Summary: Miss X complained the Council ignored a safeguarding referral regarding the placement of her children. The Council acted promptly after receiving new information relating to concerns about the foster carers. It monitored the placement and found no concerns regarding the foster carers actions towards Miss X’s children. The complaint will not be pursued further as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council ignored a safeguarding referral regarding the placement of her children, placing them with unsuitable foster carers between June and October 2025.
2. Miss X says this has caused her a significant amount of distress.

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. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss X has also made complaints about the actions of the Council and its social workers. These other matters all relate to issues around the custody of and contact with her children, matters that have been the subject of court proceedings. As a result, they are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and I am unable to consider them. This investigation is concerned only with the period July to October 2025 and one specific foster care placement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Fostering

8. Councils have statutory duties to children in care to promote and safeguard their welfare. The ‘Care, Planning and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010’ and guidance sets out how councils should manage and arrange placements.
9. It is normally advised that children do not change schools when moving to new foster placements, wherever possible.
10. In relation to the termination of foster placements, the above guidance advises councils to carry out a statutory review of the child’s case and ensure the views of all the people concerned have been heard, unless there is an immediate risk of significant harm, requiring immediate removal.
11. The ‘Fostering Minimum Standards’ say that children should not normally be moved if the foster carers are willing to care for them.
12. When children are in foster care, the foster carers will have their own fostering social worker, who is responsible for supporting and assessing their care. The children will have their own social worker. Both social workers should work closely together.

Allegations against Foster carers

13. The National Fostering Minimum Standards says investigations into allegations against carers should be carried out quickly and should provide protection to the child but also support to the person subject to the investigation.
14. A council shall not allow the placement of a child with a particular person to continue if it appears to them that the placement is no longer the most suitable way of performing their duty. Where it appears to an authority that to continue a placement would be harmful to the welfare of the child concerned, the council shall remove the child forthwith.
15. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.
16. The fostering minimum standards say “Allegations against people that work with children or members of the fostering household are reported by the fostering service to the LADO. This includes allegations that on the face of it may appear relatively insignificant or that have also been reported directly to the police or Children and Family Services

Key facts

17. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
18. Miss X has three children who have been local authority looked after children for several years. The Council has aimed to keep the siblings together and so has sought a foster placement which can accommodate three children. The children required a new foster placement in July 2025 when their previous carers gave notice due to concerns about the relationship with another child in the household.
19. A new foster care placement was identified. The social worker undertook checks with the foster care agency which disclosed a historical allegation about the male foster carer hitting the child on their hand. This incident had been fully investigated including a police referral. The Council says appropriate safeguards and training was implemented and the fostering panel had determined they could continue fostering. No further concerns had been reported since and so the Council decided this would be an appropriate short-term placement while it identified an alternative long-term arrangement. The placement began on 25 July.
20. On 6 August, the Council received information from another local authority sharing information about the foster carers which the foster care agency had not previously disclosed to it. The Council escalated the concerns to managers, sought clarification of the concerns, arranged a multiagency discussion involving three affected local authorities, reviewed the placement and arranged a social work visit.
21. A social worker visited the children on 8 August. She spoke to the oldest child alone and saw the younger children. No concerns were reported with the social worker reporting that the children were well presented, comfortable around the foster carers and seemed happy.
22. A multi agency meeting between the three affected local authorities took place on 12 August. The Council says this was the first available opportunity for all key parties to meet. This resulted in a formal referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) and action taken to arrange a multi-agency allegations management meeting. This was led by another local authority involved in the case. Due to difficulties arranging dates that everyone could attend, the meeting was scheduled for 16 September.
23. Social workers visited on 18 August. They observed the home conditions including the children’s bedrooms. An issue had been raised by Miss X after her family time regarding marks on one child’s leg. This was explored by the social worker and the child reported she had banged her leg on the fire guard. A recommendation was made to raise with the health visitor the following day. No other concerns were raised and the children reported they were happy and not worried about anything.
24. A further visit to the children took place on 4 September 2025. Notes of this meeting show that each child was spoken to individually and no concerns were reported or observed. The social worker action was to continue with four weekly home visits and to do school visits in-between.
25. An alternative foster placement was identified and the children visited on 3 October followed by an overnight visit on 6 October. The transition was successful and the children moved to the new foster placement.

Analysis

26. The information provided shows the Council carried out the appropriate checks before moving the children to the foster placement in July 2025. While there had been a historical allegation regarding one foster carer, it was satisfied this had been appropriately dealt with and there was no evidence of further concerns at the time the decision was made to place the children. I find no fault in respect of the decision to use the foster carers.
27. Approximately two weeks later, new information was provided to the Council raising new concerns about the foster carers. These concerns were not related to Miss X’s children but had arisen during separate court proceedings concerning another child and local authority. The Council acted immediately on receiving this information and took action to both visit the children and liaise with two other affected local authorities.
28. The information provided shows there was some delay in the necessary multi-agency meeting taking place. It appears this was due to the difficulties in arranging a date that all affected parties could attend. I have seen information which shows the Council continued to pursue the other local authorities and pushed to ensure the necessary actions were taken and to prevent the situation continuing to drift.
29. I have considered how the delays affected the children. There is no evidence Miss X raised a safeguarding referral herself about this placement during the time the children lived there from July to October 2025. There were regular social work visits and the notes show the children were settled, happy at school, interacting well with the foster carers and reported no concerns when the social worker spoke with them alone. So while separate concerns were raised about the suitability of the foster carers, there were no concerns raised during the short period of time Miss X’s children were placed there.
30. I am satisfied the Council considered the well being of the children after learning of the new concerns in August 2025. It balanced all factors including ensuring the siblings could remain together and the risks of them remaining in the placement. It then applied its professional judgement when deciding the children should remain while it worked to find an alternative placement. It moved the children within two months.
31. While I understand why Miss X, as their mother, was concerned about this placement, I am not persuaded there is evidence that the decision by the Council for them to remain while an alternative placement was found affected them in a way that warrants further action by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Decision

32. There is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice and so I will not investigate the complaint further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman