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.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained that the investigation into their conduct and standards of care as foster carers was unfair as it was based on incorrect information. In particular they say:
• it was based on a statement that Mr X did not have a chance to read or sign;
• the finding that another two allegations against them were substantiated was wrong; and
• they were wrongly led to believe that if they had a series of therapy and contact sessions, the children could return to them.
2. The result was a decision to remove the children from them and de-register them as foster carers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I discussed the complaint with Mr and Mrs X and considered the information they provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I spoke to the children’s social worker over the telephone. I shared my draft decision with the Council and the complainants and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

5. If a local authority Fostering Panel makes a ‘qualifying determination’ to end the approval of a foster carer, the foster carer may ask for a review of the decision by the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM). The IRM reviews the suitability of the foster carer and makes a recommendation. The fostering agency, in this case the Council, makes the final decision.

What happened

6. Mr and Mrs X became foster carers for the Council in 2015, when they were transferred from another fostering agency after nearly ten years fostering. They had two young brothers in their care, C1 and C2.
7. In January 2017 there was an incident with the younger child, C2, one morning when the children were getting ready for school. When Mr X arrived at the school he spoke to a member of staff about what had happened. She said she would speak to C2 who reported that Mr X had been angry and shouting and had “thrown” him onto the floor. The school reported the incident to the Council who held a strategy meeting to consider whether to start a child protection investigation. It decided not to, but it placed the children with alternative foster carers temporarily while it investigated the allegation.
8. The children went to another placement the same day. The school told Mr X not to collect the children from school.
9. The following day Mr X sent an email to the Council with his account of events. This included a statement that he had “guided” C2 into a room, C2 told Mr X to stop pushing him and did a “dramatic fall”, and Mr X replied that he was not pushing him.
10. The children’s social worker (SW1) and Mr and Mrs X’s Supervising Social Worker (SSW), both of whom had recently started working on the case, held a meeting with Mr and Mrs X at their home to discuss the placement and the alleged incident. Mr X gave his account of what had happened. During the meeting SW1 typed a record of the meeting on her laptop. At the end of the meeting Mr and Mrs X asked for a copy of the record. It was not possible to produce a print-out and SW1 said the Fostering Team would contact Mr and Mrs X about the outcome of the meeting.
11. The report of the meeting, which Mr and Mrs X did not see at the time, noted Mr X saying that he had to give C2 “a forceful push”. Later the record notes Mr X as saying he did not mean “with force”, he meant “just a push”.
12. Mr and Mrs X then had a meeting with their representative from a foster carers support agency.
13. The Council held a professionals meeting to discuss the allegation with staff from Children’s Services and the school and the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). This is the officer responsible for managing and overseeing allegations against people who work with children. The meeting considered the report from the school with C2’s account of the events. The school also raised a previous allegation that it had not reported. The meeting also considered SW1’s report of the meeting held with Mr and Mrs X at home as well as an account of the incident from C1. The meeting decided the LADO would review the evidence and give a view on the outcome of the allegation. Also the children’s Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO), the Looked After Children Team and the Fostering Team would review the case to see whether with extra support, supervision and monitoring Mr and Mrs X could care for the children again in future.
14. The LADO wrote to Mr and Mrs X in February 2017 with the decision on the allegation saying it would be recorded as ‘substantiated’. The letter said:

“The account provided by the carer to the supervising social worker and child’s social worker included an admission that he gave the child a forceful push which led to the child falling over. The context of the admission is consistent with the context described by the child.”

15. The letter said the investigation had highlighted other concerns about the foster carers’ behaviour management. It said further work was needed to assess whether they could adequately meet the needs of children in care. The Council invited Mr and Mrs X to a meeting to discuss the concerns and the further work proposed.
16. Council decided Mr and Mrs X needed to attend training, provide evidence of their learning, and have an independent assessment. They attended some courses and completed reports on what they had learned.
17. The Council carried out a review of Mr and Mrs X’s fostering status. Mr and Mrs X contributed to the review and the Council also spoke to their adult children. It carried out a carer’s re-assessment which included meetings with Mr and Mrs X, C1 and C2, and another child Mr and Mrs X had fostered previously. The Council produced a report of the assessment. The IRO produced a report on the quality of care. At the end of June 2017 the Council had a meeting with Mr and Mrs X to discuss the assessment report. Following this it decided the children should not return to their care. Following a further review the SSW and the Fostering Team recommended terminating their approval as foster carers.
18. During this process Mr and Mrs X had a meeting with their representative and disputed the outcome of the LADO enquiry. On learning of the recommendation to terminate their approval Mr and Mrs X made a formal complaint. They denied that Mr X had admitted he had given C2 a “forceful push”. They complained that they had not had an opportunity to read and sign the statement taken from them at the meeting with the social workers in January 2017.
19. The Council had a meeting with Mr and Mrs X to discuss the complaint. It followed this with a written reply in November 2017. It accepted that Mr X had not had a chance to read and sign the statement he made. It said at the time “there was no facility to do so”. However it said Mr X had had an opportunity to give his account of what happened when he attended a further meeting in early February 2017 and had had visits from Fostering Services. The Council also said it did not take the decision that the children would not return to Mr and Mrs X in isolation. It said it had considered the views of all the professionals involved with the children and the various meetings, assessments and reports that had taken place.
20. Mr X was not happy with the outcome and took the complaint to stage 2. He said the investigation into his conduct had been based on a lie included in SW1’s written statement. He said he never admitted to pushing the child. He said if he had had a chance to read and sign the statement the Council would not have made the decisions it did.
21. In the stage 2 response the Council said Mr X had described the incident to professionals and this supported what was in SW1’s report. It said again that the decisions were not made on the word of one person. Rather the Council gathered a range of professional views and also took account of what the children had said. It confirmed that if Mr and Mrs X had any disagreements with the reports they would be able to highlight these as part of their presentation to the Fostering Panel.
22. The Fostering Panel considered the case in July 2018 to decide whether to terminate Mr and Mrs X’s approval as foster carers. The Panel considered a report from their SSW which reviewed their strengths and commitment to the children as well as concerns raised about their care and approach to record-keeping and training. It also considered the re-assessment report, the IRO report, Mr and Mrs X’s written response, as well as notes of meetings and correspondence. Mr and Mrs X attended the meeting. The recommendation was to terminate their approval as foster carers.
23. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X following the Panel meeting to tell them of the decision to accept the Panel’s recommendation. It informed them that the decision was the ‘qualifying determination’ and they had a right to ask for a review by the IRM.
24. Mr and Mrs X asked for a review and the IRM Panel meeting took place in November 2018. Mr and Mrs X attended along with their representative. After questioning Mr and Mrs X and the local authority representatives and considering written reports, the IRM decided by a majority of five to one that Mr and Mrs X were not suitable to continue to be approved as foster carers.
25. The Council agreed with the recommendation and wrote to Mr and Mrs X in December 2018 to confirm it was terminating their approval as foster carers. The Council adopted the reasons given by the IRM as follows:
• The applicants were unable to demonstrate a clear understanding of the needs of Looked after Children.
• They therefore could not provide a nurturing, secure base for Looked After Children with clear boundaries for them.
• They could not sustain changes to their practice, after taking advice, and this failure could damage children in their care.
• The children’s (and their daughter’s) allegations about shouting and swearing in the family were consistent over a period of time.
26. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman. They felt the Council’s investigation into the allegation and into their standards of care was flawed and unfair. In particular they said it was based on false information as Mr X denied he had admitted pushing C2.

Analysis – was there fault causing injustice?

27. Mr and Mrs X disagree strongly with the decision to de-register them as foster carers. The Ombudsman has no power to overturn the Council’s decision and does not act as an appeal body against the IRM’s recommendation. I have considered the specific complaints Mr X made about the way the Council conducted its investigation into the allegation and the effect this had.
28. Mr X says the investigation went wrong from the outset as it was based on a false record that he did not have a chance to correct. He says when he gave his statement to SW1 at the meeting in January 2017 she wrote that he said he “forcefully pushed” C2. He says SW1 did not give him a chance to read or sign the statement. He said this statement was a lie and should not have been put to the LADO. He says it was this incorrect information that led the LADO to decide the allegation was substantiated. His view is this in turn resulted in the decision to remove the children from his and his wife’s care and terminate their approval as foster carers. He says the fact that the Council has agreed to change its practice to ensure officers allow people to read their statements shows it accepts the report of his statement was wrong.
29. I have considered the evidence of what was said about the events of the day in January 2017. In Mr X’s email to the Council he gave a detailed account which did not say he had pushed the child, but said C2 accused him of pushing him and deliberately fell.
30. The written record of the meeting with Mr and Mrs X in January 2017 notes that SW1:

“explained to Mr and Mrs [X] that I will type as they talk to have an accurate account of what they are saying; and I will read through at times of what I have typed so they are aware of what I have typed and gives them an opportunity to discuss and give clarity as to what it is they are saying for the record.”

31. There is then a detailed account from Mr X about what happened. Included in the note of what he said is the following:

“So I keep him into the back room; I am having to give him a forceful push; [C2] said “why did you push me!” “He just dived.”

32. Later the report says:

“I, [SW1] returned to [Mr X’s] comment of ‘I am having to give him a forceful push.’ To which Mr X said ‘when I say forceful I don’t mean with force, just a push’.”

33. According to the record, then, even though Mr X did not have an opportunity to read the whole statement and sign it, SW1 read the crucial part back to him and he had a chance to comment on and correct it.
34. I have also spoken to SW1 about the meeting. She said Mr X was very welcoming and appeared keen to talk about what had happened. She confirmed she explained how she would conduct the meeting as set out in the record. She also told Mr and Mrs X they could ask any questions they had. SW1 said they agreed on that approach and Mr X went straight into the events of the day of the incident. She said Mr X was very open and spoke at some length. She said she clearly recalls Mr X saying he forcefully pushed the child. She did not wish to interrupt his flow and he continued to speak about the events of the day. She said she knew it was important to be clear about what he was saying. When she asked him to clarify his comments he said he had not meant what he said when he used the word ‘forceful’. SW1 confirmed that she typed Mr X’s words on her laptop as he spoke, rather than making notes and typing them up afterwards.
35. The foster carer review paperwork also includes a written record from the SSW confirming that she heard Mr X “acknowledging pushing [C2]”.
36. As I was not present at the meeting in January 2017 I cannot independently verify what Mr X said. Nor can I say for certain what happened between Mr X and C2 on the day of the alleged incident. However on balance I find that SW1 recorded what she heard and understood Mr X to say. It would have been good practice to read the whole statement out to Mr and Mrs X or let them see a copy of it and agree it before it went to the LADO. But Mr X did have an opportunity to correct the key statement about whether he had pushed C2. So I cannot conclude that the Council was at fault in treating this report as evidence that Mr X had pushed the child.
37. But in any event the LADO did not make a finding on the allegation based on SW1’s report alone. The LADO also considered the report from C2’s school about what he had said, the account from C1, and the report of the previous alleged incident that the school had not reported. The LADO took the view on balance that Mr X had pushed the child. I do not know for certain what took place but I do not consider the LADO was at fault for finding on balance that the allegation was substantiated on the basis of the information presented.
38. The IRM also considered the allegation and the evidence about it in detail. But the outcome of the allegation was not the sole reason for its recommendation not to continue to approve Mr and Mrs X as foster carers. The IRM’s recommendation, and therefore the Council’s final decision, was taken on the basis of evidence from a variety of reports covering a range of issues. Mr and Mrs X disagreed with many of the views and interpretations presented in the reports. They had an opportunity to challenge these during the IRM Panel hearing and to answer questions and state their case. It is clear from the record of the Panel hearing and the reports considered that the recommendation and the Council’s final decision were not based solely on the apparent ‘admission’ by Mr X in relation to the incident of January 2017 that he says was false. So I could not say that even if SW1 had written down his words incorrectly this was the cause of the decision to remove the children and de-register Mr and Mrs X.
39. The IRM was critical of the Council for not giving Mr and Mrs X an opportunity to correct their statement before it was submitted to the LADO. I understand that the Council has accepted this and agreed to change its practice. But based on the evidence I have obtained, and for the reasons I have given, I cannot say that even if Mr X had seen the statement before it went to the LADO this would have made a difference to the outcome.
40. Mr and Mrs X say another contributing factor to the decision to de-register them was the finding that two previous allegations were also substantiated. The IRM considered the two previous allegations. The minutes show the Panel recognised that only one was substantiated. But it said “clearly something had happened”. It noted that the boys “consistently said the same things and also maintained there was shouting in the household.” So the evidence does not indicate that the decision was based on wrongly deciding the three allegations were substantiated.
41. Mr and Mrs X also say the Council led them to believe it would return the children to them provided they followed the plan the Council put forward. This involved attending training and therapy sessions and having supervised contact sessions with the children. They feel the Council misled them as after they completed the sessions it decided the children should remain in the other foster placement.
42. Mr and Mrs X rely on the management decision taken in February 2017 and referred to in the papers that the children were to:

“remain in respite/short-term placement until the following is completed: carers to undertake training and evidence learning; assessment of carers to be completed by an independent party,…their ability to reflect and learn sufficiently to change their behaviour and caring style is required”.

43. The Council decided after the re-assessment that the children should not return to Mr and Mrs X’s care. Contact visits and sessions took place during the re-assessment and the assessor discussed their experiences with them. It was a detailed assessment, looking at a wide range of issues and considering evidence from a variety of sources. It identified many positive aspects to the placement Mr and Mrs X provided the boys. It also noted the possibility that with extra work with them help them develop as foster carers, and more robust supervision, they might be able to continue. However after considering all the evidence, including how the carers learnt from their training, and the desire not to split the boys up, the Council decided not to return them to Mr and Mrs X’s care.
44. Mr and Mr X may have understood the Council would automatically return the children provided they completed the agreed tasks. But the evidence shows this was not the case. It would depend on the outcome of these tasks. Based on the evidence I have seen I could not say the Council was at fault in misleading them.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I find that while it would have been good practice to let Mr and Mrs X read the whole statement taken from them, they had an opportunity to challenge and correct the key point in the statement they have complained about. I recognise that Mr and Mrs X were greatly distressed by the decision the Council made to remove the children and withdraw their approval as foster carers. It was especially difficult for them as they had been fostering for many years and were not aware of concerns about them. But based on the information I have obtained I do not consider the Council’s decision was a result of flaws in the investigation into the allegation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman