Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council investigated concerns she had about the person caring for her granddaughter. We found there was no fault in the way the Council explored each allegation. The Council was also not at fault for limiting how much information it shared with Miss X, or for deciding to keep her granddaughter in a foster placement with her sibling.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not investigate concerns she raised about the person caring for her granddaughter and refused to share information with her. She says the Council did not consider whether she was a suitable carer for her granddaughter before placing her in foster care. She says she has been distressed and frustrated by not knowing whether her granddaughter was being properly cared for.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. I have considered the complaint made by Miss X and the documents she provided.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the documents it provided in response to my enquiries.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Keeping children safe

8. The Children Act 1989 sets out the duties on councils to ensure children are kept safe and their welfare is promoted. Where a council suspects a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm it must make enquiries to decide whether to act to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.

Family and friends care

9. Sometimes children cannot remain living where they are. The Children Act 1989 says when this happens councils should consider placing a child with family or friend carers.
10. Councils will usually carry out short assessments, often called viability assessments, to decide if a family or friends carer is a realistic option to care for a child. The court often directs councils to carry out these assessments as part of proceedings to decide where children should live. If a viability assessment is positive, councils may go on to complete a full assessment leading to the family or friend carer being approved as a foster carer. The full assessment can take several months.
11. Councils can place children with a family or friend carer who has not been approved as a foster carer, but only temporarily and subject to conditions. Councils must then carry out a full assessment within 16 weeks.
12. Statutory guidance, ‘Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations volume 2: care planning, placement and case review’, says when it is in the best interests of each child, siblings should be placed together. Councils should also consider whether the placement is close to home and allows the child to continue in the same school, where this is in the child’s best interests.
13. Some family and friends carers decide to go to court to gain a Special Guardianship Order. This gives the person with the order some, but not all, parental responsibility for the child.

What happened

14. Miss X’s granddaughter, Y, is three. She lives in a different part of the country to Miss X. Y could not remain living with her parents. In June 2019, Y was placed with a family and friend carer, Ms B, on a Special Guardianship Order with her half-sibling, C. Y’s care plan recommended she should have contact with Miss X, arranged by Ms B and in line with Y’s wishes, feelings and needs as she grew older.
15. From June onwards, Y’s family members made many allegations that Ms B was not caring for the children properly.
16. In September Ms B failed to make Y available for contact with Miss X. Miss X was concerned and contacted the police. She also met with social workers to share her concerns. Ms B made Y available for contact the following day. I have seen evidence the Council acted in response to Miss X’s concerns.
17. At the beginning of October, Miss X told the Council she wanted to be a Special Guardian for both Y and C. She contacted the Council three more times that month as she had not had a response.
18. At the beginning of November, Miss X told the Council she was concerned Y was having contact with a person who posed a risk to children. I have seen evidence the Council acted in response to Miss X’s concerns.
19. At the end of November, a manager replied to Miss X. She apologised for the delay in responding to Miss X about the issues she had raised. She said the Council was working with the carers to resolve the issue with contact and had explored all safeguarding concerns. She said the court had decided where the children should live, and the Council was not in a position to challenge this. She said the Council did not consider the children were at risk of significant harm.
20. Miss X complained to the Council. She said Y was in danger with Ms B and asked to be considered as a carer for her and C. The Council responded at the end of December. The response was the same as the one provided to Miss X in November. The Council directed Miss X to the Ombudsman.
21. In early January 2020, C moved to a foster placement nearby. Y joined her three weeks later as Ms B felt unable to continue caring for her. The Council decided to carry out viability assessments for Miss X and other family members. It applied to the court to make Y the subject of a care order while decisions were made about where she would live.
22. In April, the court recommended Miss X and others be reassessed to consider their suitability to care for Y. These proceedings are ongoing.

Analysis

23. I am limited in how much information I can share with Miss X. She does not have parental responsibility for Y and is not related to C. I can however reassure Miss X that I have seen evidence the Council responded correctly to all the safeguarding concerns raised by family members, including those she raised. This included frequent visits to see Ms B and the children, liaising with other agencies including health services, the police and education, and seeking legal advice as necessary. There was no fault in the way the Council responded to safeguarding concerns about Y.
24. In response to my enquiries, the Council recognised Miss X’s concerns about her contact with Y were overtaken by other safeguarding concerns. It accepts it should have communicated this to Miss X. The Council has apologised to Miss X for problems in its communication with her. I consider this apology to be sufficient remedy for this. The Council is not at fault for prioritising other safeguarding activity over contact at that time.
25. I have not found fault with the Council’s decision not to place Y with Miss X when she left Ms B’s care. The Council’s records show it considered it to be in Y’s best interests to live with her sibling. It also noted the need for Y to have regular contact with her mother who lived locally. It had already decided to carry out new viability assessments of Miss X and others to establish where Y might live long term. These assessments were likely to take time and the Council had to find a suitable placement for Y at short notice. I also cannot recommend the Council place Y with Miss X. Decisions about where Y will now live are part of court proceedings, and therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
26. I cannot comment on the original decision to place Y with Ms B. This was arranged as part of court proceedings and is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
27. This will undoubtedly have been a distressing time for Miss X as she was concerned about her granddaughter. I understand she will have been frustrated at the Council’s inability to share information with her. However, as the Council acted without fault, I do not consider its actions contributed to this distress or frustration. Miss X now has an opportunity to make her case to care for Y during the court proceedings.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman