City of Wolverhampton Council (21 008 832)

Category : Children's care services > Adoption

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 15 May 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained about delays in the Council providing adoption support for their two children and in dealing with his complaint about it. We found fault with the Council. The Council has agreed to increase its payment to Mr B to £1000 and to take steps to improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

  1. Mr and Mrs B complained that the City of Wolverhampton Council (the Council), in respect of adoption support for their two children:
    • has repeatedly delayed (since the adoption in 2017) in providing adequate support, therapies and interventions, particularly during times of crisis and distress;
    • delayed in providing later-in-life letters and contact details for the children’s sibling and in carrying out assessments of the children;
    • failed to properly understand the family’s needs;
    • failed to communicate adequately or transparently with Mr and Mrs B throughout this period; and
    • delayed in responding to their complaint.
  2. These delays and failures have caused significant distress to the whole family, impacted on the children’s progress and development along with significant time and trouble for Mr and Mrs B in pursuing matters.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated events from 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
  2. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints procedure

  1. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
  2. The guidance makes clear a complaint about adoption support can be dealt with under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
  3. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
  4. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
  5. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing

Post-adoption support

  1. Adoptive families have a legal right to an assessment of adoption support needs from the local authority responsible for their post adoption support. The assessment covers a range of needs, from mental health and the need for therapeutic services to additional support during a child’s education.
  2. If the local authority decides to provide post-adoption support, it can deliver the support by itself or commission outside agencies such as registered adoption support agencies or NHS practitioners to deliver the support.
  3. The Adoption Support Fund (ASF) is available to pay for services and training for adoptive parents. To access the fund, a local authority needs to do an assessment of an applicant’s adoption support needs. If the assessment shows these services would be beneficial then the local authority can make an application to the fund.

What happened

  1. Mr and Mrs B adopted their two children in 2017. The Council’s adoption team transferred to a Regional Adoption Agency, Adoption@Heart (AAH) in 2018. AAH carries out the functions of the Council in respect of adoption services and is within our jurisdiction.

2019

  1. In December 2018 the Council completed an assessment of the children’s needs recommending a clinical psychological assessment of the children. A new social worker (SW1) took over the case at the end of April 2019. The transfer notes said that SW1 should liaise with the Psychology Service regarding the assessment and once it was complete, SW1 should complete a review making recommendations for therapy.
  2. SW1 visited the family on 5 June 2019. She agreed to liaise with the children’s social worker (SW2) from an adoption agency, wait for the psychological assessment and chase up the outstanding later-in-life letters (designed to be given to the children when they are older to inform them about their history and background to their adoption).
  3. SW1 received the recommendations from the psychologist but not the full report. She recommended that Mr and Mrs B undertake an attachment-based parenting programme, and the children should have different types of play therapy with training for their school in an attachment-based approach.
  4. In June 2019 SW1 chased up the psychologist for a copy of the full report and chased up the service about the letters. One of the children was involved in an incident at school which triggered a safeguarding referral. This was closed with no concerns, but Mr and Mrs B decided to move the children to a new school.
  5. On 29 July 2019 SW1 met with Mr and Mrs B to discuss the report recommendations and they agreed that she would find some suitable providers. Mr and Mrs B confirmed that they wished to do the attachment programme first before deciding on the appropriate therapy for the children. They also discussed possible contact with a sibling. Mr and Mrs B felt the children would need some preparation before pursuing contact. SW1 said she was going to complete an assessment for an application to the ASF.
  6. In August 2019 one of the children (C) caused some fire damage to the house. The local council visited to address the safeguarding concerns about supervision and access to dangerous items. SW1 found an attachment-based course for Mr and Mrs B with spaces in November and December 2019.
  7. Mr and Mrs B were concerned about C’s behaviour and asked for access to the foster care logs to understand more about his history. They also asked about a referral to mental health services (CAMHS) and were advised to approach their GP.
  8. SW2 suggested some direct support or therapy for C. SW1 chased the later-in- life letters and looked into access to the foster care logs. She also felt it would be useful for Mr and Mrs B to complete the parenting course while waiting for the CAMHS referral and the ASF applications for therapy.
  9. In early September Mr and Mrs B said they now wanted therapy for C rather than the attachment course for them. They were very concerned about his behaviour and his grandparents would no longer look after him due to his behaviour. So Mr and Mrs B had no break from caring and were unable to attend courses during evening or weekends.
  10. SW1 chased access to the foster care logs and the letters again. The Council said that social workers could view the foster care records but not Mr and Mrs B. The letters were being prepared.
  11. SW1 was keen for Mr and Mrs B to do the attachment programme before arranging individual therapy for the children. She found a provider who could do the attachment course between November and February. SW1 said she was waiting for her assessment to be authorised and then she would make an application to the ASF. She also asked for the psychologist’s view (who had done the original assessment in May 2019) on Mr and Mrs B’s request for a CAMHS referral and direct support for C. The psychologist stood by her recommendations from the original report and did not think CAMHS was appropriate now.
  12. SW1 spoke to Mr B by telephone in October 2019. He had received the letters but said there were a lot of problems with them. SW1 asked him to write down the issues and she would raise them with the Council. He said the children were having problems at school. SW2 asked about access to the foster care logs. On 16 October 2019 SW1 submitted an application to the ASF for the attachment therapy. She said she thought Mr and Mrs B were reluctant to engage with her.
  13. She had another telephone discussion with Mr B at the beginning of November . He said half term had been difficult and CAMHS was not taking any further action as C did not meet its criteria. SW1 chased access to the foster care logs again: two managers had a difference of opinion over access. This was not resolved.
  14. Mr and Mrs B maintained contact with SW2 on a regular basis but not SW1. The ASF funding was approved on 18 December 2019.

2020

  1. In the new year SW2 contacted SW1 to discuss progress over the attachment therapy and viewing the foster care logs. SW1 said she had not had any contact from Mr and Mrs B for some time and she suggested dates in January and February for the attachment therapy. SW2 said these were no good for Mr and Mrs B as they were on weekends and evenings. A daytime course was not available until April, which was too far away. SW2 felt that the situation had moved on and the children’s needs had changed significantly. SW2 suggested a different type of therapy called Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP).
  2. SW1 was concerned with the lack of engagement from Mr and Mrs B and worried that this would impact on the support provided to the children. She suggested reallocating the case to a new social worker.
  3. In February 2020 SW1 met with Mr and Mrs B and SW2. Mrs B said after the meeting that everyone agreed that a support package needed to be put in place for the boys immediately. SW1 again chased the Council about access to the foster care logs and asked if the ASF funding could be transferred to a therapy package for the children.
  4. SW1 found out that the funding could not be transferred: it would have to be returned and a new application made. She also needed to update the children’s needs assessment which she planned to do on 17 February 2020.
  5. On 12 February 2020 the Council allocated the case to a new full-time social worker (SW3). The handover notes said access to the foster care logs and contact with the sibling’s carers were still outstanding, but the later in life letters had been completed.
  6. By the beginning of April 2020, SW3 had found a provider for the DDP therapy, completed a new assessment for both boys recommending DDP therapy and made a referral to the provider.
  7. On 28 April 2020 the Council offered Mr and Mrs B access to a therapeutic parenting webinar.
  8. At the beginning of May 2020 SW3 submitted an ASF application for the DDP therapy. This was approved on 2 June 2020. The children had three sessions of therapy in July 2020. The Council offered Mr and Mrs B membership of the national association of therapeutic parenting. The children had two more DDP sessions in August and September 2020. On 14 September 2020 the provider recommended more DDP therapy. On 13 October 2020 SW3askked Mrs B for her view on the therapy but did not receive a reply . On 18 November 2020 SW3 submitted another application to the ASF for further therapy.
  9. In December 2020 SW3 attended a support planning meeting with Mr and Mrs B, the school and SW2. C was receiving 12 play therapy sessions at school funded by the pupil premium, was due to be assessed by an educational psychologist and have a part-time timetable.
  10. The ASF application was approved on 16 December 2020. The children received two therapy sessions in February 2021 and the provider submitted a quotation for further therapy significantly above the limit for the ASF. The adoption support team at AAH was due to transfer to Adoption Central England (ACE) in May 2021 and so any additional match funding would need to be agreed by the new body (ACE). This meant SW3 could not put in an ASF application.

2021

  1. SW3 agreed with Mr B that the later-in-life letters needed rewriting. At the end of January, following a paediatrician recommendation that C should have a sensory assessment SW3 started to look for a provider. Following a meeting with the DDP provider, SW3 said she needed to review the children’s assessments. Mr and Mrs B said they were not sure they wished to continue with the DDP provider.
  2. SW3 submitted an ASF application for the sensory integration work to her manager, who recommended a significant rewrite. SW3 submitted the application on 8 April 2021. She also started to rewrite the later-in-life letters.
  3. The ASF application was approved on 10 May 2021 and the Council sent the rewritten later-in-life letters to Mr and Mrs B.

Complaint

  1. Mr and Mrs B made a formal complaint on 19 April 2021 about the delays in providing appropriate support for the family. The Council responded at stage one of the corporate complaints procedure on 21 May 2021.
  2. The Council upheld the complaint about the delay in producing the later-in-life letters, saying it was due to worker capacity in the service. In respect of providing contact details for the sibling’s family the Council said Mr and Mrs B had initially been unsure about this and it was only in February 2021 that they wished contact to commence. The Council said it provided email addresses to both parties on 2 February 2021.
  3. The Council accepted there had been a delay in submitting the ASF applications between 2019 and 2021 due to worker capacity and the transition to the new regional agency. The Council apologised for the impact of the delays.
  4. Mr and Mrs B were unhappy with the response and escalated the complaint to stage two of the corporate complaints procedure. The Council acknowledged the complaint in June 2021. It said Mr and Mrs B had raised a number of issues going back to 2017 and 2018 which it agreed to investigate. It offered Mr and Mrs B a meeting to discuss the concerns further and look for a resolution, but Mr and Mrs B declined. The Council responded to the stage two complaint on 24 September 2021. It responded to all the elements of the complaint including the older issues in a detailed lengthy letter. It accepted there had been delays in carrying out assessments and making the ASF applications. It said it could not allow access to the foster care logs due to data protection restrictions
  5. The Council offered £500 for their time, trouble and inconvenience in raising the complaint.
  6. Mr and Mrs B complained to us.

