Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Appellant, Ms. DB, a 28-year childminder with no prior allegations, faced a six-week suspension by Ofsted following an incident on 28 November 2019 where she 'caught' a child with her false nail during a car seat buckle, causing a non-broken-skin injury. The mother reported the injury two weeks later, triggering police and Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) investigations. The Appellant initially failed to report the incident to Ofsted but later enrolled in a safeguarding course. The Tribunal found her credible, acknowledged completed investigations with no further action, and concluded the suspension was not proportionate or necessary as of the hearing date (27 February 2020).
Issues
- The Tribunal considered whether the suspension of the Appellant's registration under Section 69 of the Childcare Act 2006 was justified, based on the Chief Inspector's belief that her continued provision of childcare might expose children to a risk of harm. This involved evaluating the statutory framework, the definition of harm, and the necessity of the suspension given completed investigations by police and the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).
- The Tribunal assessed the proportionality of the extended suspension (from 27 January 2020 to 6 March 2020), noting that police and Local Authority investigations had concluded without further action. The decision hinged on whether the suspension remained necessary or proportionate after these investigations, leading to the conclusion that it was neither.
- The key legal question was whether the Respondent's belief that the Appellant's continued childcare could expose children to harm was reasonable, as per regulation 9 of the 2008 Regulations. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including differing witness opinions on the incident's deliberateness, and the standard of proof required ('reasonable cause to believe').
- The Appellant's compliance with safeguarding requirements was scrutinized, including her failure to report an injury, past incidents of leaving children unattended, and gaps in her safeguarding knowledge. The Tribunal acknowledged her efforts to attend a safeguarding course but found the suspension unjustified given these efforts and the lack of further enforcement action.
Holdings
The Tribunal concluded that as of the hearing date, there was no longer a reasonable belief that the Appellant's continued provision of childcare would expose children to a risk of harm. The police and Local Authority investigations had been completed with no further action taken, and the Appellant had engaged in safeguarding measures, booked a course, and maintained a credible account of the incident. The suspension was deemed neither proportionate nor necessary.
Remedies
The Tribunal concluded that the suspension of the Appellant's registration, which was in effect from 27 January 2020 to 6 March 2020, is neither proportionate nor necessary. Therefore, the Tribunal directed that the suspension shall cease to have effect, lifting it entirely as of the decision date on 04 March 2020.
Legal Principles
- The burden of proof in suspension decisions under the Childcare Act 2006 lies with the Respondent (Ofsted). The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellant's failure to notify authorities or maintain safeguarding procedures was a key factor in the Respondent's case.
- The standard required is 'reasonable cause to believe' that continued childcare may expose children to harm, which is lower than the balance of probability but higher than mere suspicion. The Tribunal concluded this threshold was not met in the Appellant's case.
Cited Statute
- Childcare (Early Years and General Childcare Registers) Common Provisions) Regulations 2008
- Children Act 1989
- Childcare Act 2006
Judge Name
- Mr P McLoughlin
- Ms D Rabbetts
- Mr H Khan
Passage Text
- We concluded that the answer to that question was no.
- However, the mere service of the WRNs is not in itself a reason to confirm the suspension.
- We conclude therefore that as at the date of the hearing and based on what we read and heard, we do not consider that there is a reasonable belief that the continued provision of childcare by the Appellant may expose children to a risk of harm.