1. Ms Brown and Mr Murphy had a very strong basis on which to consider that the placement of the three children would be long-term in nature, subject to the approval of the Placement Committee. This understanding was supported to a considerable extent by the social workers involved with the case.
2. The Board gave insufficient consideration in 2001 as to what the position might be if the children's aunt and uncle changed their minds again and opted to continue providing care for them, and failed to alert the couple as to the possible consequences should this happen.
3. The Board failed to give the couple written notification of the original financial terms approved in May 2001 to allow the couple to foster the children with effect from 1 June 2001. In addition, Ms Brown was asked to produce a copy of her resignation from her job without any such notification being furnished to her. The absence of any direct written notification to the couple at that time constituted unsound administrative practice.
4. Ms Brown was asked for a copy of her letter of resignation and she felt under considerable pressure to resign from her job by 1 June 2001, despite the fact that the Board was aware of the delay in relation to the purchase of the house.
5. The Board failed to advise Ms Brown before she resigned from her job that, instead of fully replacing her salary, it would make only a pro-rata payment to her for each day she cared for the children.
6. When a letter confirming the terms of the arrangement eventually issued from the Team Leader on 18 June 2001, it made no reference to the revised pro-rata arrangement which had been decided by the Child Care Manager earlier that month. This letter gave a commitment to the couple that an enhanced allowance would be paid to them for the duration of the time that the children would be in health board care. This, in effect, provided the couple with incomplete and erroneous information.
7. Whilst it is clear that Board sanctioned the payment of an enhanced allowance to the couple for a three month period only, the finding outlined in the preceding paragraph is indicative of a subsequent serious failure in communication which led to confusion as to whether the payment of an enhanced allowance was or was not time specific (i.e. for a three month period only).
8. While the couple may have received encouragement to purchase a house, which may, in turn, have led to misunderstandings, I found no evidence that the fostering arrangements were made conditional on house purchase.
9. While the couple did receive reassurances from the children's social worker in relation to the likely outcome of the fostering process, and while there was a delay, for staff resource reasons in initiating the process, nothing emerged from my investigation which would suggest that the assessment process, to the extent that it had proceeded, was conducted other than in accordance with the relevant regulations.
10. There was a serious failure in communications with the couple immediately following the change in circumstances in August 2001. The Board should have given priority to maintaining telephone contact with the couple in order to keep them informed of developments following the breakdown of the plans.
11. There was a serious breakdown in communications between the professionals involved which resulted in the Fostering Assessment Social Worker for the couple not being informed by her colleagues that the fostering plans had fallen through.
12. The delay of almost one year in advising the couple of the Board's decision not to pay them an enhanced allowance on the second occasion can only be described as completely unsatisfactory, and contrary to fair or sound administration.
13. The decision making process in relation to the second approach lacked coherence, direction, and in its latter stages, focused unduly on an aspect which was not relevant to the particular individual circumstances of the case. (This related to whether or not the needs of the children could be met by special foster care). Overall, the decision making process was not in accordance with good administrative practice.
14. The Foster Care Regulations, 1995, Section 14(2) provide that a "health board may, in addition to the allowance referred to in sub article (1) and subject to any general directions given by the Minister, provide such financial or other assistance as the Board considers necessary to enable foster parents to take care of children placed with them by the Board". Given these provisions and the uncertainty within the Health Board surrounding the payment of an additional allowance in this case, together with the absence of a developed policy and procedure with regard to special foster care from the Department of Health and Children, I consider that it was open to the General Manager, in conjunction with the Assistant Chief Executive, to seek written clarification from the Department of Health and Children regarding the possibility of paying an enhanced allowance to the couple.
15. In the interests of sound administration, the Board's own investigation of the complaint, in principle, should not have been dealt with initially by any individual who already had an involvement in the matter.
16. The couple were adversely affected by the above failures of the Board, and both suffered extreme stress, anxiety and upset as a consequence.