Fostering fees & allowance

[Chris50]

I am a grandparent who has been approved as a foster carer for our granddaughter who is looked after by RBK&C.
I have the boroughs policies stating financial support for foster carers.
I receive the foster allowance but not the foster fee which is

"a weekly fee paid to each carer to recognise the skills they have and the work they do. Foster carers receive this in addition to the allowance paid for each child placed with them"

I cannot believe that they actually have written this on paper it is insulting to suggest that as a kinship carer I do not get the fee because I don't have the skills or do the same good job as FOSTER CARERS.......

AS KINSHIP CARERS UNLESS WE ALL CHALLENGE THIS BY MAKING OUR VOICES HEARD IT WILL NEVER CHANGE

[David Roth]

Hi Chris, and welcome to the Family Rights Group discussion forum.

You are absolutely right that many local authorities do differentiate between family and friends foster carers and other (unrelated) foster carers when it comes to paying allowances. The Manchester judgment (2001) states that local authorities should not discriminate against family and friends carers when they are paying fostering allowances. Some local authorities get around this by paying all carers the same basic allowance, but providing additional extras for unrelated carers that they don't pay to family and friends foster carers.

The statutory guidance for local authorities on family and friends care repeats the message that there should not be discrimination against family and friends carers, and that while extra payments should not be automatic, family and friends carers should be eligible to receive them on the same basis as any other foster carer. This is what para. 4.50 of the statutory guidance states:

A judicial review of Manchester City Council’s policy on payments of allowances to family and friends foster carers in 2001 (the Manchester City Council judgment) came about because foster carers who were relatives of the children they were caring for were paid significantly less allowance than non-relative carers. The court held it was unlawful to discriminate against family and friends carers by paying them a lower allowance than non-relative foster carers. There is no requirement to pay a fee to reward a carer’s time, skills, commitment, etc in addition to the allowance. Where a fee is paid, it must be payable to those foster carers who meet the criteria set out for the scheme, including foster carers who are family or friends.

Chris, if you are challenging your local authority's policy, then please do let us know how you get on, as this is an issue for many family and friends foster carers.

[Yellis214]

Hi I have had an horrendous time! I am still in dispute with my borough! I have looked after a child for 3 years he is now 16.. I am still not sure I am getting what a foster Carer should get and feel as though I'm getting fobbed off as some people say I should be getting more support in every way, I have recently been told that I should get a reduction on my council tax can anyone confirm this.

[David Roth]

Any family and friends carers who are approved as foster carers for the child or children they are raising, and are being told they are not eligible to receive additional fees and allowances that are paid to non-related carers, will be interested in a recent judgment against Tower Hamlets.

This case basically upheld the statutory guidance, which I quoted above: family and friends carers shold be eligible to receive fees and allowances on the same basis as all other foster carers. For a local authority to have a policy which excludes family and friends carers from ever receiving these additional elements of the fostering allowance is unlawful. In the case referred to, the carer took on three children who had disabilities and special needs, and if she was a non-related carer she would have received a higher rate of allowance because of this.

Incidentally, this is the first line of the judgment: "The claimant in this case is one of the unsung heroines of our society." If interested, you can read the full judgment here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/480.html