Judge dismisses challenge to removal of foster carer from approved list

Liverpool City Council acted properly when it removed a foster carer from its approved list, a High Court judge has decided.

John Abolarin had been an approved carer since 2009, but in 2016 Liverpool discontinued that saying it had concerns about his continued suitability.

HHJ Eyre said that following the death of Mr Abolarin’s wife “difficulties arose between the claimant and the defendant's fostering service”.

These included that he had not been open with the service - including about the gravity of his first wife's illness or about his relationship with his second wife and her pregnancy - had not been truthful to social workers and had failed to show that he could work in partnership with the council.

The appeal argued that the participation of senior fostering official Paul Kelly in a meeting of the panel that revoked Mr Abolarin’s status was unlawful on the grounds of actual or apparent bias, and that this panel should have been composed of entirely different people to those who had comprised the first panel that heard his case.

He also argued that the decision to remove his approval was irrational for taking account of inaccuracies.

In Abolarin, R (on the application of) v Liverpool City Council [2018] EWHC 319 (Admin) Eyre HHJ said: “The involvement of Mr Kelly in the deliberations of Panel B is the aspect of this matter which has caused me most pause for thought.”

He had to consider whether there was “unfairness by reason of apparent bias arising from Mr Kelly's presence as adviser to the panel in the light of his position in the fostering service and his involvement in the dealings with the claimant [and] in that Mr Kelly made comments to the panel in the absence of the claimant”

But the judge said the panel hearings were not court proceedings and could not be held to the same standards.

“Although there were matters which might at first sight appeared potentially ‘less than fair’ to those brought up in the procedures of the courts there was no unfairness when proper account was taken of the context,” he said.

“It follows that neither the presence of Mr Kelly as an adviser nor the receipt of his comments in the absence of the claimant rendered the proceedings unfair.”

He rejected the claim that the decision was irrational as the panel had been confused.

“The minutes record the deliberations in short terms but do not indicate any confusion nor was there a demonstration of a lack of reasoning,” the judge found.

He also said there was no unfairness in the partly overlapping membership of the two panels.

Mark Smulian