Children in Care Reviews

A Children in Care Review must take place before any significant change is made to the child's Care Plan, unless that is not reasonably practicable, including a decision to cease looking after a child.

Children in Care Reviews should normally be conducted at a meeting although this may not be required in respect of a child who has been in a designated Long-term Foster Placement for over 12 months (see Section 10, Children in Care Reviews Concerning Children in Long Term Foster Placements).

The purpose of the Children in Care Review is to:

• Ensure that appropriate plans are in place to safeguard and promote the overall welfare of the Child in Care in the most effective way and achieve permanence for them within a timescale that meets their needs;
• To monitor the progress of the plans and ensure they are being progressed effectively;
• To make decisions, as necessary, for amendments to those plans to reflect any change in knowledge and/or circumstances;
• To ensure the needs of Children in Care as a result of a secure remand are met;
• To ensure that an Eligible Young Person moving into semi-independent accommodation is ready and prepared to move;
• For a young person living in foster care, the first Children in Care Review following their 16th birthday should consider whether a Staying Put arrangement (whereby the young person remains in the foster home after the age of 18) should be an option.

It is important that decisions taken at Children in Care Reviews are implemented and responsibility for actions clearly defined.

The key plans that should be considered at a Children in Care Review are:

• Care Plan;
• Permanence Plan;
• Health Care Plan;
• Pathway Plan if applicable;
• Personal Education Plan (PEP);

The review should also take account of the child's Placement Plan (recorded on the Placement Information Record) and any other plans or strategies (e.g. behaviour management strategy), ensuring that they are up to date, or that arrangements are in place to update them.

1. Normally, Children in Care Reviews should be convened at the following intervals

   • An initial Children in Care Review should be conducted within 20 working days of the child coming into care;

   • The second Children in Care Review should be conducted within 3 months (91 days) of an Initial Children in Care Review;

   • Subsequent Children in Care Reviews should be conducted not more than 6 months (183 days) after any previous review.

2. In relation to children placed with prospective adopters or where there is Authority to Place for Adoption, see the Adoption Reviews Procedure.

3. The IRM must be notified of any significant changes in the child's circumstances  and consider whether the Children in Care review should be held earlier than the scheduled date. Reviews should be brought forward by the IRM when the circumstances of an individual case mean significant changes to the child's Care Plan are needed or are being proposed.

   This could include the following circumstances:

   • A proposed change of care plan for example arising at short notice in the course of proceedings following directions from the court;
   • Where agreed decisions from the review are not carried out within the specified timescale;
   • Major change to the contact arrangements;
   • Changes of allocated social worker;
   • Any safeguarding concerns involving the child, which may lead to enquiries being made under section 47 of the 1989 Act ('child protection enquiries') and outcomes of child protection conferences, or other meetings that are not attended by the IRM;
   • Complaints from or on behalf of the child, parent or carer;
   • Unexpected changes in the child's placement provision which may significantly impact on placement stability or safeguarding arrangements;
   • Significant changes in birth family circumstances for example births, marriages or deaths which may have a particular impact on the child;
   • If the child is charged with any offence leading to referral to youth offending services, pending criminal proceedings and any convictions or sentences as a result of such proceedings;
   • If the child is excluded from school;
   • If the child has run away or is missing from an approved placement;
   • Significant health, medical events, diagnoses, illnesses, hospitalisations, or serious accidents; and panel decisions in relation to permanency.

   _{DfE Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations - Volume 2: Care Planning, Placement and Case Review.}

   This is not an exhaustive list and the IRM may judge that other events are significant and require an earlier review. The parents and child should also be consulted about the need for an additional review.

Independent Reviewing Managers (IRM's) will chair reviews. They are located within the Safeguarding Unit.

The IRM's responsibilities are outlined in Section 8, Independent Reviewing Manager's Responsibilities.

See also Appointment and Role of Independent Reviewing Managers Procedure.

If the allocated IRM cannot attend the meeting and it is important that the review meeting is not delayed, the meeting will be chaired/attended by a substitute IRM.

Discussion should take place between the social worker and the child (subject to age and understanding) at least 20 working days before the meeting about who the child would like to attend the meeting and where the meeting will be held.

Invitations to reviews will be sent by the Safeguarding Unit following consultation with the child's social worker and the IRM, who will decide who should be invited in consultation with the child. Invitations to reviews and consultation documents should be sent out to all those participating in the review at least 10 working days before the meeting.

The following people should normally be invited:

• The child. There is a presumption that the child will attend the review. A child's disability must not be a bar to the child's attendance;
• The parents and those with Parental Responsibility, carers and any significant people or specialists involved in the child's case, (except as set out below);
• The supervising social worker, if the child is placed with foster carers;
• The link worker if the child is in residential care;
• The most appropriate teacher at the child's school (usually the Designated Teacher for Children in Care);
• A Personal Adviser, if the child is over the age of 16;
• An Independent Visitor, if involved;
• If required, an interpreter;
• Any other person with a legitimate interest in the child e.g. health care professional, GP, a representative from the Local Authority in whose area it is proposed that the child will be placed; (Such attendance should always be discussed with the child before invitations are made and their views obtained);
• The officer with lead responsibility for implementing the authority's duty to promote the educational achievement of its Children in Care.

A balance must be struck in relation to who the child wishes to be present and the need for information and input from the professionals and family members involved. Efforts should be made to keep the number present at the review as small as possible. It may be appropriate for information to be provided in writing or at a separate meeting where the contribution is strictly factual.

Children and parents should also be informed that they can arrange to see the IRM separately if they wish or bring a supporter or interpreter to the review.

Where the child does not wish to attend the review, the IRM must at the very least speak to the child before the review - wherever possible in a face to face meeting.

The child's social worker must ensure that children and families have been given information about the Complaints Procedure. They should provide the child with details of independent advocacy services who may provide support if the child requires it.

See Section 7, Supporters and Interpreters.

A decision not to invite a child or parent(s) to a review should only be made in exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the IRM, prior to the review. The decision should be recorded, together with reasons, on the review document and child's record.

There may be exceptional circumstances where the child's social worker, in consultation with the IRM decides that the attendance of the carer at all or part of the review meeting will not be appropriate or practicable. Where this is the case, a written explanation of the reasons should be given and other arrangements made for the carer to contribute to the review process. Details of the reasons why a carer is excluded and a record of their input should be placed on the child's case record.

Where any other invited person cannot attend, the IRM may agree that a delegate attend instead.

The child's social worker must discuss the purpose of the review with the child, parents and carers and consult the child about invitations at least 20 working days before the review meeting.

Where the child wishes to chair their own review, the social worker should inform the IRM.

In all cases, the child and parent(s) should be encouraged and supported by the social worker to prepare for the review, in writing or other ways if they wish, for example by seeing the IRM separately. The social worker should agree with the IRM how this will be achieved. This requires early consultation between the social worker and the IRM, and should be part of a thorough preparation of all the key issues for the review.

The child's social worker must also ensure the child's IRM is kept informed of any significant changes in the child's circumstances and the outcomes of any other meetings held as part of the review process, which consider aspects of the child's Care Plan. In addition, the social worker must notify the IRM if they believe that decisions made at a review are no longer appropriate because of a change in circumstances.

Where the child has been or is the subject of Court proceedings, the social worker should ensure the IRM has clear information of the child's legal status and the Court timetable.

Prior to the review, the social worker must ensure the child's records and plans are up to date, for example, that they include records of the placement visits and the last date when the child's sleeping accommodation was seen. Any changes in household membership need to be clearly recorded.

The social worker must send the IRM the following documents 3 working days before an Initial Review and 5 working days before a subsequent review:

• Review of Arrangement Report;
• Care Plan or Pathway Plan;

Copies of these documents should be brought to the review by the social worker for all review participants.

In addition, the child's social worker should bring to the review the following documents for the IRM:

• All completed consultation documents (the social worker is responsible for sending these to the child, carers and family members as appropriate).
• Health Care Plan;
• Personal Education Plan;
• Any other relevant reports by professionals.

It is not necessary to copy these for all participants. The IRM may have a pre meeting with the social worker to review the relevant aspects of the Health Action Plan and Personal Education Plan. The IRM will then summarise these documents during the review and provide information about the discussion with the social worker as appropriate.

After the review, the social worker is responsible for updating the Care Plan within 10 working days, in relation to any changes to the Care Plan agreed at the review.

