Fostering


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Brent (19 000 767)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 23-Dec-2019

    Summary: the Council accepts it did not provide all the equipment necessary to care for young children Ms F fostered and offered a satisfactory payment. Ms F agreed to take the young children even though she was only approved to foster older children so there was no fault by the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms F's complaint about the welfare of the children formerly in her care. There is no fault in the Council's request Ms F repay the children's savings.

  • Lancashire County Council (19 004 804)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 19-Dec-2019

    Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complain about the process the Council followed when it investigated allegations made against them as foster carers from December 2017 onwards. The Ombudsman found fault in the Council's decision to close a complaint without following the correct process. This caused confusion and frustration to Ms X and Mr Y when, a few months later, the Council realised its mistake and reopened the case. That decision was not fault. As the Council has already apologised to Ms X and Mr Y no further remedy is necessary.

  • Torbay Council (18 018 203)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 13-Dec-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's actions while she was a foster carer for a looked after child. She complains the Council did not provide her with appropriate support during the placement and failed in its duty of care to safeguard her and protect her from harm. We do not find fault with the Council.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (18 015 973)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 02-Dec-2019

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to safeguard Y, a child she provided with respite foster care. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault. However, it has accepted it could have done more to reassure Miss X it had acted on her concerns and there were delays in its stage two response to her complaint. The Council should apologise to remedy any injustice caused.

  • Wiltshire Council (19 003 176)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 27-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council ignored her requests not to contact her ex-partner when she applied to be a foster carer. She said the Council's actions potentially put her and her family at risk. The Council was not at fault. There were delays in the Council's stage two response to her complaint which caused avoidable upset and frustration. The Council should apologise to remedy any injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Bexley (18 007 825)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 19-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with an allegation against Mrs X as a foster carer. The Council was at fault in the way it investigated the allegation and dealt with their complaint. The Council failed to resolve a conflict of view within the Council about whether an allegation of emotional abuse should be upheld. It has now reviewed the evidence and changed the outcome to unsubstantiated. The Council will amend its records, apologise to Mr and Mrs X and make a payment. It will issue guidance to officers about the proper handling of allegations. This is a suitable remedy.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (18 016 841)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 18-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council's failure to accept some of the findings of a children's statutory complaints stage 3 review panel. The Council was at fault in the way it removed two foster children from their care. The Council has already apologised which is sufficient to remedy the injustice its actions caused. It should also review its procedures to ensure it acts in line with legislation in future. There was no fault in the support the Council provided the couple prior to the children's removal.

  • Herefordshire Council (18 015 534)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 05-Nov-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not provide him with adequate information, prior to placing a child with him on an emergency foster placement. He says subsequent events have led to him losing his job and the matter has caused him considerable distress. The Council provided Mr X with enough information before placing the child but there was a one-month delay in providing him with the placement specific risk assessment. This is fault but the delay did not impact on the course of events. The Council has agreed to remind its staff of the need to provide foster carers with a comprehensive risk assessment at the start of an emergency placement and to document it has provided carers with this information.

  • West Sussex County Council (19 003 090)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 31-Oct-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains the Council did not pay her a fostering allowance when she cared for a after a looked after child. This issue arose in 2015, but Ms B did not complain to the Council until 2019. Ms B's complaint is therefore late. We do not investigate such complaints unless we decide there are good reasons to do so. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into Ms B's complaint because the complaint is late and there is no reason to exercise discretion.

  • Luton Borough Council (18 016 548)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 23-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that an investigation into an allegation against them and their standards of care as foster carers was flawed because it was based on incorrect information. The Ombudsman finds that the Council's decisions were not affected by flaws in the investigation.