Campaigners slam government U-turn over care support requirements

In its response to a consultation on improving permanence for looked-after children, the government has opted for a light touch regulatory approach, giving councils discretion in a raft of areas such as providing support for children who return home from care.

The government originally proposed councils should be required to offer looked-after children a visit by a social worker after they have returned home to check if they or their family need additional support.

But this was thrown out, with the government saying existing guidance on support for those who leave care is sufficient.

Madeleine Tearse, policy manager at The Fostering Network, believes that without a legal requirement to carry out visits, the risk of repeat re-entry into care increases.

She urged councils to still carry out such visits and also to include the child’s foster carers in the transition process out of care.

The government has also backtracked on its proposal to require councils to publish a local permanence policy, saying “at this point, we are not convinced that requiring local authorities to publish a policy will achieve the desired focus on improving practice in relation to achieving permanence”.

The Fostering Network had hoped councils would be compelled to write to foster carers to explain any decision not to assess them for a long-term care placement. However, this was also rejected by the government.

Tearse added: “We are disappointed that some issues that are important for foster carers are being left to local discretion.”

The Fostering Network has, however, welcomed the government’s announcement that long-term foster care will be given legal status. This marks a policy switch away from former Education Secretary Michael Gove’s focus on adoption as the best long-term option for looked-after children.

National Children's Bureau director of evidence and impact Enver Solomon added: “It is very significant that the government has decided to put long-term fostering on a statutory footing.”