The social worker should also update the Permanence Plan, Health Care Plan and Personal Education Plan as required, and arrange for a Pathway Plan to be completed/updated, if relevant.

The social worker should also ensure that the child's Placement Plan (recorded on the Placement Information Record) is updated.

Where the child and/or the parents are unable to attend the review, the social worker must ensure that they are informed in writing of the outcome.

See also Appointment and Role of Independent Reviewing Managers Procedure, Duty of Social Worker to Keep IRM Informed.

The social worker and IRM should consider prior to the review whether either the child or parent(s) would benefit from the presence of a supporter or advocate and if so, the social worker should ensure the necessary arrangements are made. A supporter may be either an advocate on behalf of the child/parent(s) or a person with specialist skills or knowledge.

It may also be necessary for the social worker to make arrangements for an interpreter to attend. Special needs, for example those arising from disability, should always be considered and appropriate assistance arranged where relevant.

Any request by the child or parent(s) for their legal adviser to attend as their supporter should be notified to the IRM prior to the review and arrangements made where appropriate for the attendance at the review of a local authority legal adviser.

The IRM's role is to chair Children in Care Reviews and monitor the appropriateness of the Care Plan (on an ongoing basis including whether any safeguarding issues arise), its implementation and to establish whether the milestones set out in the plan are being achieved in a timely way.

See also Appointment and Role of Independent Reviewing Managers Procedure, which sets out in detail to role of the IRM outside the Children in Care Review.

In relation to their role at reviews, a key task for all IRM's is to ensure that the review process is child and family centred and that the child's views are heard. They should be satisfied that disabled children's contributions are obtained and effectively presented in the review.

The IRM should consult the child about their Care Plan at each review and at any time that there is a significant change to the Care Plan. The IRM should meet the child before the first Children in Care Review and arrange to meet the child as appropriate in advance of subsequent Children in Care Reviews.

The IRM must be satisfied that the wishes and feelings of the child's parents, any person who is not a parent but who has parental responsibility and the current carer (foster carer or registered person in respect of a children's home) have been taken into account as part of the review process.

Wherever possible, the child should be encouraged to chair the meeting and in these circumstances the IRM will assist the child. In all other cases, the IRM will chair the review - see Section 3, Chairing of Reviews.

More than one meeting may be required to ensure the views of relevant people inform the review without the meeting becoming too large. For example it may be appropriate to hold a meeting involving the child prior to a meeting involving the parent to obtain information and ascertain the views of both where the child does not wish to attend a review with their parents present.

The IRM is responsible for ensuring that all relevant people, including the child and parents, understand the purpose of the review and have been given appropriate opportunities to contribute and express their views. The IRM should also ensure that relevant consultation has taken place with those professionals who are not in attendance at the meeting.

Where participants' views are not followed, an explanation of the reasons why needs to be provided by the IRM and/or the social worker. Any differences of opinion should be recorded in the minutes.

If the parent(s) or the child brings a supporter, the IRM will need to explain their role, ensuring that the supporter understands that they may clarify information but may not cross-examine any contributor.

The agenda for each review will be agreed at the beginning of the meeting and each participant will be invited to contribute their own items to the agenda and have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

The IRM will decide on what actions in principle are necessary to meet the child's reviewed needs and make recommendations as to how these should be achieved.

Where a review considers that adoption or long term fostering is the most appropriate way to meet the child's needs, the recommendation is then submitted to the Adoption Panel for consideration - see Placement for Adoption Procedure.

The IRM may adjourn a review meeting once, for not more than 20 working days, if not satisfied that sufficient information has been provided by the Local Authority to enable proper consideration of any of the factors to be considered.

The IRM should consider the effects on the child of delaying the meeting, and seek the wishes and feelings of the child, carer and parents where appropriate.

No proposal under consideration at the adjourned review can be implemented until the review has been completed.

It will be necessary for the IRM to ensure decisions are clear and establish who is responsible for action and the timescales agreed for completion. The IRM should ensure that the following are considered and accounted for during the review:

1. The effect of any change in the child's circumstances since the last review, any change made to the Care Plan, whether decisions taken at the last review have been successfully implemented and if not the reasons;
2. Whether any change should be sought in the child's legal status;
3. Whether there is a plan for permanence;
4. Arrangements for contact/whether there is any need for changes to the arrangements in order to promote contact between the child and parents/other Connected Persons;
5. Whether the placement continues to be the most appropriate available, whether any change to the placement agreement or any other aspect of the arrangements is likely to become necessary before the next review;
6. Whether the placement safeguards and promotes the child's welfare, and whether any safeguarding concerns have been raised;
7. The child's educational needs, progress and development and whether any change is likely to become necessary or desirable before the next review, including consideration of their most recent assessment of progress and development; whether the arrangements are meeting the child's educational needs; whether the child has a Personal Education Plan (PEP) and whether its content provides a clear framework for promoting educational achievement;
8. The child's leisure interests and activities and whether the arrangements are meeting their needs;
9. The child's health report, and whether any change in health care arrangements is likely to be necessary or desirable before the next review; whether the content of the Health Plan provides a clear framework for promoting the child's health; whether the arrangements are meeting the child's health needs;
10. Whether the child's needs related to identity are being met and whether any change is required having regard to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural background;
11. Whether the arrangements for advice, support and assistance continue to be appropriate and understood by the child;
12. Whether any arrangements need to be made for the time when the child will no longer be in Care;
13. The child's wishes and feelings and the views of the IRM about any aspect of the case and in particular about any changes made since the last review or proposed to be made to the Care Plan; whether the plan fulfils the duty to safeguard and promote the child's welfare and whether it would be in the child's interests for an Independent Visitor to be appointed;
14. Where the child is placed with parents before an assessment is completed, the frequency of the social worker's visits;
15. Whether the delegation of authority to take decisions about a child's care continues to be appropriate and in the child's best interests;
16. Other matters which may arise should also be considered with due regard to the circumstances of the child and the placement.

After the review, the IRM will notify the Safeguarding Unit of the way in which the child participated in the review, together with the outcome and the date for the next review.

Where there is evidence of poor practice, the IRM will consider what action is needed to bring this to the attention of the relevant and appropriate managers - see Section 14, Monitoring of Review Decisions.

It is also the IRM responsibility to focus on conflict resolution - see Section 15, Conflict Resolution.

The Independent Reviewing Manager (IRM) must check that the child's Care Plan includes a Permanence Plan with measurable milestones and a Contingency Plan should the preferred plans not materialise.

At the second Children in Care Review, there is a requirement to focus on the Permanence Plan, to ensure it provides permanence for the child within a timescale which is realistic, achievable and meets the child's needs.

If it is considered that the chosen avenue to permanence is not viable, the IRM should ensure that the social worker arranges as a matter of urgency to consider the most appropriate permanent alternative.

At the third Children in Care Review there will be a need for a Twin Track/Parallel Plan to be made where a Permanence Plan has not been achieved. For example where a plan for rehabilitation of the child has not been achieved, the Review should seek to establish whether the lack of progress is as a result of drift or whether there are valid child-centred reasons, properly recorded and endorsed by the social worker's manager. No further rehabilitation plan should be recommended unless there are exceptional reasons justifying such a plan or where further assessment is specifically directed by the Court. In this case, the Parallel Plan must include the active pursuit of an alternative placement for the child.

All subsequent Reviews should review the progress and validity of the Permanence Plan.

Children who are Section 20 Accommodated (Children Act 1989): IRMs should pay particular regard to children accommodated under S.20 to ensure there is appropriate progression of their plans and that there are no delays in respect of them having 'permanence', (which should include a return home). A High Court judgement (see Herefordshire Council v AB [2018] EWFC 10 rtf) was critical of protracted delay in a child's planning and failure to respond to a parent's request to have a child return home to their care under S. 20(8). Further, that the IRM, whilst recognising the issues of delay and planning, and highlighting these to managers, did not respond more robustly (see Section 15, Conflict Resolution).

The judgement considered that in circumstances where the threshold criteria (for Care/ Supervision Orders) under Section 31 Children Act 1989 are met, (i.e. where a child is at risk of significant harm, or the likelihood of significant harm), then care proceedings should be issued without delay.

Paragraph 4.17 of The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations - Volume 2: Care Planning, Placement and Case Review sets out that where a child is placed in a designated long-term foster placement and has been in this placement for more than a year consideration should be given to whether it is necessary to hold a meeting as part of each review.

The guidance requires that the social worker should consult the IRM and the child (where appropriate to age and understanding) in reaching a decision on whether to hold a meeting. Where it is agreed that a meeting will not be held as part of every review a meeting should be held at least once a year. The factors leading to a decision to hold review meetings on a less frequent basis must be recorded in the child's Care Plan.

Where a decision is taken that the review process will not include a meeting the IRM must ensure that full consultation with all relevant individuals, including the child, has taken place to inform the review of the child's case.

Where a Child in Care remains the subject of a Child Protection Plan, there should be a single planning and reviewing process, led by the IRM, leading to the development of a single plan.

Consideration should be given to the IRM chairing the Child Protection Conference where a Child in Care remains subject to a Child Protection Plan. Where that is not possible, it will be expected that the IRM will attend the Child Protection Review Conference.

The timing of the review of the child protection aspects of the Care Plan should be as in Section 2, Frequency of Children in Care Reviews.

The Children in Care Review, when reviewing the child protection aspects of the plan, should consider whether the criteria continue to be met for the child to remain the subject of a Child Protection Plan.

Consideration must be given to ensuring that the multi-agency contribution to the review of the Child Protection Plan is addressed within the review of the Care Plan.

It is the responsibility of the Independent Reviewing Manager (IRM) to record the review. A written record of the discussion and recommendations from the review will be completed and circulated by the Independent Reviewing Manager to all participants within 5 working days of the meeting. This should also be sent to the designated senior manager who will consider the recommendations at the review - see Section 13 Review Decisions.

The full written record of the review will be completed within 15 working days of the review. The full record should contain an accurate and comprehensive record of the meeting, or meetings, which constituted the review and of the views of all those who attended or were consulted as part of the review process. The record should also reflect the review process for a designated long term foster placement where a meeting did not take place. The Safeguarding Unit will send copies out to all relevant parties who have provided their full name and address on the attendance sheet within 20 working days of the completion of the review. 

The recommendations should have any identifying details removed as necessary, for example, exceptionally, the address of the placement. 

Where parents do not attend the review/part of the meeting and contribute their views in some other manner, a discussion should take place between the social worker and the IRM as to whether it is in the child's interest for the parents to receive a full record of the review, and, if not, what written information should be sent to them. Examples of where this should be a consideration are where there is a 'no contact order' or supervised contact only.

A designated senior member of staff should consider the recommendations made at each Children in Care Review within 5 working days of receiving them and to advise the IRM and all those who attended the review if they are unable to agree them.

If no response is received the recommendations should be considered agreed by the Local Authority and should be implemented within the timescales set out in them.

If the senior member of staff disagrees with any of the recommendations within that initial 5 working day period, this should be notified in writing to the IRM and all those who attended the review.

In the first instance the IRM should attempt to resolve the issue informally. If this is not successful the IRM can consider activating the local dispute resolution process - see Section 15, Conflict Resolution.

The Independent Reviewing Manager (IRM) plays an important part in the quality assurance function of the local authority's service for Children in Care, it will be important that they recognise and report on good practice by individuals or teams.

It is important for the IRM to have a collaborative relationship with the social workers and their managers.

Monitoring sheets must be completed by the IRM after every review meeting in order that accurate data is reported for audit, quality assurance and individual performance management. This information is then coordinated by the Safeguarding Unit and sent on a monthly basis to the relevant managers.

Where there is evidence of poor practice, the IRM should, wherever practicable, address these issues through the normal channels, contacting the social worker's manager and where necessary the Safeguarding Unit Manager.

Where the IRM believes that the Local Authority has failed in any significant respect to prepare the child's Care Plan; review the child's case or effectively implement any agreed recommendation in consequence of a review; or are otherwise in breach of their duties to the child in any material respect, the following procedure will apply:

1. Informal resolution through a professionals meeting to include the Team Managers of both the social worker's team and the IRM;
2. If no resolution is reached at this stage a referral should be made by the Safeguarding Unit to the relevant senior manager in the local authority;
3. If there is still no resolution, the matter should be brought to the attention of the Chief Executive.

The IRM has the authority to refer the case to CAFCASS where they consider it appropriate to do so and must consider a referral to CAFCASS where, having drawn any failures as set out above to the attention of persons of appropriate seniority in the Local Authority, the issues have not been addressed to their satisfaction within a reasonable period of time.