Link Report to permanence panel



Link - Foster Parents 2 and M

Following a disruption meeting held at (the children's home) on December 1989 the following points were looked at wit regards to M's future needs and placements:

  1. not keeping J and M together
  2. build in respite care if they remain together
  3. both to be moved from present placement either (a) together or (b) separately
  4. J to remain and M to move (a) to the children's home (b) to foster parents 2 or 9c) to a bridging placement
  5. Move J and leave M
  6. Treatment for M away from the foster home and then to return him back
  7. Boarding education

Some of these options No. 3, 4(a), 5 and 6 were ruled out immediately.

There was a consensus of opinion in looking at the possibility of M returning to Foster parents 2, with whom he had been placed with his sister from 1982 - 1983. It was felt that for M that foster parents 2 were the best prospect to meet M's needs. They have always maintained links with M and J and have a good relationship with the children's grandparents. For M the positives are that he has good memories of his time with foster parent 2, talks happily of them and the time spent with them, he would not have to spend so much time getting to know a new family and a school at the same time, there would not be a loss of face for him knowing that foster parents 2 wanted him to return to them.

Foster parents 2 made enquiries about fostering M and J on a permanent basis when they heard we were looking for foster parents for them in 1988. I visited them on three occasions and a plan was worked out between myself, the children's social worker, keyworker and foster parents 2 to see if this was feasible. A series of visits were made to both the children's home and foster parents 2. This was carried out without the children being aware of the true purpose of the visits. It was possible to carry this out as both foster parents (2) had maintained contact with the children.

Foster parents 2 fostered M and J from 1982 - 1983. During tat time a firm attachment to M was formed by both foster parents. M formed a deep attachment to both Mr and Mrs M (foster parents 2). M appeared quite reluctant and anxious regarding the loss of security and routine of the placement.

That mutual attachment has been observed in the interest and contact that has continued between the children and the foster parents over the last six years. I feel foster parents 2 are committed to m and he would, in the long term, respond well to their care.




Copyright(c) 2007 - 2020. All rights reserved.