Nigel Priestley, Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield
A foster mother with 10 years’ experience has won her legal battle after she was struck off when a Muslim girl in her care converted to Christianity, it has emerged.
The foster carer had been banned by Gateshead Council for failing to prevent the teenager from getting baptised, even though the girl was then 16 and had made up her own mind to change religion.
The carer, a churchgoer in her 50s who has fostered more than 45 children, brought a Judicial Review against the Council after she had exhausted every other available remedy.
Nigel Priestley, Senior Partner of Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield set out the background:
- 1. ED was highly regarded by Gateshead Council
As a foster carer ED was subject to annual reviews between 1999 and January 2008 they were overwhelmingly positive. She was regarded as an effective and skilled carer. She had demonstrated particular expertise in caring for older adolescent children many of whom came into care with behavioural and other difficulties. She was also involved in training other foster carers. She sat on working groups within the local authority’s support networks for foster carers.
One report on her said “ED has a good awareness of discriminatory issues and is an excellent advocate for the children in her care. She is able to challenge issues appropriately if she feels it is in the best interests of the child.
2. Gateshead knew about her faith background:
She is a practicing Christian and a member of the NCLC in Newcastle. This fact has been known to Gateshead throughout the period of her registration as a foster carer. She has always practiced her faith openly. Much of her social life and her leisure time is spent socialising with friends from her Church. She regularly attends activities arranged by her Church. At no time up to January 2008 was she told that her faith or her association with the Church needed to be curtailed or restrained in the context of her professional duties as a foster carer.
3. NS’s placement
On 30th November 2007 NS was placed with ED. She was a Muslim aged 16 years who had been voluntarily accommodated under s.20 of the Children Act 1989 at her own request. The child had suffered physical abuse from her father and he was undergoing a criminal prosecution as a result. ED was asked to provide a culturally and religiously appropriate environment for the young woman. This included the provision of Halal foods and assistance to her to obtain appropriate clothing. NS indicated to her carer that she would choose her own dress and food. She tended to chose the non-traditional option.
The child’s social worker was clearly aware of the fact that the child was attending the NCLC. No issue was raised regarding her attendance at the Church. NS chose to attend the Church. ED offered the young woman alternative arrangements and sought to support her to undertake other activities while she attended Church. NS had however been exploring her faith for two years before placement and had attended a Christian group at school in years 9 and 10.
On 13th January 2008, NS informed the Claimant that she planned to undergo a baptism at the Church. Following a discussion with the pastor, both the ED and the pastor advised NS to notify her social worker and to obtain consent from her. Both her social worker and her team manager were told about the baptism and NS considered they had given the consent of the Council to the Baptism. NS went ahead with the baptism.
No steps were taken by the children’s services team or the fostering service as regards either ED or the child NS. It was not raised in discussions or in writing with by either the fostering service or children’s services department of the local authority.
4. Gateshead’s response
1. On 20th March 2008 at Looked After Child Review NS informed the meeting that she had been baptised on 19th/20th January 2008, ‘with the permission of the social worker although this is disputed’. The independent reviewing officer had not been informed prior to the meeting and characterised this as a ‘massive change to the plan for NS which could have far reaching repercussions for the authority’.
2. The local authority convened a ‘standards of care’ meeting to discuss the baptism of the child and the Claimant’s role as foster carer. A document prepared for that meeting by the Team Manager of the fostering service was entitled ‘failure by foster carer to protect the best interests of a vulnerable young person’. The document records;
i. That the foster carer should have prevented the baptism
ii. That she should have steered the child away from the baptism which is described as a ‘hasty action’
iii. That the social worker and team manager denied giving consent and that ED had failed to contact the fostering service as she was advised to do
iv. It records that the child had acted in breach of Sharia law and endangered her own safety.
v. That ED was indoctrinating children in her care
3. In early April 2008 ED had requested guidance from the local authority which informed her following the LAC review on 20th March 2008 that the young person NS was to be discouraged from attending a Christian Church On 20th May 2008, the social worker from the Gateshead’s fostering service wrote to her detailing how she was expected to actively discourage NS from attending Church.. The advice included the following advice:
i. Do not transport NS to Church
ii. Encourage her to visit friends or partake in other activities which a 16 year old would normally partake in
4. On 30th May 2009 NS wrote to the local authority and made a formal complaint about the way she and her foster carer had been treated regarding her baptism In a letter Gateshead apologised to NS and concluded ‘this issue has not been handled in the most sensitive and consistent manner and would like to apologise on behalf of the local authority’
5. Despite the apology Gateshead deregistered ED in November 2008 as a foster carer
Mr Priestley concluded “My client gave Gateshead every opportunity to change its decision. They refused and a Judicial Review was issued. An order was made in her favour by the Administrative Court in Leeds this week. Gateshead finally accepted they had acted illegally.”
“At the heart of this case is a young person’s right to choose her faith and a foster carer’s right to practice her faith.”
ED commented:
“I was shattered by the way Gateshead acted. I had worked closely with Social services for 9 years and I felt we had a good relationship. I had chosen to work for them because I thought they had a good reputation for their work with children.
“Gateshead’s actions have had a devastating impact on me. In addition to losing NS, another girl I was looking after was taken back into care.
I lost the farmhouse I rented to look after vulnerable teenagers, due to the loss of income.
I just want to get my life back. I am negotiating with the local authority to see what proposals they will make to restore my battered financial state. I fear I shall never be free from the financial impact of Gateshead’s actions.
“Despite my experiences, I still hope to foster again in the future. I simply enjoy helping young people.”
ED concluded “I am grateful for the backing of the Newcastle based Christian Institute who supported me at what has been a very difficult time in my life. (Contact Mike Judge for comments)
“If other people of faith in positions of responsibility find themselves in a similar situation, they should not be frightened of standing up for what they believe.”
NS cannot be identified for legal reasons. ED does not wish to be identified in case it leads to the identification of NS in the community.
For more information contact Nigel Priestley on 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk
Tel:01484 538421
Nigel Priestley, Senior partner at Ridley and Hall has been granted the award of the Higher Courts Qualification in Civil cases. He is now entitled to be called Solicitor-Advocate (Higher Courts Civil) by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