Analysis

Delays in carrying out assessments and providing support

  1. It took over five months to get the psychological assessment recommended in December 2018. This was outside the control of the Council but there was a lack of urgency in progressing the case once SW1 had the recommendations (in early June 2019). SW1 made enquiries about provision of the attachment parenting course but did not meet with Mr and Mrs B to discuss the recommendations until the end of July 2019 and then took another three months to actually submit a funding application. I understand she was doing another assessment during this period, but given the time that had now elapsed since the original assessment in December 2018, I consider this process took too long to complete and was fault. By the time the funding was approved and new dates for the therapy obtained, Mr and Mrs B had lost trust in the process and were not engaging fully with SW1.
  2. The delay was exacerbated by the deterioration in C’s behaviour at home and school, the lack of childcare and the additional stress this placed on the family. They were desperate for some support, but nothing was forthcoming.
  3. While I understand the decision to only pursue the attachment parenting programme and note this was discussed with Mr and Mrs B, the time it took to obtain the funding meant that the children had received no individual adoption support for over a year. By February 2021, everyone agreed the children’s needs had changed and that different therapy was required, but the process had to start again with a new social worker.
  4. I cannot identify delay in the action SW3 took to complete a new assessment and make a new funding application, but combined with the earlier delays, it meant the children did not receive any therapy until July 2020, 18 months after the initial recommendation, causing significant distress to the whole family.
  5. The fifth session of therapy was delivered on 2 September 2020 and the provider recommended more therapy on 14 September 2020. It took a few weeks to obtain Mrs B’s views and then another month to submit a further application which then took a month to be approved. Again, the delay is minimal (four weeks at most) but the cumulative effect combined with the lengthy approval process, meant that the children did not receive any further therapy until February 2021, five months after the previous sessions stopped. This was too long and indicates there was a lack of urgency in progressing the applications.
  6. In 2021 a further funding application was stalled partly due to the high cost of the proposed therapy and partly due to the structural change in the adoption support (transfer to a new agency). There is no evidence the children no longer had a continuing need for therapy, so this would appear to be service failure at a crucial time which caused further injustice to the family

Later-in-life letters

  1. The letters were originally completed in April 2019 but not sent to Mr and Mrs B until October 2019 and to exacerbate the delay they were poor quality. Mr B raised concerns straightaway but did not provide the concerns in writing as requested. It was not picked up again until February 2021 when SW3 acknowledged they needed re-writing and completed the task in May 2021. Mr B should not have had to provide his concerns in writing at a very difficult time for the family. SW3 identified the faults herself in February 2021, 14 months later.
  2. The Council delayed in providing these letters. This was fault which caused Mr and Mrs B frustration and time and trouble.

Contact details for sibling

  1. This issue was first raised in July 2019, but Mr and Mrs B did not think the children were ready for contact. It was mentioned again in January 2020, but no action was taken. The Council says that in March 2020 Mr and Mrs B were still unsure about contact. The details were provided in February 2021. I have not identified fault here.

Foster care records

  1. Mr and Mrs B first asked about this in August 2019 after the fire incident at home. The Council did not provide a clear response until its stage two complaint response in April 2022, over two and a half years’ later. This was fault which caused significant frustration to Mr and Mrs B at a difficult time. I do not see why the Council could not have looked at the information and provided any relevant information regarding C’s behaviour during foster care.

Complaint process

  1. The Council should have considered the complaint through the statutory children’s complaints process. The complaint was clearly not just about parental support and contained significant concerns about support for the children as well. The complaint would have benefitted from a thorough stage two investigation with a proper analysis of the events over a long period of time. A Review Panel would have given Mr and Mrs B the option of independent scrutiny of the outcome.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. I welcome the Council’s recognition of fault and its offer of £500. But to recognise the length of time involved, the multiple issues and the failure to use the correct complaints process, I recommended the Council (within one month of the date of my final decision):
    • increases the payment to Mr and Mrs B to £1000.
  2. I also recommended (within three months of my final decision) that the Council:
    • ensures all complaints staff are aware of the scope of the statutory complaints procedure in respect of post-adoption support; and
    • reviews the way in which applications to the ASF for post-adoption support funding are made to see if can identify areas where the process can be speeded up and/or streamlined to ensure quicker delivery of support.
  3. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I have not investigated the events prior to 2019 because I consider they are too old to investigate now, and Mr and Mrs B could have complained about them at an earlier point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings