Chapter 5: the Political and Other Oversight of Children’S Homes and Fostering Services

Chapter 5: The Political and other Oversight of Children’s Homes and Fostering Services CHAPTER 5 The Political and other Oversight of Children’s Homes and Fostering Services 5.1 In this chapter, we examine the political and other oversight of children’s homes and fostering services, and other establishments run by the States (for example, Les Chênes), in the period under review (Term of Reference 3). We also examine the effect that the political and societal environment had on such oversight (Term of Reference 4). 5.2 With regard to political oversight, we have looked specifically at the oversight provided by: the Education Committee between 1960 and 1995; the Health and Social Services Committee between 1995 and 2005; and the Ministerial Government from 2005 onwards. These were the institutions that were legally responsible for children in care during the relevant time. 5.3 The primary sources of evidence for consideration of the political oversight of children’s homes over the relevant period are: The minutes of the Committees, Sub-Committees and other oversight bodies. The evidence reviewed in Chapter 4 in relation to the governance of the individual homes. The oral evidence from individuals who were involved with political oversight at relevant times. This evidence does not provide a comprehensive understanding of political oversight across the whole period with which the Inquiry is concerned. It does, however, provide a first-hand account of some of the challenges, experiences and attitudes involved. 5.4 We have also looked at the Board of Governors for Les Chênes and the Board of Visitors for Greenfields, given their unique oversight role in that regard. 371 Chapter 5: The Political and other Oversight of Children’s Homes and Fostering Services 5.5 We then make specific findings as to the oversight of fostering services during the relevant period by Children’s Services and the relevant Committees. We have set out the relevant evidence on this topic in Chapter 3, when establishing the type and nature of those services, but, as discussed in that chapter, we consider that the appropriate place for findings is here. 5.6 Finally, at the end of the chapter, we look at the operation and oversight provided by Children’s Services during this period, which we consider to be important “other” oversight. Political oversight of children’s homes 5.7 The individuals with a role to play in political oversight, from whom we heard oral evidence during Phase 1bb of the Inquiry, are as follows: Keith Barette: Day 98; WS000634; WD007910; Ben Shenton: Day 99; WS000636; WD007917; Patricia Ann Bailhache: Day 99; WS000635; WD007912; Paul Le Claire: Day 100; WS000637; WD007924; Ron Maclean: Day 101; WS000633; WD007861; Bob Hill: Day 104; WS000515; WD005189; WD005190; Ann Pryke: Day 112; WS000638; WD008086. Education Committee/Children’s Sub-Committee (1960–1995) Keith Barette 5.8 Keith Barette was a co-opted member of the Children’s Sub-Committee (CS- C) from about 1977 to 1980. This was a voluntary position and, after two years in the role, Keith Barette was allocated responsibility for HDLG. 5.9 He told the Inquiry that the Sub-Committee did not set its own agenda, and dealt with issues as they arose. General child care issues were discussed, but 372 Chapter 5: The Political and other Oversight of Children’s Homes and Fostering Services there was little interest in what was going on in the UK or elsewhere. Reports were received from the various homes. 5.10 Keith Barette said that the Sub-Committee was not involved in any discussion of policies and procedures for child care. The Sub-Committee would be asked to comment on issues, but the Education Committee made the decisions. The Sub-Committee’s suggestions would generally be accepted, said Keith Barette, on smaller issues, but not on larger ones. He did not recall any discussion about child protection, non-accidental injuries or serious case reviews (SCRs). The members of the Sub-Committee simply attended a meeting once a month. There was no regular contact between Children’s Services and the Sub-Committee. 5.11 Keith Barette said that he was enthusiastic, at the time, about the development of professional fostering. He was involved with some of the work done by Charles Smith in that regard (discussed in Chapter 3). He was disappointed at the reaction when their findings were presented to the Education Committee. He recalled John Rodhouse, Director of Education, questioning why he recommended eight people in a family unit rather than 12 to 14. He felt that eight was the maximum number that enabled professional foster parents to give each child sufficient attention. He said that it was his impression that budget was the main consideration and that professional fostering was regarded as more expensive than placement at HDLG. 5.12 He visited HDLG each week, speaking to children and staff and looking for small ways to improve the Home. Although he was able to speak to children without staff being in the immediate vicinity (for example, in the corridor), he never sought to communicate with them privately (i.e. in a separate room). He assumed that children would not have told him anything about abuse because they were fearful of repercussions. The staff told him that he was the only Committee member who spent time at HDLG. 5.13 Some staff, said Keith Barette, placed more emphasis on discipline than others, and some would tell him that they had “put a child right”. He had no reason to believe that the children were being physically abused, and it would 373 Chapter 5: The Political and other Oversight of Children’s Homes and Fostering Services have been difficult for him to raise concerns about discipline, as this would have amounted to telling professionals that they were not doing their jobs properly. 5.14 Keith Barette knew that children were kept in detention for 24 hours as a result of absconding. When asked by Counsel to comment on the Sub- Committee minutes noting that girls were placed in 48-hour solitary confinement, he said that he would not have considered it appropriate at the time. 5.15 Keith Barette provided a report to the Sub-Committee in which he raised concerns about staff turnover, the attention paid to “poorly behaved” children and the fact that HDLG was too large an institution.1 He recommended to the Education Committee that a small sub-committee investigate the issues raised, but this never materialised. The Education Committee did not look favourably on his comments as they “touched a nerve”. He also felt that the closure of HDLG was not a priority, as it did not affect as many people on the island when compared with education matters. He suggested that a cynical perspective was that HDLG was not going to get politicians any votes. 5.16 He believed that the reason that he was not asked to remain on the CS-C in 1980, when his membership came to an end, was because of his criticisms. Patricia Ann Bailhache 5.17 Patricia Bailhache was a Senator and then Deputy of the States of Jersey from 1987 to 2002. She was a member of the Education Committee for most of that period, and gave the following evidence about its work. 5.18 Each committee had seven members, and most members served more than one three-year term. The President, who appointed the members, was elected by the States Assembly. The Committee met fortnightly, and the agenda was prepared by officers. The Children’s Officer reported to the Director of Education, who was accountable to the Committee. 1 WD007910/14 374 Chapter 5: The Political and other Oversight of Children’s Homes and Fostering Services 5.19 Patricia Bailhache said that budgets were set by the Treasury and then assigned by the Director of Education. The focus of many members was on schools, although a few politicians were interested in Children’s Services. Patricia Bailhache felt that, rather than a lack of “political will”, there was a lack of appreciation by politicians of the role of Children’s Services. She believed that the role of the Education Committee was to be supportive of the Children’s Officer, and thought that their statutory responsibility towards children in care would have been explained by Anton Skinner. She explained that a “rating” system was in place for the passing of legislation, and she thought that pieces of legislation concerning children took a long time because they never had high enough ratings. She didn’t believe that this was because finance was seen as being more important. 5.20 Patricia Bailhache chaired the CS-C from 1988 until the early 1990s, when it was disbanded at her suggestion. She said that it became clear to her that the Sub-Committee was achieving little and not providing any real scrutiny. It never challenged anything and only made recommendations. 5.21 The Sub-Committee met every three months and mainly discussed children who had been taken into care and what plans were being made for them. Some members visited the homes, but did not interact with the children. When she first joined the Sub-Committee, she visited all the homes and met the Houseparents at Family Group Homes (FGHs). She told the Inquiry about her impressions of the various homes and how they were run, including her positive impressions of Heathfield and Brig-y-Don (BYD) and her impression of Jane Maguire at Blanche Pierre being strict and “overbearing”. She did not think it appropriate, at the time, to relay her views to the Children’s Officer or other members of the Sub-Committee.

Load more