Hi has anyone got any update on SGO's mainly the finances I believe some LA's are now paying FC allowance and role related allowance until 18 most of the stuff iv read is out of date and still saing 2 years ?
It was the Judge at the final hearing. All the documentation will have been with the court for weeks before the final hearing and the Judge will be made aware of the LA's care plan for the child, which will always be for permanency by one route or another. It could be adoption, permanent foster care or if the application is for children to be cared for by grandparents (as in your case) the Judge will be asked to make a Residence Order or an SGO. So the Judge isn't just an SGO Judge if you see what I mean.
I'm not sure what you mean by "if the detail are not too deeply hidden" mean but I'm sorry I don't have details. Someone posted the details on the fostering page of MN. In the SGO Regs it does state that "where a child has previously been looked after by a LA, then an allowance equivalent to the fostering allowance should be paid for 2 years" and of course this is what LAs will stick to. However, it also says in the Regs that "no SGO placement should break down because of financial issues" (or words to that effect).
I do know that there have been applicants who have contested the 2 year allowance issue, and in one case in which I was involved it was the children's guardian who advised the Judge that the relatives could not care for the children unless allowances equivalent to fostering allowances were made and the Judge agreed and it was written into the court documents, so that the LA could no try to "backtrack" on this. The case I mentioned about the g/pts going to court themselves was very recent and posted on the Fostering Page of MN.
Given that the SGO has already been made I don't think there is any way that you can now backtrack so to speak which is a great pity. My understanding is that if the relatives find they are unable to manage without funding, then their only recourse is to apply for Judicial Review in the Court but I don't know of any cases where this has happened. You would need to discuss these matters with your lawyer.