1.5.2 Croydon's Dispute Resolution Protocol

AMENDMENT

This chapter was reviewed and updated in March 2011.

This chapter was further amended in July 2011 to reflect the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations, 2010 and the IRO Handbook. The previous legislative references have been removed and Stage 6 of the process (Referral to CAFCASS) has been amended to reflect that the IRO must consider making a referral to CAFCASS where issues have not been addressed to his/her satisfaction within a reasonable period of time.

Introduction
Roles and Responsibilities of the IRO
Roles and Responsibilities of the Local Authority
Involvement of Children, Young People and Parents
Dispute Resolution
The Children's Quality Assurance and Safeguarding Service

Appendix A: Examples of Cases/Issues Requiring Resolution

Appendix B: Croydon CQASS Dispute Resolution Flowchart

Appendix C: CQASS Practice Alert Form

Appendix D: DRP Management Alert Forms - Stages 2 - 6

1. Introduction

This protocol relates to the responsibilities of Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) and the Local Authority (CQASS) within the Adoption & Children Act 2002 legislation and subsequent statutory guidance regarding the looked after children (LAC) review process and dispute resolution.

This protocol also relates to children and young people who are subject to a Child Protection Plan.

2. Roles and Responsibilities of the IRO

The statutory duties of IRO's require them to monitor the review of arrangements so that the plan for a child continues to be appropriate and responsive to the individual needs of a child in the Authority's care, or subject to a Child Protection Plan.

The IRO is responsible for ensuring that the wishes and feelings as well as the rights of the child and other relevant parties (i.e. parents) are being raised and considered throughout the review process.

The IRO is accountable for ensuring that a child's LAC review takes place within the statutory timescales and makes recommendations that it puts to the relevant decision maker within the responsible authority for decision. The responsibility for the Care Plan/protection plan lies with the chair.

Where problems in care planning are identified through the review process (refer to Appendix A: Examples of Cases/Issues Requiring Resolution), and in order to support their satisfactory resolution, the accountable IRO will need to be able to communicate directly with a manager who has the necessary level of seniority to seek resolution.

The IRO is responsible for determining the timescale in which identified problems should be resolved .

If the IRO takes the view that a failure to achieve timely problem resolution might constitute a breach of the child's human rights, and that this matter has not been resolved through the appropriate channels within the Local Authority, then they can, after discussion with their immediate line manager, refer this matter to CAFCASS.

With regards to children subject to a child protection plan, the work is governed by the London Child Protection Procedures which set out how agencies and individuals should work together to safeguard and protect the welfare of children. The procedures incorporate the Government guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (DfES 2010) which reflects the Government's Every Child Matters: Change for Children programme.

3. Roles and Responsibilities of the Local Authority

Local Authority decision-making in relation to children's care planning should be clear and transparent in order to confirm how a child's needs will be met. The Local Authority must follow a clear process to make decisions in a timeframe appropriate to the child's needs.

Social workers need to ensure that a completed Review of Arrangements report is completed in ICS three days in advance of the scheduled meeting. LAC Care Plans, Pathway Plans and any other significant documents should also be forwarded to the IRO three days in advance of the LAC review meeting and that these documents evidence the decision making process.

For Child protection conferences this also requires the conference report to be completed and sent five days in advance of the meeting planned.

There are strict timescales for the production of minutes from LAC reviews and conferences.

The Social Worker should be in receipt of the Chairs/IRO report in ICS for the LAC review within 22 working days.

The Social Worker should be in receipt of the full report for Child protection conferences within 15 working days.

Decision sheets completed by IRO's after a child protection conference must be completed and distributed within 24 hours. (A Croydon Policy and procedure)

Social workers and their managers are responsible for notifying the IRO/CQASS about any significant changes to the child's Care Plan or placement (in order for the IRO to decide whether they need to re-schedule a LAC review or conference.

These changes include;

Court Orders and outcomes from Directions hearings
Serious accidents
Complaints from or on behalf of the child, parent or carer
Arrests, bail and convictions
Unexpected changes in children's placement provision which may significantly impact on placement stability
Unexpected changes in family circumstances of the child including births and deaths
Any period of more than three days missing from care
Any period of exclusion from school of more than five days
Outcomes of Health Assessments/Adoption medicals/consultations which confirm any serious undiagnosed/unknown condition
Outcomes from Adoption or Fostering panels

Additionally, social workers and their managers need to inform the IRO/CQASS when a decision is made not to implement significant recommendations made during a LAC review or conference and give reasons for this in writing.

Where problems in care planning are identified through the review or conference process (refer to Appendix A: Examples of Cases/Issues Requiring Resolution) and the IRO has triggered a Practice alert through the dispute resolution protocol, it is the responsibility of the senior manager to respond to the alert in writing within the timescale determined by the IRO (usually 10 working days).

