Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her and her husband, Mr X suitable training and support while they were foster carers. It then failed to consider the Independent Review Mechanism decision and decided to de-register them as foster carers. The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mr and Mrs X with training and support needed, however, it was not at fault in its decision to de-register them as carers.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to de-register her and her husband Mr X, as foster carers. She said the Council had failed to:
• provide them with suitable training and support; and
• consider the recommendations of the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM).
2. Mrs X and Mr X stated they had suffered stress, illness, lack of sleep, worry, and financial loss following the incident that led to their de-registration.

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 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)
4. 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

5. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X.
6. I considered information provided by the Council including its complaint response to Mr and Mrs X, case records and the minutes of the IRM. I also referred to the Council’s policies on fostering.
7. I referred to the “Fostering Services: National Minimum Standards” published by the Department for Education 2011.
8. Mrs X and the Council both had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. Mr and Mrs X were foster carers for the Council. In May 2018, the Council decided to de-register them as foster carers following an allegation Mr X had smacked a child in their care.
10. Mr and Mrs X appealed the Council’s decisions to de-register them through the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM).
11. The IRM is an independent body that considers a foster carer’s suitability to foster. A panel of up to eight people with personal or professional experience of foster care, reviews the Fostering Panel’s decision to de-register foster carers.
12. The IRM considers all the evidence anew. It questions both the Council and the foster carers and takes its own independent legal advice if necessary. The IRM makes a fresh decision about the foster carer’s suitability to foster and makes a recommendation to the Council. The Council must consider but does not have to follow the IRM recommendations.

What happened

13. The Council placed two siblings, Y and Z with Mr and Mrs X in 2017. At the end of October 2017, Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council because they were struggling with the sibling’s behaviour. They stated they had had to physically restrain Y in the car. The Council arranged a meeting for the start of November 2017 to look at the support in place for Mr and Mrs X. There are no minutes from the meeting. The case records show the discussion focussed on an up-coming holiday and the Council’s plan to move the siblings into new, separate placements. Mr and Mrs X left the meeting agreeing to look after the siblings until after Christmas.
14. On 5 December 2017, while Mr X was driving Y and Z to school there was an incident in the car. This resulted in Mr X stopping the car and intervening. During this, he smacked Y’s bottom. Mr X sent the Council an email immediately after the incident explaining what had happened and that he had smacked Y to “gain control of the escalating situation on the side of the road on the way to school”. The Council held a strategy meeting that day and decided to remove X and Y from Mr and Mrs X’s care while it completed investigations.
15. The Police undertook its investigation into the smack first and completed this in January 2018. The Police did not take any action against Mr X. The Council then started its investigation and prepared a report for the Fostering Panel. The report recommended Mr and Mrs X be de-registered as foster carers
16. The Council’s Fostering Panel met in April 2018. It decided to de-register Mr and Mrs X. It sent them a letter in May stating that foster carers “are not permitted to use any kind of physical punishment and Kent County Council expects high levels of behaviour from them at all time, regardless of the difficulties presented by some of the children they look after”. It said the use of physical chastisement raised deep concerns about Mr X’s “judgement and temperament when under pressure”.
17. Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with the Council’s decision and appealed to the IRM. The Panel minutes show Mr and Mrs X had the opportunity to explain:
• the challenges they had experienced looking after Y and Z;
• that they felt the Council had failed to provide them with the suitable training and support when they asked it for help with Y and Z’s behaviour;
• that the Council had delayed in completing its investigation into the incident.
18. After considering the Council and Mr and Mrs X’s representations, the Panel voted on whether Mr and Mrs X should be de-registered as foster carers. Three members of the panel voted for Mr and Mrs X to be de-registered and three voted for them to continue as foster carers. The chairperson had the casting vote and supported Mr and Mrs X in continuing to be foster carers.
19. The minutes showed the Panel members felt the Council had not offered Mr and Mrs X practical support with Y and Z’s behaviour and that there was a lack of training and support on de-escalation techniques. The Panel noted Mrs X had not completed formal training since becoming a foster carer.
20. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X following the IRM’s recommendations. It said its decision to de-register them as foster carers remained for the reasons explained in its first decision letter.
21. Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with the Council’s decision to deregister and complained. The Council upheld parts of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint but did not change its decision to de-register them as foster carers. Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
22. In response to my enquiries the Council said it had learnt from Mr and Mrs X’s complaint and had:
• reviewed its training offer for foster carers to ensure all carers and staff are aware of the training and support packages available to them;
• commissioned extra training for foster carers who work with children with significant behavioural difficulties;
• created a Placement Stability Team where foster carers can access immediate clinical psychology advice at times of crisis; and
• started monitoring all allegations and complaints monthly to ensure it is working within timescales and to identify any delays.

Mr findings

23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot say whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong, only check that it has considered all relevant information in making its decision.
24. The IRM Panel felt the Council could have provided Mr and Mrs X more training and support with Y and Z when they were struggling with their behaviour. The Council has accepted fault and partially upheld this part of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has apologised and made several improvements to the Fostering Service as explained in paragraph 22. This remedies the injustice caused.
25. The Ombudsman’s role is not to speculate about what might have happened but to consider what did happen. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to say whether Mr X would have smacked Y if the Council had provided extra support and training.
26. The IRM Panel recommended Mr and Mrs X should continue to foster. The Council chose to de-register Mr and Mrs X as foster carers. The Council was not bound by the IRM’s Panel recommendations and was entitled to make that decision. It has provided reasons for it. The Ombudsman cannot question a Council’s decision if taken without fault. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

27. The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mr and Mrs X the training and support needed as foster carers. However, it was not at fault in its decision to de-register them. The Council has already remedied the injustice caused, therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman