Children’s Services "threatened" caregiving grandparents

Monday 24 September 2018

A Royal Court judge has hit out at Children’s Services for taking years to supply crucial support to "loving" grandparents before “threatening” to withdraw it if they didn’t agree to place their grandson with a foster carer.

Heard in August, but made public for the first time this month, the four-day case involved deciding who should care for nine-year-old Tyler (name changed to protect anonymity), a child with “highly challenging behaviour” including several conditions leaving him four years mentally behind his real age.

Unable to live with his mother due to her “significant learning difficulties and mental health problems”, the child lived instead with his grandparents, who learned to deal with his restless sleeping habits, however “exhausting.” 

Their need for respite was therefore recognised as early as 2010, but it wasn’t provided until as late as 2013. That year, Tyler’s grandmother fell ill with cancer, leading the grandfather to conclude that he wouldn’t be able to cope with Tyler alone, and that he should start living with a foster carer.

By the end of the year, Tyler was able to return to his grandparents’ care, but the foster carer provided respite care for three nights a week. 

Pictured: The case was heard in the Royal Court.

In 2015, Tyler’s behaviour significantly worsened: he frequently swore, was aggressive to his teachers and grandparents, would physically lash out at people, and occasionally “regressed” into behaviour like a dog.

Children’s Services believed the grandmother (60) and grandfather’s (74) parenting to have been at fault.

Sir Michael Birt, the presiding Commissioner, was told that Tyler’s sleeping problems had a “huge impact” on the pair, and that “they could be firm for a while but then at times of stress or tiredness, consistency dipped.” It was argued this was “confusing for Tyler.”

However, he disputed this, noting, “it is hardly surprising that they became tired when faced with the challenging behaviour of the type which Tyler was showing”, given that they had received no respite for three years.

Moreover, there was concern that Tyler had been encouraged to call his real mother “mummy”, leading to fears that his needs weren’t being prioritised over those of the mother, who would apparently come in sometimes when Tyler was in the grandparents’ care. They denied this, however, stating that she had been referred to as “tummy mummy” to explain the pair’s relationship. 

Care was subsequently transferred to the foster carer, although the grandparents were allowed to maintain contact.

However, it emerged in court that both grandparents had “felt they had no choice because they were informed that all respite would be removed if they did not agree.” 

It was also revealed that the foster carer had discussed adopting another child with Tyler – “a child who needs to be the centre of attention” who would have found this “unsettling” – without the grandparents’ knowledge. The Commissioner said that it was far more likely this had led to Tyler’s worsened emotional state, rather than any fault on the part of the grandparents when it came to parenting technique. 

In reaching his conclusion, the Commissioner, who sat with Jurats Olsen and Thomas, expressed deep “concern” at the Children’s Service’s handling of Tyler’s case. 

He expressed particular dismay over the threat to withdraw respite care if they did not agree to Tyler moving in with the foster carer, which he said left them in an “impossible position.”

“It was clearly essential for Tyler’s welfare that, if he remained with the grandparents, respite care should be continued. The Children’s Service were therefore threatening to act contrary to Tyler’s welfare. We accept that the Children’s Service believed that Tyler’s welfare would be best served by moving to live with the foster carer and this was no doubt the motivation behind their conduct. Nevertheless, it was quite unacceptable for them to procure the grandparents’ consent by threatening to withdraw respite care,” the Commissioner wrote in his judgement. 

A social worker argued that they would have never really followed through on the threat, but the Commissioner retorted that this would make it an “almost more serious” transgression.

“It means that the Children’s Service procured the consent of the grandparents by deliberately misleading them i.e. by indicating that the respite care would be withdrawn when they had no intention of doing so. That would be completely unacceptable behaviour from anyone, let alone from a department of government charged with protecting children. We trust that those in charge of the Children’s Service will look into what occurred in this respect.”

The Commissioner subsequently ordered that the status quo remain – Tyler remaining with the foster carer and spending two days a week with his grandparents. However, he suggested exploring the possibility of an extra day of contact during school holidays.

In his concluding remarks, he paid tribute to all caregivers involved with Tyler.

“The foster carer has shown enormous devotion, skill and loving care in very challenging circumstances. The grandparents have also displayed enormous love towards their grandson and have been willing to make great sacrifices in their own lives in order to provide a home for him. 

“Tyler is fortunate to have the foster carer and the grandparents in his life and we hope very much that they can all work together in Tyler’s best interests.”