Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s children services following a child protection intervention. We upheld the complaint. While we found the Council had evidence that justified placing Ms B’s children on child protection plans, there were later faults in its case management. Some of these it had previously recognised. But our investigation found specific flaws around the circumstances where Ms B’s son entered foster care for a time. We considered this caused injustice, as distress. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out action it has agreed to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained about Council’s children services becoming involved in her family life between March 2021 and February 2023. In particular Ms B complained about:

• the Council’s enquiries which led it to call an initial child protection conference (ICPC), which led in turn to it placing her children on a child protection plan;
• unannounced visits to her home arising from her children being on a child protection plan, which she says were unnecessarily intrusive (especially for her daughter ‘Y’);
• feeling pressured and harassed to place her son (‘X’), into foster care in August 2022. While in foster care, X experienced frequent changes of address;
• having limited contact with X while he was in foster care.

2. Ms B said these matters caused her and her children (especially X and Y) avoidable distress. In particular, Ms B had experienced physical and mental health conditions she considered caused or worsened by the Council’s involvement in her family life. X too, had experienced worsening physical and mental health since being in foster care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We will not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. 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)
7. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
8. 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)
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I did and did not investigate

10. Ms B complained to us after first completing a statutory complaint procedure, that exists to consider some complaints about council children services. That comprised consideration of multiple headings of complaint, including those summarised in paragraph 1 above. In the section headed “my investigation” below, I explain what parts of that complaint I investigated. And why, sometimes, I used our discretion not to investigate other parts of Ms B’s complaint, following the general approach set out in paragraph 5 above.
11. While some of Ms B’s complaint involved consideration of events more than 12 months before she complained to this office I decided this should not prevent investigation. Ms B began her complaint to the Council in June 2023, which was soon after the Council ended its involvement in her family life (March 2023). And after that, the statutory complaint procedure took around 12 months to complete. I found there was no significant delay in Ms B then making us aware of her complaint. So, there were special reasons that justified us investigating those parts of the complaint, where appropriate to do so.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. I gave Ms B and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made, or further evidence they provided, before finalising the decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and Administrative considerations

Child Protection

14. A council has a duty to investigate if it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. It must decide whether it should act to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
15. An investigation should include making enquiries with agencies involved with the child and their family. For example, speaking to health visitors, GPs, schools or nurseries. This information gathering should enable the council to assess any harm a child may face. Its assessment may result in:

• no further action;
• a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• a decision to call a strategy meeting.

16. If a strategy meeting decides a child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council should next call an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides on the action needed to safeguard a child. This can include placing children on child protection plans.
17. After the ICPC, there will be one or more review child protection conferences. These will consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether a child protection plan should continue (with or without amendment). A review conference should take place within three months of the first conference, and after that at a maximum interval of every six months.
18. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body we can investigate. It plays an advisory role. The final decision whether to place a child on a child protection plan or end a plan, is that of the Council. But we would usually expect a council to follow the recommendations of a Child Protection Conference unless there were good reasons not to.

Section 20 of the Children Act 1989

19. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 says councils shall provide accommodation to any child in need within their area who needs it, because:

• there is nobody with parental responsibility to care for them; or
• they have been lost or abandoned; or
• the person who has been caring for them cannot provide suitable accommodation or care.

20. Councils cannot accommodate a child under section 20 if a person holding parental responsibility objects and is willing and able to care for the child or arrange care for the child.
21. Councils need to distinguish between private arrangements made between parents and carers, and arrangements in which the child becomes accommodated under the Children Act 1989 and so is a looked after child.
22. When a child must be accommodated, the law says councils should consider placing them with family or friends first. Kinship foster carers can receive a fostering allowance and other practical support from the council.
23. The courts have considered what is a ‘private arrangement’ when a child goes to live with a relative or friend. In particular, there is relevant case law (see London Borough of Southwark v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182). This considered a case where a council had taken a major role in arranging for a friend or relative to care for a child. The Court said that where a council did this, it acted under its duty to provide the child with accommodation.
24. The Court considered a private fostering arrangement might allow a council (otherwise likely to have had to provide accommodation for a child), to ‘sidestep’ that duty. But for a council to sidestep its duty this way, it must have given the carer enough information to allow them to give ‘informed consent’ to a private fostering arrangement. To do this the carer must have known, because of what the council told them, the child’s parent would continue to be financially responsible. Without that informed consent, the council could not sidestep its duty.

