Background

Three sibling children had been living in mainstream residential care on a voluntary basis with a Health Board from June 1997. As their mother had died, their father who was unable to look after them, had consented to the children being placed in voluntary residential care. In June 2000, an aunt and uncle of the children offered to foster them and the three children moved from residential care into their home. It was hoped that the placement would work out and that the children would remain with their relatives on a long-term basis. Unfortunately, difficulties developed during the placement and in March 2001 the children's relatives notified the Board that the placement had irretrievably broken down. They indicated that they could no longer continue caring for the children and requested that the Board make alternative arrangements for their care by 1 June 2001, when they planned to go abroad on holiday. Since there were no other family members in a position to care for the children, the Board was under considerable pressure to make arrangements for the children's care.

Ms Lisa Brown (not her real name), the complainant, had been employed in a temporary capacity by the Board as a child care worker in the residential home where the children were originally cared for. She was a key worker with two of the children whom she had come to know very well following their mother's death, and she had always maintained an interest in them. Ms Brown and her partner, Mr Paul Murphy ( not his real name) often took the children on outings and a strong bond had developed between them. The couple put themselves forward as possible foster parents for the children should the placement with their relatives break down.

When the placement with the children's relatives ran into irretrievable difficulties in March 2001, the children's social workers met with Ms Brown and her partner to discuss the possibility of them becoming foster parents to the children. The couple had been renting a one-bedroomed flat so these discussions centred around the provision of accommodation (i.e. adequate housing) for the couple and the three children. The question as to whether Ms Brown would give up her job to look after the children on a long-term basis, and the requirements of the fostering assessment were also discussed.

These discussions resulted in proposals for approval being sent forward by the social workers to the General Manager of the Board (who had administrative responsibility). They provided that, in addition to the normal fostering allowance, a payment of an enhanced allowance of €380 pw would be paid to Ms Brown. This amount was equal to her basic salary, and would allow her to give up her job and foster the children on a full-time, long-term basis with effect from 1 June 2001. The General Manager referred the proposal to the Child Care Manager for advice as to whether this was a viable package. (The Child Care Manager's role was to advise with regard to child care and family services). He considered the plan and (in his capacity as Acting General Manager while the General Manager was on annual leave) obtained the approval of the Assistant Chief Executive to the proposals, because of their financial implications for the Board. The Child Care Manager, however, at his own discretion, confined the approval which he sought to the proposals for the three month period from June to August 2001. He understood that the plan was to place the children temporarily in the care of the couple and, in his view, there was no long-term commitment to the arrangement. He felt that he could not determine whether they would be suitable parents to foster the children on a long-term basis until they attained eighteen years of age.