim Intendance Social club has been granted, then the IRO should commence the End CP Plan past Post process. All agencies are notified that the CP Program will cease after 15 working days if no objections are received. If no objections are received the plan is ceased on mean solar day sixteen.
If the next Review Child Protection Conference is scheduled inside the next 15 working days the allocated IRO should chair the Child Protection Briefing and consider whether discontinuation of the Child Protection Plan is appropriate. Alternatively the IRO may contact all conference attendees by telephone to seek their views regarding ceasing the plan.
The timing of the review of the child protection aspects of the Care Plan should exist as in Section two, Frequency of Children in our Care Reviews.
When reviewing the child protection aspects of the plan, those nowadays should consider whether the criteria go on to be met for the child to remain the subject area of a Child Protection Plan.
Consideration must be given to ensuring that the multi-agency contribution to the review of the Child Protection Plan is addressed within the review of the Care Plan.
12. Recording of Reviews
It is the responsibility of the Contained Reviewing Officeholder (IRO) to record the review. A written record of the decisions will be completed and circulated by the IRO to all participants within 5 working days of the meeting. This should as well be sent to the Children's Social Care Manager who will consider the decisions fabricated at the review - see Section xiii, Review Decisions.
The full written tape of the review will be completed inside xv working days of the review. The full tape should comprise an authentic and comprehensive record of the coming together, or meetings, which constituted the review and of the views of all those who attended or were consulted as office of the review process. The record should too reverberate the review process for a designated long term foster placement where a meeting did non take place. Children's Social Care example support will send copies out to all relevant parties who take provided their total name and address on the omnipresence sheet inside 20 working days of the completion of the review.
The decisions should have any identifying details removed as necessary, for example, exceptionally, the accost of the placement.
Where parents or persons with parental responsibility do non nourish the review/part of the meeting and contribute their views in another mode, a discussion should take place between the social worker and the IRO as to whether information technology is in the child's interest for the parents to receive a full record of the review and if not, what written data should be sent to them. Examples of where this should be a consideration are where in that location is a 'no contact order' or supervised contact but.
thirteen. Review Decisions
A Children's Social Care Managing director should consider the decisions made at each Children in our Care Review within 5 working days of receiving them and to suggest the IRO and all those who attended the review if they are unable to concord them.
If no response is received the decisions should be considered agreed by the local say-so and should be implemented within the proposed timescales.
If the Children'due south Social Intendance Manager disagrees with whatever of the decisions within that initial v working day menstruum, this should be notified in writing to the IRO and all those who attended the review.
In the first instance the IRO should attempt to resolve the outcome informally. If this is non successful the IRO can consider activating the formal problem resolution process - see Department 15, Trouble Resolution and Direction Alarm.
14. Monitoring of Review Decisions
The Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) plays an important function in the quality assurance function of the local authority's Children in our Intendance Service, it will be important that they recognise and report on good practice past individuals or teams.
It is important for the IRO to accept a collaborative relationship with the social workers and their managers.
Where there is evidence of poor practice the IRO should, wherever practicable, address these bug through the normal channels, contacting the social worker'southward manager and where necessary their Quality and Review Manager.
15. Problem Resolution and Management Alert
In line with the IRO Handbook (DfE, 2010), where the IRO believes that the local authority has failed in any meaning respect towards the child, for example in relation to intendance planning, the implementation of the intendance plan or review decisions relating to it, resources or poor practise; the IRO has a duty to challenge and resolve the identified bug. In these circumstances the post-obit procedure volition apply:
- Informal resolution will exist initiated by the IRO and sent via LCS forms to the relevant manager in Children'due south Social Care with an appropriate timescale for completion;
- If no resolution is reached at this stage or if the IRO deems the matter more serious, a formal problem resolution should be initiated to the relevant Children's Social Intendance Manager with an advisable timescale fix. The Problem Resolution will be escalated through the management structure until resolution is achieved;
- If there is withal no resolution, the matter should exist brought to the attending of the Manager of Children'south Services.
The IRO has the authorization to refer the case to CAFCASS at any point during this process where they consider it appropriate to exercise and so and must consider a referral to CAFCASS where, having drawn any failures as set out above to the attention of persons of appropriate seniority in the local authority, the problems have not been addressed to their satisfaction within a reasonable menstruum of time. The relevant managing director should record a response via forms or Problem Resolution meeting to be arranged if felt appropriate. The IRO will resolve the procedure via forms in one case a satisfactory issue has been met.
If the IRO becomes aware of compliance issues in relation to a child's instance, for example whilst undertaking preparation for a child'southward review or undertaking case monitoring the IRO will initiate an IRO Management Alert to alert the relevant managing director inside Children's Social Care. The Children's Social Care manager is and then responsible in ensuring that the outstanding compliance issue is completed in a timely manner.
Run into Lancashire's Trouble Resolution Procedure.
buttrosemancitagage.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.proceduresonline.com/lancashirecsc/p_look_aft_rev.html
0 Response to "Preparartory Reviewing for a Social Worker Child Case"
Post a Comment