Agenda and draft minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the filming of meetings and this information was noted.

Apologies had been received from Councillor Opoku and Councillor Isilar-Gosling.

There were none.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2023.

RESOLVED: That minutes of the meeting of 16 January 2023 be agreed as a correct record.

The Report outlines the work of the Children in Care health team between

April 2021 and March 2022.         

Ms Lynn Carrington, Designated Nurse, Whittington Health, presented the report.

Members queried the report and asked questions. The meeting heard that:

·      In relation to immunisations, there was some reluctance to impose a position on parents whereby they are told that they must have immunisations completed for their children.

·      It would be helpful to have next year’s annual report earlier and a report brought to every Committee.

·      That was a large CAMHS transfer across NCL and then there were commissioning structures within Haringey ICB. The work sat with the Haringey ICB which was specific to Haringey and would put the borough on par or above some of the other local authorities including the comparison Next Step papers in terms of the mental health pathway.

·      The NCL widened the access to all children, but within the strands in the delivery groups, children in care would have greater accessibility to a range of other type of mental health interventions

·      The Committee would be updated on issues regarding casework.

·      If a young person had been reminded into a secure unit but they were not a child in care before they got remanded, then the health plan should be written and put into place by the secure unit, so it was not that they were not seen by a health professional, they were seen by the health professionals within the unit. The Haringey team would not be responsible, but would visit young people who were children in care before they were remanded.

·      As there would be regular reports regarding children in the Youth Justice System, a thematic approach could be taken to the reports to allow for in-depth analysis.

·      As an audit would be taken for every child in care to ensure that their health records were up to standards, it would be useful to do this for children in remand as well.

·      In relation to those remanded with additional needs, thorough assessments would be made when those young people first come to the attention of the service. Work was done with a range of professionals, but a dedicated Speech and Language therapist was still required. The range and depth of the challenges that a child might have would be assessed. Some young people had access to a speech and language therapist through their school, and the Youth Justice Service would work with those professionals. Work so done with those children who had educational, health and care plans.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

This annual report has been produced in accordance with the requirements of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The Independent Reviewing Service has a key role in assuring the quality of a Local Authority’s care planning for looked after children and improving the overall standard of services offered.

Ms Beverley Hendricks and Ms Pauline Morris presented the report.

Members queried the report and asked questions. The meeting heard that:

·           More information on participation data, especially regarding under 4s was needed in future reports 

·           With infants and babies, understanding the care experience was often a mixture of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) & Social workers  making observations. Observations would be made from the social worker and the network of professionals around the children such as a health visitor, a GP and those that attend the child in care review.

·           Collective alert typically related to placements. Children were sometimes waiting longer for placements to be matched as negotiations took place around the quality of care and commissioning of services for a need to be met.

·           IROs had the power to report to the secretary of state if they found it necessary to do so. This has never been necessary as matters are resolved at AD level.

·           Quarterly reports should be regularly submitted to the Committee, particularly in areas which were being championed by the borough.

·           The Stability Placements panel had been useful during the coronavirus crisis. Reports had been received by foster carers are residential providers that some adolescents did not want to follow lockdown rules. After the panel was introduced, the Council had ‘a balcony view’ of what was causing the instability to placements. Other professionals could contribute to help provide greater stability.

·           The report would be submitted to the Committee on a quarterly basis.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the contents of the report be noted.

2.    That the report be submitted on a quarterly basis.

This document sets out how Haringey Council intends to fulfil its duties, as a Corporate Parent, and ensure that a dynamic and responsive offer is in place to meet the diverse accommodation needs of our looked after children and young people and those leaving care.

Ms Beverley Hendricks, Assistant Director for Safeguarding and Social Care introduced the item. 

Members queried the strategy and asked questions. The meeting heard that:

·           There were large numbers of  children identified as having autistic spectrum diagnosis. Foster carers are supported via  training around managing neurodiversity needs.

·           Research was being completed on where the disparity started amongst different demographics. When there was unaddressed bias, the rate of referrals on risks and harm was higher as opposed to an evidence-based approach. The amount of assessments end after three months after being referred in and it was because of how things were interpreted, and the evidence gathered from the assessment. When an evidence assessment was made there was no need to keep a case open longer. For Looked After Children, it was important to note that if structural inequalities around families facing poverty and disadvantage presented risks attributable to the parenting that could not be changed then CSC had a duty to act . It was also easier for those from affluent backgrounds to secure additional support

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the report be noted.

Report provides an update on the work of the Children in Care Health team.

As item 6. 

Members have asked for a Pathway plan template to be shared in order to understand the work.

Ms Emma Cummergen, Head of Young Adult Service, presented the item.

Members asked various questions. The meeting heard that:

·      In order to access a tenancy, those placed outside Haringey would have to come back into the borough.  Reciprocal arrangements were attempted with other boroughs, but this had not Pan London process. About 60% of the 16-25 year olds lived out of the borough.

·      The pathway followed young people until the age of 21. I'll get 21, young people could choose not to continue. If there were any concerns, the Council would continue with the pathway plan. The majority of young people would work and with the borough until the age of 25 and the pathway plan would adapt for them into adult services.

·      Liquid Logic was about to be introduced later in the year and amendments could only be made after the new systems are in place.

·      It was important to work alongside the young people and that they voice was central to the decision-making process. However, the Council was guiding and supporting young people through the process. The work was done in conjunction with the young people.

·      The service was about to launch a new strategy around life story planning. There was also discussion regarding young people who may request to access the records in the future.

·      Managing risks around life stories for young people who have had upsetting backgrounds depended on the individual and the identification of the best professionals to support the young person. Sometimes young people do not remember what happened in their infancy if they experienced something traumatic. By the time young people entered into young adults, they would have a sense of what had happened to their lives and sometimes this would help explain issues they may suffer from such as anxiety.

RESOLVED:

That Members note the template.

To receive a verbal update on Children in Care known to the Youth Justice Service.

Ms Sherri Jiwani-Burnett, Youth Justice Service Manager, presented a verbal update.

The meeting heard that:

·      They were 13 young people involved from children in care in addition to four children from other authorities which have been placed in Haringey. Some of the children were considered to be high risk in relation to safety and wellbeing. Therefore, they would be seen at least three times a week up to an hour. Work would be done with them in the meetings including joyful work as young people were more likely they were to engage in the process that way.  Some were seen on a daily basis. The assessments were a lengthy process and some children were under-going court proceedings

·      Dealing with young people with significant trauma and engaging them in therapeutic services was met with difficulty, although some children did respond well, work was being done to ensure that young people understood what was expected of them and a lot of training has been done regarding non-verbal communication. Some of the work could be brought to the Youth Justice Board meeting.

·      The Committee would have at least a quarterly or bi-annual reports regarding the issue.

The Committee thanked Ms Jiwani-Burnett for her presentation.

RESOLVED:

That the update be noted.

Date of next meeting:

To be confirmed.

There was no other business.