Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to remove children they were fostering from their care and to restrict their ability to foster going forward. In particular they complain the social worker involved in their case did not act appropriately. The Ombudsman found there was fault in some of the Council’s approach to dealing with concerns about Mr and Mrs X’s fostering capability. However, only a decision to remove two foster children without notice caused them an injustice which it should remedy. The Council has agreed with our recommendation to apologise and pay a financial remedy for the distress caused to Mr and Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to remove children they were fostering from their care and to restrict their ability to foster going forward. In particular they complain the social worker involved in their case did not act appropriately. Mr and Mrs X say they have suffered distress because of false allegations of poor practice. They can no longer foster a child they were hoping to adopt and have suffered financial loss as they are now selling the house they bought specifically for fostering children.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. In this case, the Ombudsman has considered the period between September 2017 and July 2018. Mr and Mrs X have complained about developments after that point but the Council has not yet had an opportunity to respond to those allegations.
3. We have asked the Council to look at this new complaint and it has agreed to do so. Mr and Mrs X are free to come back to the Ombudsman once that process is complete if they remain dissatisfied.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke with Mrs X and considered the information she sent to the Ombudsman. I wrote to the Council to make enquiries and reviewed the material it sent in response.
8. I have read the case notes made available to me, including confidential records I cannot share with Mr and Mrs X.
9. I have considered the requirements of the Children Act 1989, The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 and statutory guidance issued by the government about the law.
10. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Mr and Mrs X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.
11. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

12. Mr and Mrs X started fostering children for the Council in 2016. By summer 2017, they had three children placed with them. Mr and Mrs X say they intended to adopt or offer a long-term home to the youngest foster child in particular, who they had looked after since he was a few days old. They say the Council knew this.
13. In July 2017 the Council’s case records show it decided to change the social worker supervising Mr and Mrs X as foster carers. One of the foster children’s social workers raised concerns. Managers decided as the original supervising social worker had worked with Mr and Mrs X since they began fostering for the Council, it wanted to introduce an ‘independent perspective’.
14. There then followed several incidents from September 2017 onwards. These resulted in a decision by the Council, in April 2018, to remove all the children from Mr and Mrs X’s care while it investigated their fostering capability.
15. The incidents included a disclosure of assault made by a child to the family GP, which Mrs X herself informed the Council about immediately after the appointment. Case notes show there were also concerns about the confidentiality of information and, around this time, Mr and Mrs X were advising the Council one of the foster children was regularly misbehaving. On one occasion this involved the foster child deliberately injuring the youngest foster child. Another foster child reported hearing Mrs X slap another child in the house.
16. The Council says it updated the ‘safe care plan’ after Mr and Mrs X reported the aggressive foster child. It added wording to say they should always supervise her and not leave her alone with the youngest foster child. However, another incident happened and, in late March 2018, Mr and Mrs X attended a meeting at the Council’s offices. Social workers asked them about the reporting of the injuries and concerns Mr and Mrs X had not followed the ‘safe care plan’.
17. In early April 2018, Mr and Mrs X told their supervising social worker they did not want the aggressive foster child, who was with other carers temporarily for respite, to return. The Council had already held a strategy meeting in October 2017, after the allegation to the GP, and a further meeting took place in late March 2018. A third meeting took place on 4 April 2018. Those present decided they should also remove the remaining two foster children from Mr and Mrs X, “within the next two weeks.” Another formal recommendation from the meeting was that Mr and Mrs X’s case should return to the fostering panel for their deregistration as foster carers.
18. The Council did not tell Mr and Mrs X about its decision. It says this is because it had concerns for their ‘emotional wellbeing’ and thought their reaction would place the children at risk of emotional harm. It removed the two remaining children on 13 April 2018. This happened while Mr and Mrs X were attending a meeting at the Council’s offices at which they received a letter informing them of the result of the strategy meeting.
19. The Council says the supervising social worker attended Mr and Mrs X’s house with a colleague to collect the children’s belongings later that day. She noted Mrs X was “in a heightened emotional state” but that, despite her own child being “distressed, crying and desperately trying to seek attention” from her, she was unresponsive to her needs.
20. A manager from the fostering team carried out the investigation into Mr and Mrs X’s fostering capabilities. This manager had previously had involvement with their case. The investigation included two visits to interview Mr and Mrs X at home in April 2018.
21. Mr and Mrs X say their supervising social worker visited and provided them with months of previous supervision records that she had not written up at the time. This happened in May 2018 while the investigation was still ongoing. Mrs X says there are inconsistencies between the handwritten notes and the typed-up versions, as she has seen both. The Council says, during this visit, Mr and Mrs X told the social worker they were intending to sell their house but remain registered as foster carers.
22. The Council’s investigation finished in June 2018 and recommended deregistering Mr and Mrs X. However, when the fostering panel met in July 2018 it decided, after hearing from those involved in the case, Mr and Mrs X should have their registration reduced instead. This meant they could only foster one child and more supervision would take place.

Back to top

Analysis

23. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to act as an appeals body or to reconsider decisions already taken by a local authority simply because someone disagrees with them. We will not interfere with a decision taken by appropriately trained officers using their professional judgement, unless the process used to reach the decision involved fault.
24. I am satisfied the decision to remove the children from Mr and Mrs X’s care was one the Council could take. Mr and Mrs X clearly feel the allegations were unfair, and the remaining two children were safe once the aggressive foster child left. However, the case notes I have seen show the Council based its conclusions on many previous entries and professional observations. Mr and Mrs X feel their supervising social worker made unfounded and unprofessional remarks, but the Council’s investigation enabled them to make this point more than once and I am satisfied it was properly considered.
25. I have also considered whether it was appropriate for the Council not to inform Mr and Mrs X of its intention to remove the remaining two children from their care before the meeting on 13 April 2018.
26. The courts have previously decided fosters carers are one of the groups who should receive notification if there is an intention to end a foster placement under Section 22 Children Act 1989. The law says the Council need not consult anyone however if it decides there is a risk of ‘serious injury’ to someone.
27. Regulation 14, of The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, says the person looking after a placed child should be given written notice that a placement is to end before it does. The accompanying statutory guidance clarifies where the Council, “considers there is an immediate risk of significant harm to the child or to protect others from serious injury, the child must be removed from the placement and the requirements set out in regulation 14 do not need to be met”.
28. I cannot see the exceptions in the law or guidance are met in this case. The Council says it had concerns about the effect telling Mr and Mrs X earlier would have on their emotional well-being and that of the foster children. Yet, in allowing the two remaining foster children to stay with them for nine more days, the Council clearly did not believe they were at ‘immediate risk of significant harm’, nor a ‘risk of serious injury’ to someone.
29. Therefore, although the decision to remove the children was a professional judgement in the circumstances, there was insufficient evidence to support the decision not to notify them before doing so. This was fault. Given Mr and Mrs X’s particular attachment to the youngest foster child, I believe this caused them a significant injustice in the form of distress. Instead of having a few days to come to terms with the Council’s decision, they now had to face suddenly never being able to see him again. It might also have limited the effect this sudden removal had on Mr and Mrs X’s own daughter with proper consultation.
30. The failure of the supervising social worker to write up her supervision notes and provide copies to Mr and Mrs X between September 2017 and April 2018 was fault. I cannot identify any particular injustice this caused them, however. I have not seen any evidence Mr and Mrs X were persistently requesting the notes and they only took on particular importance when the Council decided to remove the children from their care. I understand Mrs X feels there are inconsistencies between the handwritten and typed copies. However, as both sets of documents exist, and would have been available at any point if needed, this does not cause any injustice.
31. I am concerned the investigator appointed by the Council to investigate Mr and Mrs X’s fostering capability, after the strategy meeting on 4 April 2018, was not sufficiently independent. The investigator was a fostering manager who had already had involvement with Mr and Mrs X’s case at an earlier stage, after concerns raised by one of the foster children’s social workers. The failure of the Council to consider whether this presented an unacceptable conflict, and to consider whether an alternative person should investigate, is fault.
32. The minutes of the strategy meeting itself on 4 April 2018 show deregistration was a formal recommendation, even though the investigation into Mr and Mrs X’s fostering capability had not yet begun. Although I understand potential outcomes were a legitimate talking point, the notes I have seen suggest it had predetermined the result of the investigation. It gives the impression the Council’s investigation was always going to recommend deregistering Mr and Mrs X. Given they had not yet taken part in an interview at that point, nor were aware of the Council’s intended action, this was fault.
33. Despite finding fault with the Council’s actions in Paragraphs 31 and 32, there is no evidence to suggest the result would have been any different if there had been no fault. So it did not cause any injustice to Mr and Mrs X. The fostering panel heard evidence in person from all those involved, and read reports, before reaching its conclusions.
34. The record of that meeting is thorough, and I am satisfied the panel took the decision to reduce Mr and Mrs X’s registration after considering all the evidence. Mr and Mrs X were invited to give evidence, answer questions and put across their views. The notes show the panel clearly considered what weight the give to different factors and which evidence each member preferred. There is a record of their rationale and so I do not find fault with this part of the process.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. By 24 July 2019, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the distress caused by its decision to remove two foster children from their care without consulting them or giving them notice.
• pay Mr and Mrs X £500 in recognition of the distress caused to both them and their own child. I consider this to be an appropriate amount which balances the severity of the distress caused against their role as foster carers.
36. The Council should write to the Ombudsman to confirm when these actions are complete.

Back to top

Final decision

37. There is evidence of fault in the Council’s approach to investigating concerns about Mr and Mrs X’s fostering capabilities. However, only a decision to remove two foster children without notice caused them an injustice which needs to be remedied.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman