Leeds City C (04C04694 & 3 others)

Children & family services          Maladministration causing injustice

28 July 2005

‘Mr and Mrs Duncan’ (not their real names for legal reasons) fostered two children, a boy and a girl, for the Council. Both came from troubled families and their early experiences of the care system were of multiple placements and placements breaking down. In addition, the boy was found to have significant special needs. Mr and Mrs Duncan complained that they were given insufficient information before the children arrived, and that the Council did not support either of the placements reasonably. When the frequency of contact between the girl and her birth family began to jeopardise both placements, it was mutually agreed that her placement should come to an end.

Meanwhile, finding a secondary school capable of meeting the boy’s needs remained unresolved, and the Duncans considered that, although he had then been with them for three years, it might not serve his interests to remain. During this period of uncertainty, relations between the Council and the Duncans became strained and the Council, concerned to remove the boy from any possible domestic tension, decided to terminate his placement without first telling the Duncans. They were notified by fax on a Saturday morning that he had been removed from the family with whom he was spending the weekend and taken to another foster home. The Duncans were told not to contact him or his new carers, and that officers would be available to discuss the position with them the following Monday. Nine months later the boy was returned to them when a residence order, which the Council opposed, was granted in their favour by the courts.

The Ombudsman found a general lack of clarity about the relative responsibility of social workers and fostering and adoption officers; about the level and nature of support which it was reasonable for a foster carer to expect; and about how and by whom specialist services could be accessed or fees obtained. All of this put the family and the placements under unnecessary strain. She found that officers failed to consider the records carefully or consult sufficiently before making decisions which would profoundly affect the lives of those to whom they owed a duty of care.

The Ombudsman found that disclosure of information relating to the girl was not full, frank or timely, and that the Council failed to give proper consideration to the issue of contact between her and her birth family or to take fair account of its impact upon the placement.

The Ombudsman also found that the Council did not give the Duncans essential information relating to the management of the boy’s statement of special educational needs, or tell them about their qualified right to have him attend the school of their choice. The uncertainty to which this gave rise had a direct impact upon events which followed, and culminated in the boy’s removal from their care. The Ombudsman found that the Council had no grounds in law for removing the boy from the placement in the way it did, and she acknowledged the long-term impact this action had and will continue to have upon the family.

The Ombudsman asked the Council to compensate Mr and Mrs Duncan by paying them a total sum of £57,000. She also asked it to review its fostering services and its services for children with special educational needs. The Council accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations and agreed to pay the suggested amount in full. The Ombudsman commends the Council for its response.

Date Updated: 26/02/10