BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Care Standards Tribunal >> JH v OFSTED [2003] EWCST 0228(EYSUS) (28 October 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCST/2003/0228(EYSUS).html
Cite as: [2003] EWCST 0228(EYSUS), [2003] EWCST 228(EYSUS)
[New search] [Help]

JH v OFSTED [2003] EWCST 0228(EYSUS) (28 October 2003)


 Mrs J. H. -v- OFSTED
[2003]
0228/EYSUS

MELANIE LEWIS
SUSAN GILHESPIE
JIM LIM

Heard on 27 October 2003

DECISION

Introduction

1. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (OFSTED) suspended the registration of Mrs J. H. acting as a child minder as from 4th September 2003. The respondent by letter dated 19th September refused the applicant’s request to lift the period of suspension. She appealed to the Care Standards Tribunal on 25th September 2003. The initial suspension was to have effect for six weeks until 15 October 2003, but by notice dated 24 October 2003 the suspension was continued for a further six weeks until 28th November 2003 on the same grounds.

2. This appeal concerns both decisions to suspend Mrs J. H.'s registration and OFSTED's refusal to lift the suspension.

3. At the hearing before us Mrs J. H. represented herself, accompanied by Mr N. L. who played only a supportive role in the proceedings. Miss
S. Freeborn of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

4. Orders were made at the commencement of the proceedings under Regulations 18 and 19 restricting the reporting of the proceedings and excluding members of the public and the press. We are satisfied that these Orders are necessary in this case to safeguard the welfare of children and to safeguard the private life of those involved in this matter. We believe that Orders should continue, and that individuals,
other than professional witnesses, are referred to by initials only, and the written decision will be published in accordance with Regulation 27 in this form.

5. We heard live evidence from the following officers employed by OFTSED: Sharon Rice Child Protection Liaison Officer, Helen Ball
Child Care Inspector and Lena Mead Area Manager. We also heard from Mrs J. H.

The Facts

6. The issue at the heart of this case was Mrs J. H.'s relationship with Mr N. L. In 1991 Mr N. L. was convicted of gross indecency with a female under 14 years and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, 3 months of which were served. It emerged during the hearing that the female concerned was close to the ages of Mrs J. H.'s own daughters who live with her: A who is 9 and J who is 6. In 1998 Mr N. L. was convicted of an indecent assault on a male, for which he was sentenced to three years probation and his name placed on the Sex Offenders Register for five years.

7. Mrs J. H. was only registered as a child minder on 1 October 2002. On 30 October 2002 she was visited by Helen Ball, who informed her
about the concerns in relation to Mr N. L. with whom she was living at the time. In oral evidence, Mrs J. H. was somewhat confused as to
whether it was the first or second offence she knew about. However, Helen Ball confirmed that Mrs J. H. was very shocked and distressed
by this information and didn't know the full extent or background of it. Following a visit by Social Services the next day, whose responsibility
was to give her the detail, she agreed to suspend her registration as a child minder pending investigation. The voluntarily suspension was
lifted on 8 November 2002 because by letter dated 6 November 2002, Mrs J. H. said that she had asked Mr N. L. to leave and that thereafter
she intended to have no further contact with him.

8. On 30 April 2003 Helen Ball carried out a Post-transitional Inspection of the applicant. In her written and more clearly in her oral evidence, she had a clear recollection of that visit. She had deliberately taken Mrs J. H. out into the garden so that she could speak with her discreetly
without children being present and was told by her that she had 'no contact' with Mr N. L.

9. In the written evidence, there was some issue about what exactly Mrs J. H recalls being asked. In her oral evidence she frankly accepted that she had 'chickened out' of admitting that she had had some contact. After Mr N. L. had left, they had spoken on the phone on a weekly
basis but that had fizzled out by Christmas. In March 2003 Mr N. L. made contact, seeking Mrs J. H.'s support due to his brother dying. His
grandmother had also recently died. Their relationship resumed.

10. On 29 August 2003 the local Social Services department were advised that Mr N. L. was again staying overnight at the property and had taken one of Mrs J. H.'s daughters to a Brownie meeting unsupervised. She accepted in her oral evidence that that had happened twice. At a Case Conference on 3 September 2003 Mrs J. H.'s daughters were placed on the Child Protection Register. It was not clear what level of risk Mr N. L. posed to her children as due his family bereavements Mr N. L. had not completed his Sex Offenders Programme. He was no longer
on the Register.

11. The position as it emerged therefore was that there was no current risk assessment. The most recent view expressed by his probation officer in 1999 was that Mr. N.L. posed a “high risk” to children. Mr N. L. is no longer on a probation order. Mr N. L. was able to inform us that the Social Services department had offered him an appointment on 7 November 2003. However, their focus will be to assess the risk in
relation to Mrs J. H.'s daughters, not the three children she minded and wishes to continue to mind.

12. Mrs J. H. has stressed at all times that she sees a distinction between her private life and her professional duties as a child minder. Her
position is that Mr N. L. will have no contact with her minded children.

13. She has further stressed that child minding is her livelihood. She is a single parent.

14. In a recent statement dated 24 October 2003 Sharon Rice set out new information that had come to OFSTED's attention and caused further concern. Mrs J. H. did not dispute that she had taken on other child minding responsibilities despite her registration being suspended. She stressed that this involved collecting two children from school and taking them to her home for a short period only. In an anonymous phone call to Social Services on 17 October 2003, a caller complained the mother had not been told about the suspension. Mrs J. H. accepted that she had not been fully frank with this mother, although she had only been trying to help her out.

15. Further, Mrs J. H. accepted that she had come to an arrangement with another registered child minder Mrs M. J. who lived on the other side of the city, to mind the three children she had previously cared for. She stressed that she had done this in part to assist the parents. The
arrangement entailed the children being dropped at Mrs J. H.'s home in the morning as this was the only convenient arrangement for all the
parents and then driving them to Mrs M. J.'s home. She accepted that she had been there alone on 14 October 2003 when Helen Ball had
rung Mrs M. J.'s home, but not alone with the children.

16. Mrs J. H. is clear that she wishes to continue her relationship with Mr N. L.

CONCLUSIONS

A We conclude that in the light of Mr N. L.'s two previous convictions for offences in relation to children, the Respondent had clear evidence, higher than the lower standard of proof required for a suspension that there was reasonable cause to suspect children may be at risk. There is no current evidence as to the level of risk Mr. N.L. now poses. By her own initial reaction in October 2002, Mrs J. H. clearly recognised the need to be concerned. She appears to have backtracked from that position.

B At the conclusion of the evidence, Mrs. J. H. appeared to accept that her suspension was bound to remain in place until such time as a risk
assessment could be carried out. We agree. She was concerned as to how long that process was taking.

C Mrs J.H further accepted that a risk assessment would not be the end of the matter and could not provide a definitive answer to the level of risk posed. Mrs J. H. wishes to make a distinction between her private life and her professional responsibilities. It is clear that that may be difficult to enforce against the realities of everyday domestic life.

D Whilst we reach no concluded view as to whether Mrs J. H. deliberately misled Helen Ball at their meeting on 30 April 2003, by her own evidence she was not fully frank, even if all she could have admitted at that point was that she had some telephone contact with Mr. N.L.
E Mrs J. H. has agreed to undertake a child protection programme offered by Social Services for non-offending parents. This may assist her in understanding the complexity of the surrounding issues.

F It is clear that Mrs. J.H. has not fully complied with the terms of her suspension. Again, we reach no concluded view as to the level of breach. If Mrs. M.J wishes to act a child minder to these three children then it is for her to take the appropriate steps. It will be vital if Mrs. J.H is to regain her registration as a child minder that she is fully frank. If she is not, then suspicion may fall on her even if it was not her intention to deliberately mislead OFSTED.

ORDER

We confirm the Chief Inspector's decision to suspend registration and his refusal to lift the suspension. Our decision is unanimous.

Melanie Lewis
(Chair)
Susan Gilhespie
Jim Lim

Dated : 28th October 2003.

Download the Decision in portable document format


About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010