- Skip Navigation |
- Sitemap |
- Text Size: A |
- A |
- A
- Make a Complaint
- About Us
- FAQs
- Legislation
- Press Releases
- Speeches
- Publications
- Sample Cases
- Languages Act
- Disability Act 2005
The Office of the Ombudsman is open between 9.15 and 5.30 Monday to Thursday and 9.15 to 5.15 on Friday.
18 Lr. Leeson Street, Dublin 2.
Tel: +353-1-639 5600
Lo-call: 1890 223030
Fax: (01) 639 5674 Email: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.ie
A Summary Report by the Ombudsman involving a complaint about the Health Service Executive's handling of an application to foster three children
The Second Approach to the Couple
The three children remained in their aunt and uncle's care, and Ms Brown applied for, and was successful in regaining, temporary employment in her former post. However, by October 2002 the placement with the children's relatives was in a state of crisis once again. The Board approached Ms Brown and her partner a second time with a view to them fostering the three children. The couple agreed to enter into the process again, provided the Board agreed in writing to replace Ms Brown's salary, which at that stage had increased to €700 pw, in addition to paying the fostering allowance. The Board agreed to consider their request and to advise them of their decision within six weeks.
However, it was not until September 2003, some eleven months later, that the Board responded negatively to the couple indicating that it no longer had authority to make discretionary payments.
The Department of Health and Children had issued a Circular in July 2001 which discontinued discretionary foster payments from 1 August 2001, including enhanced payments, and a revised increased rate of payment came into effect for all foster parents, excluding medical and educational expenses. The Board indicated that the Department of Health and Children had issued no direction in relation to special foster care situations, and as such, all decisions must be made within the parameters of the existing policy or guidance. The Assistant Chief Executive of the Board advised that there was no scope to make payments over and above the prescribed rates, and that he did not know why this had not been communicated to the couple in October 2002.
