Children who are Subject to a Child Protection Plan who become Looked After

It is the policy of Doncaster Safeguarding Children Partnership that when a child who is subject to a Child Protection Plan becomes Looked After, these dual status arrangements should be for the minimum possible period of time necessary consistent with preventing Significant Harm.

Where children are Looked After and subject to a Child Protection Plan, this can be confusing and difficult for children and their families to understand. The interaction of such processes can create practical difficulties of co-ordination and resource provision for professionals. Good planning is therefore important to ensure that only those processes that are of immediate significance to the plans for the child are in operation at any one time.

A robust plan, with contingency arrangements including referral back to the appropriate system if necessary, will be the best method of protecting a child.

In most cases where a child who is the subject of a Child Protection Plan becomes looked after it will no longer be necessary to maintain the child protection plan. There are however a relatively few cases where safeguarding issues will remain and a Child in Care should also have a child protection plan. These cases are likely to be where Children’s Services obtains an Interim Care Order in family proceedings but the child or young person who is the subject of a child protection plan remains at home, pending the outcome of the final hearing or where a young person’s behaviour is likely to result in significant harm to themselves or others.

Where a Child in Care remains the subject of a Child Protection Plan it is expected that there will be a single planning and reviewing process, led by the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO). Given that a review is a process and not a single meeting, both reviewing systems should be aligned to enable the full range of the child’s or young person’s needs to be considered in the child’s care planning and reviewing processes.

For children living in the care of the Children's Services, on either a voluntary basis (accommodated under Section 20) or under a court order (subject to a Care Order under Section 31), there are two multi-agency processes that allow for the care planning and promotion of welfare for these children.

The processes are:

• The Child Protection Process (CP); or
• Child in Care Process.

The child protection process has been established to ensure the safety and welfare of the most vulnerable children and young people considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.

Within the Child in Care process all aspects of a child’s needs are regularly reviewed and provisions made to meet these needs, including the safety and protection of the child.

Both these processes establish multi-agency protection/Care Plans with clear expectations of better outcomes for the child.

Good practice would indicate that children who are Looked After should not also need to be subject to a Child Protection Plan. The care planning process should adequately safeguard the welfare of the child and Children’s Services have a duty to ensure that any child placed in it’s care does not suffer Significant Harm.

However, this does not preclude a Child in Care from the Child Protection Process and there will be exceptional circumstances where a Child in Care may also need to be subject to a Child Protection Plan.

Children who could be subject to this dual status could include:

• Those children who are accommodated under Section 20 but where the plan is for them to return home within a short, given timescale;
• Children who are subject to Care proceedings, but who remain cared for by their families;

The Process for decision making and planning for children on Child Protection Plans is to be managed through a single system following becoming Looked After.

Within 48 hours of a child becoming Looked After the social worker as standard must notify the Independent Reviewing Officer’s Business Support team. They must also alert the Business Support worker that the child is subject to a Child Protection Plan. The Business Support worker will need to make sure they ask the question as to whether the child is subject to a CP Plan.

On allocating to an IRO the Business Support worker will ensure the IRO is informed that the child is subject to a child protection plan. This will enable the IRO to discuss and liaise with the Chair of the Initial or Review Conference. Discussion will take place between the two professionals regarding:

• Background information which will inform the first Looked After Review discussion around the decision whether to discontinue the Child Protection Plan. The IRO can request a copy of the CP plan and previous Conference minutes at this stage to inform decision making at the 1st Looked After Review;
• Timetabling the first Looked After Review and consideration of whether the Review CP Conference is so near to the Looked After Review that it would be appropriate to hold the CP conference and consider ending the Child Protection Plan. If this is the case any safeguarding issues will be taken up through the Looked After Review system from the next Looked After Review rather than the first and the decision re dual status or discontinuing the Child Protection Plan will be made at the CP Conference instead;
• Whether the CP Chair needs to attend the first Looked After Review or the IRO needs to attend the CP Conference should one still be held due to the proximity of both meetings;
• The decision regarding whether to cancel a Child Protection Conference will need to be considered. This will be particularly necessary if the Looked After Review date is likely to be close to and before the date set for the CP conference. This may preclude the need for a CP conference to be required for the majority of cases. This decision rests with the Chair of the Conference in agreement with a unit manager. Such a decision will be affected by the ability to keep to the 10 day rule for sending out letters. If this cannot be adhered to the CP Conference will need to be held.

Where the decision whether or not to end the Child Protection Plan is to be considered at the first Looked After Review, at least 10 days before the date of the review, a standard letter will be sent to all agency representatives who attended the Initial Child protection Conference or to all members of the Core Group. This will highlight the intention to consider ending the plan at the first Looked After review and will enable the professional to feed their professional judgement into the Looked After Review process re whether this is in the best interest of the child. The Business Support Worker will liaise with the Chair of the CP Conference who is responsible for the decision as to who will be sent a letter informing professionals about the intention to consider de planning at the Looked After Review.

At the first Looked After Review, as part of the discussion about changes to the Care Plan, the IRO will ensure a full discussion takes place from which a decision will be made to either discontinue the Child Protection Plan or, if the likelihood of significant harm remains, such that ending the plan is not in the best interest of the child.

If the decision is reached at the first review to discontinue the plan this will be shared with the Chair of the CP Conference.

If it was agreed that the appropriate course of action is to for the child to remain subject to a CP Plan, then the child will have dual status. For these children the situation may well then continue until the second Looked After Review at the 4 month stage. By this time court proceedings may be clearer, stability for the child reached and involvement of the parents and or family members a clearer part of the plan for the child. This is likely to mean that at this stage ending the Child Protection Plan is an appropriate course of action. For most children remaining on a CP plan would at this stage not be necessary. It is unlikely and only in very exceptional circumstances that a child would need to be part of a CP plan beyond the second review at the latest.

If the child remains subject to a CP plan beyond the second review, a single system for review will need to be implemented. This will mean that the IRO will be expected to Chair the next CP Conference to ensure planning remains under one process. This process fits in with the guidance in the IRO Handbook: and Care Planning Regulations 2010.

If the child is to remain on a CP plan beyond the first Looked After Review review a further discussion must take place between the IRO and Conference Chair to consider the on-going de-planning process and whether or not to hold any already scheduled Child Protection Conference planned within that period.

Following a decision made at a Looked After Review that a child previously subject to a CP Plan has been de-planned at the review, all agencies who were represented at the Initial CP Conference or Core Group must be informed by standard letter for each child.

At each Looked After Review where de-planning may be considered a standard letter will go out 10 days before the review to each agency to inform them of the intention to again consider de planning at the next review. Agencies will be asked to give their view at each stage of the process i.e. first review: second review and third review in exceptional circumstances. For most children such a letter will be likely to only need to be sent out prior to the first review as de-planning is likely to occur at that review. Returned responses will be returned directly to the IRO for consideration at the relevant Looked After Review.

At each Looked After review the decision whether to de plan or not will be recorded on the Chairs Report and will be e mailed to the Business Support Manager who will ensure that the electronic record is updated and paper records for both systems are joined together.

The IRO must record on the child’s electronic record in Observations relating to the decision re CP status made at each review.

There will be regular liaison between the CP and IRO services until the decision to de-plan has been agreed.