Statutory Complaint procedure

25. 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. We also publish practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
26. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
27. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask for it to pass to stage two of the procedure. At this stage, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
28. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
29. 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 working days of the date of request and issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

Background and chronology of the complaint

30. Ms B is a single parent. At the beginning of the events covered by this complaint (March 2021) her eldest child ‘X’ was of secondary school age. He has a disability and special educational needs. His younger sibling ‘Y’ was at primary school. A third younger sibling, ‘Z’, was of pre-school age. Mr C was Z’s father. Ms B was then pregnant with her fourth child and Mr C was the father of the unborn child. Ms B had her fifth child during the events covered by the complaint.
31. Ms B made her first complaint in June 2023. It covered various matters including:

• the Council’s decision to make her children subject to child protection plans in May 2021;
• decisions around X and her separation from him after she became pregnant with her fifth child in 2022. For a time, in July and August 2022 X lived with Ms B’s sister, and then during August, he moved into foster care. He stayed in various foster care placements until December 2022;
• some of the Council’s conduct for the time it maintained the child protection plans.

32. The Council arranged for the complaint to pass straight to stage 2 of the statutory complaint procedure explained above. In July 2023 the Investigating Officer (IO) agreed a statement of complaint with Ms B, splitting her complaint into 14 parts. And in November 2023 they produced a report setting out their findings. The independent person upheld the IO’s findings.
33. The IO did not uphold complaints the Council:

• was at fault for putting Ms B’s children on child protection plans; they found social workers had sound reasons for believing her children at risk of harm;
• undertook inappropriate visits to the family home;
• failed to provide enough support for Ms B’s sister when she cared for X;
• bullied or intimidated Ms B into signing the Section 20 agreement that led X to enter foster care;
• had failed to contact Ms B after X reported a fall. They found no record of the fall, or else that X had not suffered any injury from a fall;
• had let X stay with unapproved foster carers.

34. But the IO did uphold complaints the Council:

• too frequently changed social workers managing the case and there were gaps as a result when they were not in contact with Ms B. This was especially around December 2022 to January 2023;
• did not always communicate effectively with Ms B, especially when X was in foster care;
• failed to provide contact details for X when he moved to a respite foster care placement;
• moved X too much during his time in foster care;
• delayed in arranging for disability living allowance X receives to revert to Ms B after he left foster care;
• did not plan adequately on the day X returned to Ms B’s care;
• moved her children on to a ‘child in need’ plan when the child protection plan ended, without her consent.

35. The IO made no finding on a complaint that a social worker sought to discourage Ms B from complaining. The complaint relied on Ms B’s recollection of a conversation. The social worker had left their post and the IO could not find out their version of events.
36. The Council accepted these findings. The IO recommended the Council apologise, which it agreed to do. It also offered Ms B a payment of £350 in recognition of the frustration, time and trouble caused to her by its actions where it was at fault.
37. Ms B escalated her complaint to stage 3 of the statutory procedure and a review panel considered her case in April 2024. It considered those parts of the complaint not upheld by the IO. It left their findings largely unchanged and expressed its concern at the number of placements X had in foster care and the communications the Council had with Ms B while X was in foster care. It also considered he might have benefited from more support from the Council.
38. It also found the Council had made Ms B feel “intimidated and fearful all her children would be made subject of an interim care order”. And this was why she had signed an agreement that X enter foster care under Section 20 of the Children Act. The Panel said that it did not consider the Council had sufficiently explained the purpose of the agreement with Ms B. And that she had a lack of understanding around the initial child protection conference procedure and visits to her home.
39. The Panel recommended:

• the Council to provide a further apology to Ms B;
• that a senior officer meet with Ms B to provide a “clear, cogent and consistent” response to its findings;
• that Ms B meet with a social work manager to comment on her case files;
• that it should also prepare a flowchart to parents to help them understand the Section 20 procedure;
• that it also provide clear written information on the ICPC process and how it would carry out any outcomes arising from that.

40. The Council gave its response to the Panel recommendations in May 2024. It mostly accepted its findings but did not agree that it had intimidated Ms B into signing the Section 20 agreement. The Council said it had been under a duty to tell Ms B of its concerns about X’s behaviour which led it to seek the agreement. While noting her understandable distress, this was not the same as intimidation and it noted too, Ms B had access to legal advice at the time.
41. It agreed to the recommendations that it should apologise to Ms B and meet with her in person. It would also discuss with her seeing her children’s case file and providing her with some access to this, although it cautioned it would redact some material. It did not comment specifically on the Panel’s suggested wider service improvements (the fourth and fifth bullet points at paragraph 39 above).

My investigation

42. I began by recognising the significant and lasting impact the events covered by this complaint had on Ms B. She explained to me how she felt a lasting stain from the Council’s actions. She considered the Council decision to seek child protection plans marked her out as a bad parent. That she had then pursued her complaint to try and ‘clear her name’. Ms B described to me how since the events covered by this complaint she had experienced poor mental and physical health, likely caused or aggravated by the stress she experienced.
43. Ms B also provided me with evidence of deterioration in X’s physical and mental health since the events covered by this complaint. She considered this related to events covered by this complaint, including time X spent in foster care.
44. My role was only to carry out further investigation of this complaint where necessary. The statutory children’s complaints procedure provides children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent and thorough procedure, to address their concerns. Because of this, if a complaint has passed through the statutory children’s complaint process, we will not normally re-investigate it.
45. We also cannot remedy all distress a parent may feel when they have contact with child protection services. There is distress inherent in that. We can only try and remedy any avoidable, or potentially avoidable, distress.
46. Taking this into account, I did not consider I could add anything to those findings already made where earlier investigation had upheld failings in the Council’s communications with Ms B. So, I accepted:

• Ms B and her children experienced too many changes in social worker during the events covered by this complaint. That because of this, there were gaps in the Council’s communications with them;
• communications were especially poor when X was in foster care and this contributed to confusion and chaos on the day he returned to Ms B’s care;
• Ms B had also wait too long for reinstatement of his disability benefit.

47. Nor did I consider I can come to any different view on Ms B’s complaint a social worker sought to dissuade her from complaining. There was not enough evidence for me to uphold this complaint and no realistic prospect of my obtaining such evidence.
48. Similarly, I also could not come to any different finding on the complaint the Council did not report a fall X had in care. There was not enough evidence for me to uphold this complaint and no realistic prospect of my obtaining such evidence.
49. However, I considered in four specific areas we could investigate further. First, to consider the evidence gathered by the Council when it recommended Ms B’s children go on to a child protection plan. Ms B remained concerned the evidence did not support this and I did not consider the points she raised with me sufficiently dealt with in the Stage 2 or Stage 3 findings.
50. Second, I also wanted to check the evidence for how the Council conducted visits to Ms B’s home. The IO provided satisfactory explanation for why the Council had to make such visits and defended their frequency. But I did not consider those findings went to the crux of Ms B’s complaint which concerned the conduct of those visits.
51. Third, I considered events from when the Council became concerned about X’s behaviours and the potential risks they posed to Ms B’s unborn child. I needed to address the disagreement between the Council and the review panel around its findings on the circumstances where Ms B signed the Section 20 agreement. I also had concerns around the events that led up to that.
52. Fourth, I considered the remedies offered to Ms B’s complaint, where the Council had already recognised fault. I considered if those adequately remedied any injustice caused to Ms B by those faults.

The decision to refer Ms B’s case to the ICPC

Key facts

53. In March 2021 the Council received an alert from a third party, who raised a concern about Ms B’s children. Mr C had a history of substance misuse and domestic abuse, pre-dating his relationship with Ms B. Mr C kept his own home but often stayed with Ms B overnight where he had contact with the children. The referral said he had recently relapsed into substance misuse.
54. The Council considered whether to make enquiries. It recorded its concerns were around Mr C’s substance abuse and history. The Council recorded more than once it had no concerns about Ms B’s parenting capacity. And when it first spoke to her she indicated no concerns for the welfare of her children. She declined its offer to complete an assessment of need.
55. Council social workers and managers discussed whether to close the referral. A senior manager said he had concerns at Ms B’s “reluctance to engage”. They wanted to know more about the impact on the children of Mr C’s relapse and the relationship between Ms B and Mr C. So, the Council resolved to make further enquiries, which coincided with Ms B going into labour and having her fourth child.
56. In a conversation shortly after the birth, the Council recorded Ms B willing to co-operate and agreeing that it could visit. Its social worker did so, following Ms B’s discharge from hospital. At the visit, Ms B’s mother told the Council they had found substances in the home, accessible to the children, thought to belong to Mr C. The social worker reported Ms B not wanting to talk about this.
57. They next described speaking at length with Ms B about her relationship with Mr C. They recorded a view Ms B appeared “fixated” on that relationship, more than thinking of the needs of her children.
58. At the next visit, the social worker recorded that Ms B engaged little with her children and talked about trying to contact Mr C and resume their relationship. She recorded Ms B speaking to Mr C by phone during the visit and it reinforced her impression Ms B was “fixated” on her relationship. During the visit the social worker recording hearing more details about Mr C’s behaviours. This included that he had taken money from Ms B and driven her and the children home from the hospital while possibly “under the influence”.
59. During April the Council received information from a third party that Ms B had reported her finances as “tight”. It also received information that Ms B wanted to reconcile with Mr C. In addition, it recorded Ms B having poor mental health.
60. The Council held a strategy meeting and decided to continue to an ICPC, which followed in May 2021. That received a report from the social worker which highlighted the Council’s concerns about:

• the substances found in Ms B’s home and her reaction when the Council learnt of this;
• Mr C driving Ms B and the children while reportedly “under the influence”;
• evidence that Mr C may have engaged in controlling and coercive behaviour while in his relationship with Ms B;
• Ms B’s mental health given her obvious distress at times; and that it understood Ms B had rejected offers of support for this;
• Mr C’s contact with the children, reported as erratic, with concerns both Ms B and Mr C sought to control this for their own ends;
• Ms B’s honesty with professionals. The social worker reported inconsistency in Ms B reporting when she entered labour and that she had left Mr C to have unsupervised contact with the children despite saying otherwise.

61. During the ICPC meeting Y’s school expressed concern about her presentation. It said she sometimes arrived late and unkempt in appearance. It also had concern her schoolwork was academically behind that of her peers.
62. The ICPC recommended by a majority the children should go on a child protection plan. They considered Ms B’s children at risk of neglect. The Council accepted this recommendation.

Ms B’s complaint

63. Ms B said during this investigation the Council should not have taken this decision. She considered it did not put enough weight on her:

• safeguarding her own children by making Mr C leave the family home as soon as she learnt he had relapsed into substance misuse;
• having a support system with parents, her sister and neighbours all nearby.

64. Ms B also said untrue statements appeared on the Council records. It was simply wrong to say she had begged Mr C to return to her, or she became fixated on her relationship with him. Nor did she have financial difficulties as reported.
65. Ms B also considered the Council put too much weight on Y’s presentation in school. She considered Y, not untypical for teenagers, would sometimes not always pay close attention to her own appearance. For example, wearing a top to school that had some ink marks on it. But that this provided no evidence of any neglect.

My findings

66. I had some concern about how the Council came to complete an assessment which led it decide Ms B’s children were at risk of neglect. I could make no criticism of its decision to make initial child protection enquiries when it learnt Mr C had relapsed into substance misuse. It understood Mr C stayed with Ms B and had access to all her children. His history, combined with his relapse, gave it enough basis to make such enquiries.
67. But its main motivator in continuing enquiries beyond an initial contact was Ms B’s perceived “reluctance to engage” with it. However, I noted Ms B had engaged with its social worker when contacted. She had declined an assessment, saying she saw no need for it. I considered this was not the same as ‘non-engagement’.
68. What was not clear from the record were the reasons Ms B considered her children safeguarded from Mr C. When she first spoke to social workers, they did not record her asking Mr C to stay away from her home or stopping him having any contact with the children. If she had done this and told the Council, its records should have reflected this.
69. I also did not see anything in the case record where the Council explained to Ms B why it contacted it her again to undertake an assessment, when she had first declined one.
70. However, it would be harsh to fault the Council’s curiosity given what it later learnt. In particular, about the possible risks Mr C had posed to the children while he had stayed with Ms B. Had the Council learnt these things earlier I think it likely it would still have pursued the course of action it did.
71. Further, when it did contact Ms B after the birth of her fourth child there was a weight of evidence that recorded her upset and distressed. I had no doubt this resulted from the shock of discovering Mr C’s relapse. But I considered Ms B’s presentation would likely have led to the Council having further contact from professionals supporting her. So, even if the Council had walked away in March 2021, without continuing an assessment, I considered it likely it would have returned later to make more enquiries.
72. Turning to Ms B’s specific concerns, I considered the Council’s assessment could have explored more the circumstances around Mr C leaving the family home. Ms B consistently stated to me she made him stay away to keep her children safe. I considered the Council could have weighed this evidence of her parenting more prominently in its assessment. But I did not think this would have changed the balance of its social worker’s assessment.
73. This is because, this factor could not have negated all the concerns listed. In particular, while Ms B maintained she did not ‘fixate’ on reuniting with Mr C, the file listed detailed reasons why the social worker came to a different view. And I noted they formed this view, based on several contacts with Ms B, including two visits to the home. They also recorded contact from a third party who had similar concerns. So, I could not find fault in the social worker’s judgement, based on their direct contact with Ms B. It would be an obvious concern to the Council that Ms B might reconcile with Mr C, given what it had, by then, learnt about the risks his behaviour posed to the children.
74. I noted above the only instance I found where there was a suggestion Ms B had financial difficulties. The note followed contact with a third party and I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of what the Council recorded, although I accepted the content might not have been correct. But on its own terms the note did not suggest Ms B had any significant financial difficulties. And the Council did not give weight to this evidence, in its report to the ICPC. So, I found no fault in the limited consideration the Council gave this information.
75. Nor did the Council raise any concerns about Y’s presentation at school, in its report to the ICPC. It was powerless to prevent Y’s school raising any concerns it had on this matter. And it was then for all at the conference to decide what weight to give those concerns. As I explained above, the school’s contributions to the ICPC were not something I could investigate. But I did not consider this matter likely to have been decisive to the judgement of the ICPC members, given the list of other concerns the Council had.
76. In summary therefore I could not find the Council at fault for what it put in the assessment that went to the ICPC. It represented the views of its social worker and they could advance reasons and evidence for holding those views. Ms B objected and disagreed with some of the content. But her disagreement, however honestly and genuinely held, was not a basis for me to find fault.

The visits to the home

The key facts

77. Because Ms B’s children were on a child protection plan, the Council had a legal duty to visit regularly and it aimed to do so around once every 10 days.
78. I checked a sample of its visiting notes between June 2021 and March 2022. The notes suggested on each visit the social worker sought to observe and / or speak to the children alone. The visit notes recorded general impressions on the tidiness of the house. I noted social workers recorded speaking to X and Y in their bedrooms on one occasion. While other conversations took place in school or in other parts of the house. I found no notes commenting specifically on the children’s bedrooms.

Ms B’s complaint

79. Ms B considered her children, especially Y, traumatised by the social work visits. In particular, that they were excessively intrusive and involved searches of the property.

My findings

80. I accepted from Ms B’s perspective the visits were intrusive and unwelcome, given her unhappiness that her children were on a child protection plan. But they flowed inevitably from that. And good professional practice meant they had to be regular and sometimes unannounced.
81. I found no evidence the visits were excessively intrusive in terms of how social workers behaved when they visited Ms B’s elder children in their rooms. I found no commentary on the state of the rooms and nothing to suggest social workers searched their bedrooms or anywhere else. Their focus was on speaking to X and Y and that was something they did both in their bedrooms and elsewhere. And in doing so, the social workers were again following good professional practice.
82. I could not therefore uphold this part of the complaint.

The complaint around events where X entered foster care

The key facts

83. In June 2022 Ms B was pregnant and expecting her fifth child. At this time support workers regularly supported X when he was not in school. They raised concerns with the social worker about X’s behaviour towards Ms B when at home. They had concerns for her safety while pregnant and that of her unborn child.
84. The Council’s social worker gained approval from a management panel to provide X with “suitable accommodation” away from the family home. It foresaw providing this as foster care, under Section 20 of the Children’s Act. Its notes said this would be for a “crisis period” with a plan for reintegration.
85. When it discussed X moving out of the family home, Ms B proposed that he spend time with her sister instead. At first her sister moved into Ms B’s home with X, and Ms B moved into a short-term let property with her other children. But that had to change because the arrangement had implications for Ms B’s tenancy of her home. So, Ms B returned home and her sister moved to the short-term let property with X.
86. To support Ms B’s sister the Council paid for the short-term let. It also arranged for X’s support workers to collect him from school and stay with him until she returned home from work. Case notes recorded some tensions around her working patterns and that she would not consent to support workers taking X to the short-term let earlier in the evening. I noted Ms B’s sister also asked the Council for compensation for lost wages having reduced her hours to help care for X.
87. The Council recorded soon after this arrangement began, that Ms B’s sister planned to go on holiday at the end of August, at which point she could not continue to look after X. Its social worker recorded speaking to Ms B about signing a Section 20 agreement and her saying she “would not sign her child into care”. The social worker recorded saying in that case the Council would go to Court “next week” to seek an order to take X into care. The social worker suggested Ms B take legal advice if unsure what to do next. By this time Ms B had her fifth child and the Council recorded concerns X might harm them. This included comments made by X to his support workers.
88. Over the next few days, the Council recorded conversations where it recorded Ms B having received some legal advice. Also, that she had not decided whether to consent to the proposed Section 20 agreement.
89. The Council found a short-term foster care placement for X on the final day that Ms B’s sister said she could care for him. The Council said that it planned to complete a risk assessment of the risks X posed if he returned home to live with Ms B and his siblings. It would then refer the case to its reunification team to plan for X’s return. Its notes recorded Ms B unhappy, feeling ‘forced’ to agree the Section 20 arrangement. It recorded her view that she did not think X posed a risk to the baby. However, she signed the agreement.
90. Until mid-December 2022, when Ms B revoked the Section 20 agreement, X lived with four different foster carers. He had three short term placements of between three and 15 nights. After that, he had more settled care arrangements, but twice he also entered respite foster care.

Ms B’s complaint

91. Ms B told me she considered the Council had exaggerated concerns about her sister’s ability to care for X. She recognised her sister’s employment had occasionally made her late home. But that it was more suitable X stay in her sister’s care than enter foster care.
92. Ms B said the social worker had told her the Council would seek a court order placing all her children in care, if she did not agree to X moving into foster care. This contributed to her signing the Section 20 agreement and her view she felt bullied or harassed into doing so.

My proposed findings

93. I did not consider the Council handled well what happened when, in June 2022, it became concerned that X might harm Ms B and / or her new baby. The Council clearly could not ignore the information it had. I found no fault in it considering how it could reduce the risk of harm, including by encouraging a temporary separation for X from the rest of the family.
94. I found there was agreement for this at first. Ms B raised no objection to X spending time in the care of her sister. The issue for her was the prospect of what would happen if her sister could no longer care for X. She did not want X to enter foster care with a stranger.
95. I noted the Council had several weeks to plan for what would happen when Ms B’s sister went on holiday. Knowing Ms B’s views, I considered it should have agreed sooner to risk assess X and to have completed that before he had to leave her sister’s care. Not doing so, was a fault.
96. I also considered the Council should have confirmed to Ms B in writing what giving authority under Section 20 of the Children Act entailed. And crucially what action the Council proposed to take, if Ms B did not want to sign such an agreement. I have seen nothing in the papers to suggest the Council ever had an intent to consider taking any of Ms B’s children into care, except for X. But that was clearly not what Ms B understood. Not clarifying these matters was a fault.
97. In such circumstances I could understand why Ms B felt unduly pressured to sign the Section 20 agreement. I could not say the Council harassed her to do so or subjected her to any duress. But the faults above increased Ms B’s distress, at what would always be a distressing time. She found herself between ‘a rock and a hard place’; not wanting to put her child in care, but also clearly mindful of the concerns that he may cause her or his young sibling harm. The Council’s faults only made that decision harder for her. That was her injustice.
98. I did not find that concerns about Ms B’s sister led the Council to ask Ms B to sign the Section 20 agreement. I noted on the file there were some tensions around the support given to X, that needed to fit in with her sister’s working patterns and other commitments. However, clearly the Council did not seek to end the arrangement where X lived with Ms B’s sister, until she could no longer care for him. Which was, as noted, flagged several weeks in advance.
99. Although, that said, I could not understand why there was no discussion around Ms B’s sister resuming her care for X once she returned from holiday. Despite the tensions I noted, there was nothing I read that suggested the Council thought her unsuitable to care for X. Presumably it would not have consented to her doing so, if that was the case. I did not know if Ms B’s sister wanted that responsibility and so whether a longer-term arrangement was feasible or practicable. But I considered it further fault the Council did not explore this, as the law places it under an expectation to first look towards relatives to place children who cannot remain with their families.
100. This also led me to another concern I had, that Ms B’s sister may have acted almost as a kinship foster carer to X for several weeks. The arrangement that X move in with Ms B’s sister was clearly one the Council had a strong involvement with. As I noted above the Council needed to consider if a family member could care for X before it looked to outside foster carers. It did much to promote that arrangement as it paid for the short-term let and arranged support workers for X.
101. I am conscious for Ms B’s sister to become a kinship foster carer Ms B would have still needed to sign a Section 20 agreement. She may have been reluctant to do so. But I could not assume Ms B would have refused this. As giving consent to her sister would be different to that of agreeing X move in with unknown foster carers. Had this become a kinship foster arrangement, then the Council could have provided further financial support for Ms B’s sister. And that may have had some impact also on any discussions around X’s care.
102. I found fault therefore the Council did not consider if this was, or should have become, a kinship foster care arrangement and that it did not advise both parties of the law in this area. I could not say how events might have turned out differently but for this fault. But we consider uncertainty a form of distress. So, this was both an injustice to Ms B, and to her sister whose injustice I asked the Council to remedy using the powers explained in paragraph 7.

The previously acknowledged faults and remedy

103. Finally, as part of my investigation I considered the remedies recommended by the earlier investigation of Ms B’s complaint. That investigation found faults centred around poor communication with Ms B. First when X entered foster care, then when he left it and afterwards. It also recognised the undesirability of X having so many moves while in foster care. To consider the appropriateness of the remedies recommended, I considered the injustice caused to Ms B and X by these faults. Because it is from the injustice, that any remedy must follow.
104. I did not consider the earlier investigation of Ms B’s complaint was clear about this. So, I came to my own view, finding Ms B suffered avoidable distress because of the poor communications identified around the time X was in foster care.
105. I also considered the frequent moves X experienced likely caused him some confusion and distress. The disruption he experienced likely contributed something to the difficulties he currently has with his physical and mental health. However, it was not possible for me to say to what extent they specifically arise from that as opposed to life experiences before or since and the underlying disabilities he has that present challenges. In addition, I considered there would always have been some likely disruption to X’s life in Ms B’s household, given the risk he presented to Ms B and her youngest child. But as my findings above indicated, I considered this degree of disruption was arguably greater than it needed to have been.
106. In my view the remedies recommended and agreed to before we investigated did not go far enough to remedy this injustice nor that identified elsewhere in this statement. I therefore made my own recommendations to the Council, which it agreed and these are set out below.

Back to top

Agreed Action

Personal remedy

107. To remedy the injustice set out above I the Council has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision, it would:
1. apologise to Ms B, accepting the findings of this investigation. Paragraph 108 provides more advice on this;
2. make a symbolic payment to Ms B of £1500 for the distress caused (see paragraph 109 for explanation);
3. make a symbolic payment to Ms B’s sister of £500 for distress (see paragraph 110 for explanation);
4. repeat its offer of a meeting made after the stage 3 review to discuss findings from the complaint and for Ms B to view social care records associated with her children (further to the proviso previously given by the Council on the limitations of this).
108. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council agreed to consider this guidance in making its apology.
109. Our published guidance on remedies suggests that we will not usually recommend a payment above £500 for the injustice of distress. However, taking an overview of the impact of the faults identified from the time before, during and after X’s time in foster care I considered a higher award merited. This took account the distress arose from different sources and was over several months.
110. In the case of Ms B’s sister, I stopped short of asking the Council to retrospectively consider her a kinship foster carer. This was because of the number of factors present which prevented me saying with any certainty this would have been the outcome but for the fault. But I considered the lack of consideration by the Council was what had caused that uncertainty. And that this justified the symbolic payment to her.

Service improvement

111. Finally, I considered the Council should want to learn lessons from this complaint. The stage 3 review panel made a recommendation that it that it should prepare a flowchart to parents to help them understand the Section 20 procedure. The Council did not respond. But in response to my draft decision statement, it sent me evidence that set out the checks its social workers should make before presenting an agreement to a parent for signature. I considered this set out all the steps I would expect and the agreement gave information to parents on what would happen next. So, I saw no need to repeat this recommendation.
112. However, I did want the Council to brief all relevant social work staff on the importance of properly considering cases that might engage its duty to support someone as a kinship foster carer. It agreed to this. The briefing would cover the importance of social workers recording their thinking and advice given to the relevant parties. The Council was encouraged take account of the focus reports we have produced on this subject in carrying out this action, most recently here: Focus Report - Family Values. The briefing would complete within three months of a decision on this complaint.
113. The Council will provide us with evidence when it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

114. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Ms B. The Council accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy that injustice and improve its service. So, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman