Summary: Ms X complains about the actions and behaviours of children social services towards her and her foster child, Z. In particular, she complains the social worker did not listen to Z’s wishes and feelings around contact arrangements. At this stage, the Ombudsman finds some fault with the Council. We have recommended the Council apologise to Ms X and Z, pay them a financial remedy, and to prepare an action plan to ensure the learning points from this complaint are implemented.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the actions and behaviours of children social services towards her and her foster child, Z. In particular, she complains:

• the social worker did not listen to Z’s wishes regarding reducing his contact hours with her ex-husband;
• the social worker failed to respond to her when she raised concerns about her ex-husband’s behaviour towards her and Z;
• the social worker changed Z’s contact hours with her ex-husband without her knowledge, and;
• the social worker had arranged to meet Z at school before home time despite having agreed she would meet with Ms X at home time so she could explain to Z what was happening.

Ms X also complains the Council’s complaint investigation took too long and was not impartial.

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. 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 spoke with Ms X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided,
7. I have sent a draft decision to Ms X and the Council for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Z is a looked after child. Ms X is a foster carer employed by a fostering agency. Ms X and Mr H had been his foster carers since he was a baby. The Council assigned Z a new social worker in October 2017.
9. Ms X and Mr H separated in November 2017. Z continued to be cared for by Ms X.
10. In January 2018, Ms X and Mr H agreed a contact plan for Z. Mr H would call Z on Tuesdays and have direct contact every Friday and Sunday.
11. In March 2018, the Council met with Ms X and Mr H. They both agreed the current level of contact was appropriate.
12. Z’s social worker visited him in March 2018 to discuss his wishes and feelings about the contact arrangements with Mr H. The social worker’s case notes recorded her conversation with Z about his wishes for contact.
13. At the looked after child review meeting in March 2018, the Council proposed that Z would have contact with Mr H every fortnight for around three hours on a Saturday. This was consistent with the wishes Z had expressed to his social worker when she visited. The Council also recommended ‘wishes and feelings’ work, specifically around the issue of contact, was completed with Z. The aim of this piece of work was to get Z’s views on contact with Mr H.
14. It was initially proposed that Z’s child psychologist would complete that work. However, the Council decided that an independent social worker would complete this. The fostering agency disagreed with this decision so asked the Council for a meeting with all professionals to discuss the issue and the impact of the separation on Z. There is no evidence to suggest this meeting took place or that the ‘wishes and feelings’ work had been completed with Z.
15. In April 2018, the Council contacted Ms X to explain Mr H wanted to take Z to a football match. The Council said it had agreed to allow Mr H to take Z. Ms X said it was not Mr H’s weekend with Z. The case notes showed the Council felt there needed to be flexibility with the contact arrangements but agreed that Z did not have to go if he did not want to. The Council did seek Z’s wishes later in the day and Z chose to attend the football match with Mr H.
16. In May 2018, Ms X contacted Z’s social worker and told her Z had asked for contact with Mr H to be one hour instead of three.
17. Four days after, the social worker visited Z at his school. The purpose of this visit was to discuss Z’s wish for contact with Mr H to be reduced. The social worker had initially agreed with Ms X that she would pick Z up at home time. However, this was changed to 3.00pm instead. Ms X said the social worker did not tell her about the change of time but that the school had called her to tell her. The social worker’s case notes recorded her conversation with Z and her interactions with Ms Z at the school.
18. The social worker also visited Z the week after, again to discuss his wishes and feelings regarding contact with Mr H. Z’s social worker decided to maintain the level of contact at three hours.
19. Ms X made a complaint in May 2018. The Council assigned a senior manager of children social services to investigate the complaint.
20. In June 2018, Z’s social worker spoke with Z about his feelings about his contact with Mr H and that she had heard he had been worried about his contacts with Mr H.
21. In July 2018, Z’s child psychologist emailed the social worker about Z’s feelings about contact with Mr H. She highlighted that Z had explained he told his social worker that contact was fine because he did not think she would do anything to change it and did not want to upset Mr H. She also said it was clear that Z felt unheard by his social worker and was overwhelmed with feelings about upsetting his social worker or Mr H if he did not accept contact for three hours. The evidence available suggests the social worker did not respond to this email.
22. The social worker arranged for contact with Mr H to be for one hour in July 2018. Ms X said this was arranged with no explanation for why the contact was for one hour instead of three.
23. Also in July 2018, the social worker told Ms X that Mr H had bought football tickets for August 2018. The social worker said Mr H would need to leave early in the morning and would drop Z off late in the evening. This was outside of the agreed contact arrangements of three hours. The Council later decided this contact would not go ahead.
24. The Council assigned a new social worker to Z in August 2018. Ms X said she was happy with the new social work team and felt they were listening to Z’s wishes and feelings.
25. The officer investigating Ms X’s complaint met with her in August 2018 to discuss the complaint. At this meeting, Ms X raised the fact the Council had not responded to her complaint within the set timescales. The investigating officer told Ms X that the complaint had been allocated to be investigated at stage two immediately rather than stage one. He explained this was why she did not receive any update on her complaint.
26. The investigating officer interviewed the key professionals involved in Z’s care as part of his investigation. The Council was not able to provide copies of notes or transcripts of these interviews so it is not known what was discussed.
27. The Council provided a response to Ms X’s complaint in November 2018.

Council’s internal review

28. The Council commissioned an internal review of its handling of Z’s case following Ms X’s complaint. The Council identified several learning points during this review.

Analysis

Z’s wishes regarding contact with Mr H

29. Ms X said Z’s social worker did not listen to what the adults in Z’s life were telling her regarding his wishes around contact with Mr H.
30. The evidence suggests the social worker first explored Z’s wishes and feelings about contact with Mr H in March 2018. Prior to this, Ms X and Mr H had agreed at a previous meeting that the contact arrangements were appropriate.
31. Following the conversation with Z, the Council changed the contact arrangements to fortnightly following the looked after child review. Based on the social worker’s case notes, this change was consistent with Z’s wishes. Therefore, the Council had demonstrated it was listening and responding to what Z wanted.
32. Further, when Ms X emailed the social worker in May 2018 and told her that Z wanted the contact reduced to an hour, the social worker visited Z to discuss his wishes and feelings. Having reviewed the social worker’s case notes, I am of the view that, following her discussion with Z, the social worker decided Z was happy to continue with 3-hour contacts. This decision was based on her professional judgement.
33. I cannot find fault with a decision if the decision had been made properly. Based on the available evidence, there is no suggestion the decision had not been made properly. Therefore, the Council demonstrated it sought Z’s wishes and feelings about contact following the information Ms X provided.
34. However, in July 2018, the social worker received some information from Z’s child psychologist. The child psychologist explained Z said he was happy with the contact because he did not think the social worker would do anything about it and because he did not want to upset the social worker or Mr H. Therefore, at this point, there was further information for the social worker to consider regarding Z’s wishes and feelings.
35. There is no evidence to suggest the social worker responded to this information or any evidence that she discussed this with Z. At this stage, this is fault. Given the information that was provided, I find it reasonable to expect the social work to have followed this up with Z to clarify his feelings and wishes around contact. By not doing so, it demonstrates the Council had not listened to and responded to Z’s wishes and feelings in July 2018.
36. I find the fault identified caused Z an injustice. This is because he did not receive the service he should have, and this left him feeling unheard by his social worker. This was distressing for him.

Lack of response from the social worker when Ms X raised concerns about Mr H

37. The social worker’s case notes do not contain much information about the concerns Ms X raised about Mr H’s behaviour. There is also no evidence to suggest the Council investigated or explored the concerns Ms X said she raised. At this stage, this is fault.
38. Ms X, as the foster carer of Z and a professional involved in the care of Z, should have had her concerns responded to. I agree the social worker should remain neutral in these situations. However, it would be reasonable to expect the Council to respond to Ms X to let her know what action, if any, it would take to address the concerns.
39. Given the lack of response, it is understandable why Ms X would feel the social work team was not listening to her.
40. I find the fault identified caused Ms X an injustice because she was left feeling unheard by the Council. As Z’s foster carer, the Council should have communicated with her effectively to ensure the best outcome for Z. This was distressing for Ms X and affected her trust in the Council.

Changes to Z’s contact hours without Ms X’s knowledge

41. The evidence suggests there were four occasions where the Council tried to make contact arrangements outside of the agreed arrangements. The Council did contact Ms X to let her know about the arrangements that had been agreed with Mr H. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates the Council did make Ms X aware of the changes to Z’s contact hours with Mr H.
42. However, it does not appear the Council contacted Ms X to seek Z’s wishes and feelings around the change of contact arrangements. Instead, the records suggest the Council contacted Ms X to let her know that the arrangements had been agreed with Mr H.
43. While the Council did contact Z to get his wishes about the contact, this was done after the Council had already agreed to the contact with Mr H and after it had already contacted Ms X to let her know the contact had been agreed.
44. Therefore, Z’s wishes about the contact appear to be an afterthought. This is poor practice and is fault. This is because the Council should have sought Z’s wishes and feelings about the change of contact arrangements first before agreeing to the changes. This would have demonstrated to Z, and Ms X, that Z’s wishes and feelings about contact were a priority. This is especially important given the proposed contact with Mr H was not in line with the agreed arrangements.
45. The identified fault caused Z an injustice because he felt the Council was not listening to his wishes and feelings. Again, this was distressing for him.

Social worker meeting Z at school

46. In May 2018, Z’s social worker had arranged with Ms X to meet Z at school. This meeting was originally due to take place after school. However, due to a change of circumstance, the social worker instead visited Z during school hours. There is no dispute this happened. I also find it was appropriate for the social worker to meet with Z to discuss his wishes and feelings around contact with Mr H. This is because Ms X had said Z wanted to reduce contact to one hour.
47. Ms X said the social worker did not tell her about the change of time. At this stage, this appears to be fault. While I find it acceptable for the social worker to change the time, I am of the view the social worker should have kept Ms X updated of the change. Given the already poor relationship Ms X had with the social worker, I can understand why Ms X would have been concerned about the change of plans. In my opinion, the social worker should have done better to explain and reassured Ms X of the reason for her visit.
48. However, I do not find the fault identified caused any injustice because the school had told Ms X about the change of time and this gave Ms X the opportunity to meet with Z to make him aware the social worker would be meeting him. This mitigated any potential distress to Z.

Complaint handling

49. Ms X first complained in May 2018. The Council did not respond to her complaint until November 2018.
50. It took the Council two months to arrange a meeting with Ms X to discuss her complaint. It appears there was some confusion with regards to how the Council should respond to Ms X’s complaint. This meant she received no communication from the Council about her complaint until August 2018. This is fault.
51. Further, the Council did not provide a response to Ms X’s complaint until November 2018. This was three months after the Council had confirmed the complaint and what Ms X wanted addressed. At this stage, I find this was an unreasonable amount of time to take to respond to the complaint. Therefore, this is fault.
52. I find the fault identified caused Ms X an injustice because the Council did not respond to her complaint in a timely manner. This also inconvenienced her as she had to chase the Council for the response.
53. Ms X also complained about the Council’s investigation was not impartial. It is clear from the evidence the investigating officer who reviewed Ms X’s complaint was a senior manager within children social services. It is therefore understandable why Ms X would feel the investigation was not impartial.
54. It is not unusual for senior managers within the service to investigate complaints. They are often best placed to identify issues given their familiarity with procedures and legislation. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council for this.
55. However, the Council was not able to provide evidence of the discussions the investigating officer had with the key professionals. The Council was only able to provide notes from a meeting with one key individual, but these notes were not a record of the interview that was held. Therefore, it is unclear what topics the investigating officer discussed with the key professionals. This is unhelpful.
56. At this stage, I find fault with the Council for failing to make, and keep, appropriate records. It is good practice for the Council to do this as it demonstrates how the Council has investigated complaints. Accurate records also increase confidence and trust that the Council have investigated complaints in an impartial and thorough manner. In this case, I cannot be satisfied the Council has demonstrated this.
57. The identified fault has caused Ms X an injustice because she felt the Council had not taken her complaint seriously. This was distressing for her.

Recommended action

58. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, I recommend the Council complete the following:

• the Council should apologise to Ms X and pay her £200 in recognition of her distress and inconvenience caused by the faults identified;
• the Council provide an appropriate apology to Z and pay him £200 in recognition of his distress caused by the faults identified;

The Council should complete the above remedy within four weeks of the final decision.

59. The Council has identified several learning points as part of its internal review of its handling of this case. However, the Council has not set out how it will implement these learning points for future cases.
60. Therefore, I recommend the Council review the learning points contained within the internal report and create a SMART action plan that addresses how the Council will implement the identified learning points. It is acknowledged that some of these learning points are specific to this case so it is not expected that all learning points will be included in the action plan.
61. The Council should complete this within three months of the final decision. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the SMART action plan as evidence it has completed this remedy.
62. Within six months of the final decision, the Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence of its progress on the implementation of the SMART action plan. If progress has not been made, the Council should explain the reasons why.

Back to top

Draft decision

63. Subject to further comments by Ms X and the Council, I intend to find fault with the Council for not listening to Z’s wishes regarding contact with Mr H in July 2018, for failing to keep Ms X updated on its contact with Z ,for failing to seek Z’s wishes about changes to the agreed contact arrangements, for failing to respond appropriately to Ms X’s concerns, and for the Council’s poor complaint handling. If the Council accepts my recommendations, I shall be satisfied and will complete my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman