The Breakdown

The couple arranged to have the bedrooms decorated for the children and enrolled them in the local schools. On 9 August 2001, four days before the children were due to move in with the couple on a full-time basis, the couple were contacted by the children's social worker and advised that the children's aunt and uncle had changed their minds and wished to continue caring for the children. Their natural father also wanted them to remain with their relatives. The couple were advised that the Board was considering the situation and would contact them when a decision had been made. The couple were very upset because they said that they had received repeated assurances from the children's social worker that, should the relatives change their minds and seek to continue to foster them, the Board would not allow it. The Board had indicated to the couple that the decision had been taken out of the relatives’ hands due to the placement continuously being in a state of crisis. However, due regard had not been given to this scenario by the Board. As indicated previously, these children were in the voluntary care of the Board, and it would have been extremely unlikely that a care order would have been granted by a Court under the circumstances, particularly when there were no health or safety concerns regarding the children's care with their relatives.

The Board determined that it had no choice but to leave the children in the care of their relatives. Ms Brown and her partner claimed that the collapse of the fostering process had left them in straitened financial circumstances as a result of following the Board's advice. They had purchased a four bed-roomed house and Ms Brown had resigned from her job to care for the children. In addition, Ms Brown had lost an opportunity to apply for a competition for a confined permanent health board post which was held in June 2001, because part of the fostering arrangement was that she would resign from her job to look after the children full-time. When Ms Brown went to compete at a later stage for permanency, following the collapse of the fostering process, she found that she was disqualified since the educational requirements had changed in the intervening period.

Following the sudden and unforeseen breakdown of the planned fostering arrangement in August 2001, the couple asserted that there was no information forthcoming from the Board for a period of two weeks. They stated that despite many calls to the Board to enquire about the children's future, no decision regarding the placement was forthcoming.

Eventually, a social worker called out to their home and advised them that the Board had no option but to let the children remain with their relatives, and they asserted that this lack of communication heightened their upset. The couple said that the children's clothes and toys were left in their house for one month afterwards, which was insensitive and added to their upset. The Board accepted that while it was left in a difficult position, it should have accorded greater priority to communicating with the couple in relation to the change in circumstances.