Đang chuẩn bị liên kết để tải về tài liệu:
Ebook Social work law (4/E): Part 2

Part 1 book “Social work law” has contents: Looked after children, adoption, education, youth justice, adult social care, mental health, mental capacity, adult safeguarding, criminal justice, welfare and homelessness, asylum. | www.downloadslide.net Chapter 10 Looked after children Learning objectives To develop an understanding of the following: ● The term ‘looked after children’. ● The duties owed by local authorities towards looked after children. ● The duty to provide accommodation as an aspect of service provision. ● Outcomes for looked after children ● Local authority and private fostering. ● Residential accommodation and secure accommodation. ● The role of the independent visitor. ● Support for young people leaving care. www.downloadslide.net Chapter 10 Looked after children Talking Point The responsibilities of the Independent Reviewing Officer were considered in detail in A and S (Children) v. Lancashire County Council [2012] EWHC (Fam) 1689, a case which unfortunately demonstrates how the review process failed to protect the interests of two children, described as profoundly damaged by the care system. The Court found violations of the rights guaranteed by Articles 3, 6 and 8 and damages were awarded. Two brothers were freed for adoption as infants but no adoptive placement was ever found for them. By the time their case was heard by the High Court they were aged 16 and 14. Their care history comprised experience of multiple placements, 77 and 96 respectively. They suffered physical and sexual abuse in at least two placements and were described as becoming increasingly unsettled and disturbed. The boys had lost contact with their birth family despite requests for contact, no substitute permanent family was found and nobody held parental responsibility for them. Between 1999 and 2011, 35 Looked After Children Reviews were held for each boy. One Independent Reviewing Officer identified in the case had chaired 16 reviews and accepted that he had not carried out his monitoring role effectively in providing a safeguard for the boys. It was noted that he had at times a caseload which was three times good practice guidance and that he lacked training and .