Page 1 of 1

Another Major Breakthrough??

Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:07 am
by confusedinfrance
Having received an e-mail containing a FRG newsletter, my attention was drawn to an article concerning Tower Hamlets and a decision that their payments discriminated against related foster carers. Is this the same as the Grandmother X case against KCC, or are there further implications in this particular case.

Re: Another Major Breakthrough??

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:01 pm
by David Roth
The judgment held that it was unlawful for the local authority to have a policy of never paying enhanced fostering allowance payments to family and friends foster carers. It does not state that all family and friends carers should be paid an enhancement. However, if they are foster carers, and if there are grounds which would lead to unrelated foster carers being paid an enhancement (e.g. if the children are disabled), then they should be paid the enhancement in the same way.

The judgment was upheld because of a clause in the family and friends care statutory guidance, which stated that family and friends carers should be paid the same level of fostering allowance, and have the same entitlement to enhancements, that unrelated foster carers have.

Re: Another Major Breakthrough??

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:37 am
by confusedinfrance
I've copied below an extract from the Ridley and Hall website concerning this case, as interpreted by them as to the conclusion of this matter.

"The High Court heard the case in February 2013. The judgment was given on 8th March 2013 that found the council’s policies were unlawful because they discriminated against family and friends carers as they were not eligible to be paid the fee/reward part of the fostering allowance."

There seems to be a slight difference between the interpretation, or perhaps I am mistaken, does enhanced payments, mean the same as the fee/reward element. I would presume that enhanced payments would be applied when there are exceptional circumstances, such as this lady is encountering, which call for extra funding to be made available, as and where necessary. Surely the fee/reward element is just that, an ongoing financial incentive, irrespective of special circumstances, for unrelated carers to participate in the care of children, and if it is paid to non related carers then it must be discriminatory not to pay it to related carers.