4. Involvement of Children, Young People and Parents

The Local Authority has a duty to ensure that the child and other significant persons (parents and carers) are informed in a timely way of the decision not to implement review and conference recommendations.

In the event that any issue(s) require problem resolution the IRO must also ensure the child understands that, aside from the IRO's planned actions to seek resolution on the issue(s), the child is entitled to access independent advocacy and to make use of the Council's complaints process to pursue resolution themselves.

5. Dispute Resolution

Where the IRO has identified significant issue(s) during/or outside of a LAC review meeting or conference, the IRO will consult with their own line manager before initiating a practice alert to the responsible Social Worker and Team Leader to notify them of their concerns.

The Team Leader has lead responsibility for responding to the alert in writing within 10 working days.

In the event that no response is forwarded within this timeframe or the IRO considers the response to be unsatisfactory the IRO may proceed into the management alert process with the stages outlined in Appendix B: Croydon CQASS Dispute Resolution Flowchart.

At all stages the IRO must consult with their immediate line manager before progressing to the next stage.

The Dispute Resolution process;

Social Worker and Team leader - Practice Alert (Stage 1)
Operational Manager (Stage 2)
Service Manager (Stage 3)
Principal Social Worker, Development & Care (Stage 4)
Executive Director and CEO (Stage 5)
CAFCASS (Stage 6)

In the event that the issue(s) remain unresolved through the staged management alert process, the IRO will consider whether to refer the matter to CAFCASS under Section 118 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002 (Stage 6) after discussion and authorisation from their line manager

Stage 3 will have required the IRO to exhaust stages 1&2. Stages 3-5 will involve an independently minuted meeting chaired by the manager who has received the alert, and involve all key personnel including the CQASS Operational Manager.

The IRO will not attend stage 3-5 meetings but is required to provide a statement of what is required to suspend further action and progressing the matter to a further level of management.

In exceptional cases where there is serious concern for the welfare of a child, the CQASS managers may implement Stage 3 of the alert process without going through stages 1-2 to ensure that the best interests of the child are safeguarded. A serious concern may also prompt a Strategy Meeting discussion/ Section 47 investigation if the child is deemed to be at risk.

At any stage of the resolution process it may be prudent for the IRO to concurrently discuss the option of a referral to CAFCASS with their line manager, if the Local Authority is refusing to implement the review recommendation(s), which may lead to a breach of the child's human rights. The IRO must make a referral to CAFCASS where issues have not been addressed to his/her satisfaction within a reasonable period of time.

The IRO guidance states that the dispute resolution IRO process should allow for no action prejudicial to the child (e.g. change of placement or de-accommodation) to be taken until a resolution has been reached. Depending on the outcome of this, it may be necessary to reconvene the child's LAC review or conference to confirm any agreed changes to the Care Plan.

6. The Children's Quality Assurance and Safeguarding Service

The Local Authority should ensure that copies of management alerts and resolutions are placed on the child's LAC case file for recording purposes.

IRO's will save a copy of all alerts on their electronic case file records in order to document and track issues requiring IRO follow-up.

Additionally copies of all alerts and written resolutions will be forwarded to the Operational Managers and designated business support staff in the CQASS for monitoring purposes.

The CQASS will complete an annual report to inform senior management of the themes, issue(s) and accountability of the IRO's and the Local Authority concerning care planning and dispute resolution.

Appendix A: Examples of Cases/Issues Requiring Resolution

1.	Unreasonable failure by the Local Authority to meet the statutory requirements for the LA child i.e. Non-allocation of a social worker. Responsibility of Case Manager Children not being visited regularly and/or seen alone in their placement by the social worker. Responsibility of SW and Manager. It is also the responsibility of the chair to formally challenge poor practice in the review.
2.	Care Plan /Pathway Plan implementation: No clear Care Plan in place. Responsibility of Chair Drift/delay in the implementation of the child's care/child IRO protection plan. Responsibility of Social Worker and Line Manager Care Plan not meeting the individual needs of the child. Responsibility of Chair Failure to implement a significant element of the child's Care Plan. Responsibility of Social Worker and Manager Failure to notify the CQASS/ IRO of significant changes in the child's Care Plan such as: Responsibility of Social Worker and Manager decision to change the child's Care Plan. decision to change the child's placement. decision (with reasons) not to implement significant recommendations made by the IRO at the child's review. decision to return a child home who was previously the subject of a Child Protection Plan
3.	Dispute around the provision of services/resources: Concern about whether appropriate resources have been allocated to meet the child's individual needs. Concern around the suitability of the placement. Concern around professional practice.
4.	Additional issues regarding the safeguarding and protection of the child. Concern around a known offender living in the family home.