Fostering


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • North Somerset Council (17 017 147)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 05-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council made unreasonable demands on her for looking after children in a foster placement with her daughter. She also complained about the behaviour of an officer towards her at a meeting. The Council was not at fault in relation to the childcare support plan. There is not enough evidence to say the Council was at fault concerning the officer's behaviour.

  • North Somerset Council (17 018 809)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 05-Dec-2018

    Summary: Ms X complained about lack of support, bullying behaviour and delay during the Council's investigation into her standards of care as a foster carer. The Council has already recognised some delay. the Council has agreed to apologise for further delay found. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the other areas of the complaint.

  • Essex County Council (17 006 164)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 22-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr A complains about the Council's investigation of his complaint under stage two of the statutory children's complaint procedure. Mr A says there were flaws in the investigation. Mr A also complains about flaws in the Council's initial section 47 investigation into the allegations. The Council is at fault for not allowing Mr A to take his complaint to stage three of the statutory procedure. The Ombudsman has recommended the Council arrange a review panel to look at Mr A's complaint.

  • London Borough of Haringey (17 007 648)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 29-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Council failed to follow the correct statutory procedures when it removed four foster children from the complainant's care. This caused her avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to make a payment to the complainant for her injustice and it will remind social work managers of the importance of following the statutory framework for removing children from a foster carer and of the importance of keeping proper records of their decision making.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (18 001 349)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 25-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found no fault in the Council's decision not to place any further children alongside the child Miss X and Mr Y currently foster. There is also no fault in the Council's decision not to pay a solo placement fee to the foster carers, because there is no requirement for it to do so.

  • Kingston upon Hull City Council (17 004 897)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 05-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Council failed, over a long period of time, to follow appropriate procedures when supervising foster carers, Mr C and Mr D. Appropriate procedures would have highlighted any concerns sooner and afforded the Council, Mr C and Mr D an opportunity to address them. However, the Independent Review Mechanism has since decided Mr C and Mr D are not suitable to be foster carers.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (17 012 631)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 04-Sep-2018

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain of mistakes by the Council in planning the return of a foster child, Q to her birth mother leading to the child being placed in a children's home outside the UK when the reunification failed. The fault found would not have led to a different outcome.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (17 002 255)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 22-Aug-2018

    Summary: Mr C was investigated by the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) after he withdrew money from his foster child's account on two occasions. The Council has agreed to reconsider its finding of 'substantiated' on the complaint made against him, to reconsider its use of the LADO process and to make a financial settlement.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (17 017 287)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 14-Aug-2018

    Summary: the Council failed to follow its procedures when considering a safeguarding issue and failed to address all of Mr B's complaint. An apology, payment to reflect Mr B's doubt about whether the outcome would have been different, placing a copy of this statement on Mr B's fostering file and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Kent County Council (17 018 496)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 20-Jul-2018

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council's decision to deregister them as foster carers, causing them to lose their livelihood. They also complain about the Council's refusal to use the statutory children's complaints process. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions.

;