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.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not provide him with adequate information, prior to placing a child with him on an emergency foster placement.eHe He says subsequent events led to him being dismissed from his job and have caused him distress. He wants the Council to admit its mistakes and apologise to him and others involved. He also wants it to review its procedures relating to emergency foster placements and compensate him for legal costs incurred.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke with him about it on the phone.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it sent me.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Regulation 24 foster placements

9. Regulation 24 of the Care Planning, Placement and Care Review (England) Regulations (2010) sets out arrangements for the temporary approval of a connected person as a foster carer in emergency or exceptional circumstances. The approval can last for up to 16 weeks, which allows for the immediate placement of the child and sufficient time for the connected person to complete the council’s foster carer approval process.
10. The council must visit the connected person’s home as part of the assessment to determine their suitability as a foster carer.
11. A connected person approved under these regulations will be entitled to the same support and services as other council foster carers.

Fostering services - National minimum standards

12. Foster carers have a right to full information about the child. Information provided should be up to date and include any recent significant events, to help carers understand and predict the child’s needs and behaviours.
13. Information provided should be in clear, comprehensive written form.

What happened

14. In 2016, Mr X was working for the Council in a support role. As part of his role, he sometimes worked with a looked after child, Y, who was in foster care, but was not Y’s support worker.
15. Records show in early 2016, Mr X and another Council officer met with Y three times. These visits were to review Y’s foster placement and discuss concerns. Mr X also had telephone contact with Y’s foster carers.
16. In April 2016, another Council officer contacted Mr X for advice and information about Y’s behavioural history, as part of a risk assessment relating to a new foster placement.
17. In June 2016, Y moved to a new residential placement.
18. In September 2016, Mr X attended a care planning review meeting on behalf of Y’s social worker. The meeting minutes recorded significant concern that Y was at times displaying inappropriate sexualised behaviour. The minutes said as Y had shown inappropriate behaviour at school, in the community and in their last foster placement, there was evidence this was now becoming a significant problem. Mr X says he attended this meeting in his role as duty worker and had no prior knowledge of Y’s case.
19. In June 2017, Y’s residential placement updated Y’s risk management plan. The plan identified sexualised behaviour as a medium risk. It said Y had previously shown opportunist sexualised behaviour and gave three examples. It listed measures needed to reduce the risk of harmful behaviour, including that Y must be supervised around other young people.
20. In July 2017, Y’s residential placement broke down. The placement gave the Council one month’s notice, but then shortly after it contacted the Council to say it could no longer accommodate Y and would be bringing the child to the Council offices the following day.
21. Y was then admitted to hospital following an incident.
22. The Council looked for but was unable to identify a suitable registered foster carer for Y. It identified a new residential placement, but this could not start for a few days. Mr X offered that he and his partner could look after Y in the interim period before the new residential placement could start.
23. The Council accepted Mr X’s offer. Y was also in agreement. Internal emails between council officers record discussion about what action was required. Amongst other actions, they recorded that a risk assessment needed to be completed but this could be included as part of the Regulation 24 temporary foster carer approval document.
24. Mr X collected Y from hospital and took Y to his house. The Council provided Mr X with a copy of the risk management plan completed by Y’s residential placement in June 2017 and a further risk assessment completed by the Council social worker.
25. Two Council officers visited Mr X’s property the following afternoon. They spoke to Mr X, Mr X’s partner and Y separately and together. They inspected the suitability of the property. They completed and provided Mr X with a care plan which set ground rules for the placement. It said Y could spend time in their room but spending time with others would only be allowed in communal areas and the adults would closely monitor this contact. It listed specific risks regarding Y as being aggressive towards adults and peers, sexualised behaviours, self-harm and risk of allegations. Due to these risks, it was agreed Mr X would make detailed daily recordings during the placement.
26. The next week, the Council formally confirmed the temporary approval of the placement under Regulation 24. It said the approval would last until Y moved to an alternative placement and dependent upon the outcome of outstanding checks.
27. The Regulation 24 approval document contained a detailed risk assessment and identified Y’s history of displaying sexualised behaviours. It rated the risk of this behaviour as high. It said Mr X had worked with Y for the last 4 years in a professional capacity. He had a good understanding of ensuring a child’s safety in his professional role. Consideration was given during the assessment to ensure Mr X could transfer his professional knowledge to the home environment. It said Mr X was clear during the assessment process of issues around safe care. The Council said it shared this document with Mr X at this time but could not provide evidence of this. Mr X says the Council did not provide him with a copy of this document.
28. At the beginning of August, staff from the new residential placement visited Y. They said they could meet Y’s needs, but felt in order to provide a proper transition, Y should not move there until the end of August.
29. Mr X agreed to care for Y until the end of August. Mr X says he was pressurised into agreeing, but I have seen no evidence of this. The Council agreed to fund some leisure activities for Y during the time before the start of the residential placement.
30. In mid-August, Mr X phoned the Council to report an incident where Y had displayed sexualised behaviour. The Council said it advised Mr X to be vigilant as Y had previously shown sexualised behaviour and could be opportunistic in nature. He was advised to closely monitor Y. Mr X says, during this call, he was not told of any previous incidents of Y showing sexualised behaviour.
31. In the middle of August, Mr X emailed the Council to say Y had been a pleasure to spend time with and he would like to be considered as a respite carer for Y in future.
32. The children’s nurse visited to complete a health assessment for Y. The records show Mr X discussed with the nurse the incident where Y had shown sexualised behaviour.
33. There are multiple emails throughout August between Mr X and the Council where the Council provided advice and support, responded to queries relating to financial support, arranging activities for Y and other practical arrangements.
34. At the end of August, Y moved to the new residential placement. Mr X said he would like to continue as a long-term respite carer for Y, with Y staying with him when they returned to the area for contact with relatives.
35. The Council confirmed the Regulation 24 approval was valid for up to 16 weeks, and that it would need to complete the full foster carer assessment within this timeframe.
36. In September 2017, The Council started the process to assess Mr X and his partner as a long-term foster carers. Mr X’s partner met with a council officer. The officer’s case note says they discussed the content of the Regulation 24 document at this meeting. It says the officer then gave Mr X’s partner a copy of the document to share with Mr X. Mr X says his partner was not given the document at this meeting and he has never received it.
37. Mr X started a new job in a school.
38. Mr X agreed for Y to stay with him for a weekend’s respite care. The Council contacted Mr X to make arrangements and Mr X agreed a plan for the weekend.
39. Y came to stay with Mr X for the weekend later that month. On the Sunday, Mr X rang the Council to report an incident. He said he had left Y alone with two other children for about 10 minutes. During this time an incident occurred between the children. The officer told Mr X he should have been supervising Y. Mr X said he knew this but had only left them alone for a few minutes.
40. The Council informed the Police who completed an investigation. The Council reviewed the situation and decided to cancel Y’s further respite stays with Mr X. Mr X said he understood this decision. He told the Council he and his partner did not want to proceed with the application as long-term foster carers for Y.
41. Mr X’s employer also completed an investigation and found Mr X at fault. Mr X says this finding led to him losing his job.
42. In February 2019, Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council had not provided him with enough information of the risks prior to placing Y with him, and the paperwork provided was inadequate. He said although the Council was saying he had knowledge of the child, he did not know the child’s background.
43. The Council responded to his complaint. It said there were multiple pieces of evidence to show Mr X was aware of Y’s history. He was also provided with written information detailing these risks prior to the placement. There were also multiple emails between Mr X and the Council to show he was supported in his foster care role. It did not uphold his complaint. It said matters relating to his employment were not for comment by the Council.
44. Mr X remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to us. He said the paperwork provided to him at the start of the placement was non-specific, inadequate and not fit for purpose. He said despite what the Council says, he was not aware of Y’s background. He said the risks related to Y were not fully explained to him at any stage, and if they had been, he would not have agreed to the placement. He said he was not updated in September, before Y returned to him for respite. He said the mistakes and Council failings have led to him losing his job and caused him considerable distress.

Back to top

Analysis

45. Mr X says the Council has relied on the fact he had previously worked with Y as evidence he had a good understanding of Y’s history. Although Mr X says this was not the case, the evidence showed he worked with Y during 2016 and attended a meeting where incidents of Y showing inappropriate sexualised behaviour were discussed and considered to be a significant problem. He was also consulted for advice about Y’s behaviours by another Council officer. The frequency of Mr X’s prior involvement with Y in a professional capacity would indicate he is likely to have retained some prior knowledge of Y’s history, before he offered to provide an emergency foster placement for Y in July 2017.
46. His knowledge of Y’s history was also referred to in the Council risk assessment when Y was placed with him. There is no evidence Mr X disputed this statement at the time.
47. Mr X says he was not provided with adequate information relating to the risks prior to the placement. However, the evidence shows he was provided with two documents detailing the risks of sexualised behaviour:
• A risk management plan completed in June 2017 by Y’s residential placement, which was specific to Y and which identified several areas of risk including sexualised behaviour and strategies to manage these risks;
• The Council care plan which specifically listed sexualised behaviours as a risk. It said if Y was to spend time with others, this should only be in communal areas and the adults should monitor this contact.

The Council risk assessment also documented Mr X had been provided with the June 2017 risk assessment document as part of managing the risks.

48. There is no evidence Mr X expressed concern about the content of these documents or told the Council he did not want to continue with the placement at this time.
49. The following week, the Council completed the formal Regulation 24 temporary foster carer approval document. This document contained the placement specific risk assessment and other important information related to the placement. There is disagreement about whether the Council provided Mr X with a copy of this document. Mr X says he was never provided with a copy. The Council said it provided Mr X with a copy of this document at the beginning of August 2017 but was unable to provide evidence of this. As there is no evidence, I cannot know whether the Council gave Mr X a copy of this document at this time. It contained the placement specific risk assessment, so the Council should have provided Mr X with a copy of this document as soon as it was completed.
50. The case notes do record the Council provided Mr X’s partner with a copy of the document to give to Mr X at the beginning of September 2017. Mr X says the Council did not do this and he never received it. Where there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. I consider it more likely than not the Council gave his partner this document to share with Mr X in September 2017. The one-month delay in providing this document to Mr X is fault. However, Mr X was provided with the document before Y came to stay with him for respite and before the incident occurred. There is no evidence Mr X expressed concern about the content of the document, the proposed respite or asked to withdraw as a foster carer for Y after receiving it. The delay did not impact on the course of events and so I cannot say this delay caused Mr X any injustice.
51. During August 2017, Mr X reported an incident to the Council where Y showed sexualised behaviour. The records show he also discussed this incident with Y’s nurse during a health assessment. This is further evidence that Mr X was aware of the risk of Y displaying sexualised behaviour, prior to Y returning to stay with him for the weekend in September.
52. Mr X says he was not updated prior to Y returning to stay with him from their residential placement in September. However, the Regulation 24 agreement was still in place and the Council had already provided Mr X with documents highlighting the risks. The Council contacted Mr X with arrangements for the weekend and Mr X agreed to these arrangements. As documentation had already been provided and there is no evidence of any significant new information, there was no requirement for the Council to provide further or updated risk assessment paperwork at that time. The Council is not at fault.
53. Mr X says his employer’s investigation into the incident led to him losing his job. The Council is not responsible for any actions taken by Mr X’s employer.

Back to top

Agreed Action

54. Within three months of the final decision, the Council will review its procedures to ensure that:
• It provides emergency foster carers with a clear, comprehensive and up to date placement-specific risk assessment at the start of the placement;
• Officers clearly document that this information has been provided.
55. It should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has done this.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I have completed my investigation. I have found evidence of fault, but this did not cause injustice as it did not impact on the course of events. The Council has agreed actions to improve its services.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman