1. City and Hackney SCR November 2014
SCR was concerned with sexual abuse of several children by two men between
One man was a foster carer, the other man was a member of his family.
The married couple were approved as foster carers for Hackney (although they lived in another borough) between
Five primary aged children were sexually abused by the male carer between This came to light when a victim made a report to police in 2012.
In 2013 male foster carer was convicted of multiple sexual offences against foster children and also against a neighbourhood child, some thirty years previously.
Another male member of the foster family was convicted of sexual abuse of one foster child.
The male foster carer had made videos and photographs of the assaults and was found in possession of indecent images of children.
Family members said that the female carer was aware of the risk of sexual abuse of the children. It is known that she had sexual relationships with other men in the foster home which, whilst not illegal , would have led to them being deregistered. So she had a reason to keep behaviour within the home secret.

2. Assessment and Approval
The male carer referred to being in care when a child, but said his memories were vague. It later emerged during the criminal investigation that he knew he had been sexually abused in residential care.
The SCR contends that because of what was known about the prevalence of sexual abuse in the local authority homes of that period, there should have been at least a consideration by the assessing SSW that the applicant could have been abused in care.
The female carer said she was a child minder. This was never checked. But was quoted as giving her the experience she needed to care for foster children.
Statements were truisms, rather than being tested. E.G having had numbers of children in the house was used to show she could cope with numbers of children. It wasn’t explored whether those children’s needs were met.
The male carer told the SCR that at the time of applying to be foster carers he was openly discussing with his wife his sexual attraction to children.
SSW felt it too judgemental to enquire deeply into the female carers relationships with other men whilst she was married, as the marriage was now seen to be settled. But she continued to have relationships with other men within the home and made explicit videos (the male carer showed at least one foster child these).
The assessing SSW told the SCR that he ‘liked’ the carers and felt they should be approved and the male foster carer said he felt the SSW ‘pushed’ for them to be approved.
There was a contradiction in information about previous applications to foster. The carers said they had applied to their L.A but were turned down because they had too many children. After the allegations were made, someone said they were turned down because of ill treating their own children. The L.A check showed no application to foster had been made.

3. Post Approval
The carers were seen as flexible and willing which led to reluctance to challenge them.
The borough was keen to recruit and keep carers which led to SSWs not wanting ‘their’ carers to be criticised. Criticism of carers was felt as a criticism of your abilities as a social worker.
The carers were also able to manipulate the professional relationships. Their assessing SSW became their SSW then the team manager and always supported them. The SSW who did have criticisms of their physical care of the children and overcrowding etc was undermined by the carer making frequent complaints about her.
The female carer made complaints about the SSW in front of the children which would have undermined their faith in the competence of the SSW and reduced the likelihood of them disclosing to her.
There were changes to SSW and a move from paper to electronic recording which meant prior records were not properly considered.
One of the children showed highly sexualised behaviour. The female carer appeared to be supportive with this and began to be seen as the expert. When the carer put this behaviour into the context of the child having been sexually abused prior to care, this was accepted. Even though there was nothing on file to indicate the child had been sexually abused at home.
No one was actively considering the child could be being sexually abused in the foster home.
The children did have one to one sessions with therapists at the time. But they did not tell. They said they felt they would not be believed because the abuser was a foster carer. Also they were threatened with violence if they did tell.
A neighbour expressed concerns about the physical care of the children but felt the SSW downplayed them and so didn’t report again.
One of the SSWs had concerns re: not attending training, overcrowding, health and safety outstanding, carers wanting supervision in day when children not there, carers working outside the care plan. But these concerns continued to be expressed for several months with no resolution.
The male carer spent positive time with the children which hid his abusive behaviour.

4. Post Approval (2)
The foster carer review was not robust or challenging enough.
A carer that one of the children had moved on to had concerns. These were not relayed to the review. The SCR suggests that carers for children who have previously been placed with the carers under review should also be asked for comments.
Supervision visits were undertaken at the convenience of the carers. Children were rarely seen in the placement.
The female carer was able to steer supervision conversations onto areas where she felt she could show good practice.
The carers were given too much power e.g they took an active role in matching the children with permanent carers.
The carers behaviour made them able to operate outside of normal professional boundaries by appearing at times very good carers, at other times very powerful carers.
After approval , in 1999,the police received an allegation that the male foster carer had shown local children images of child sexual abuse. They never investigated this (records are not clear why) and never alerted the L.A although the referral said they were foster carers.
At each CRB/DBS renewal the ‘soft ‘ information above was not given to the L.A. This was not shared because the police deemed it unsubstantiated. However, it was only unsubstantiated because they had failed to investigate it.
The permanent carers for one of the children was given photos which although carefully cropped seemed to show the child would’ve been naked. Also the child was too ‘posed’ for the photo to have been taken in normal family activity. The new carers didn’t report to L.A.
A lack of reflective supervision meant that the SSW who raised concerns and found the carers then complained about her, was left feeling the relationship breakdown was her fault and she needed to fix it. There was no real analysis of the dynamics.
There was ‘groupthink’ that because the carers had made themselves flexible and accommodating for emergency and difficult children, they were seen as a ‘good’ resource and action was framed within that context.