Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the Council’s decision to remove a foster child from their care and to stop payment of a fostering allowance. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral made by their child’s school following an incident involving their two children and the Council’s decision to remove Child C from their foster care. Mr and Mrs B are concerned about the Council’s rationale for removing Child C from their care and believe the Council does not have the evidence to support taking this action. Mr and Mrs B are also unhappy with the Council’s decision not to continue paying them a fostering allowance while the incident involving their children was investigated. Mr and Mrs B believe the Council’s action in this respect was not in accordance with its own procedures. Mr and Mrs B are seeking payment of the allowance they have missed out on and confirmation that there was no serious harm caused or posed to Child C to justify their removal.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. Mr and Mrs B are also concerned about the Council’s decision to remove them as foster carers. I am not investigating this complaint as Mr and Mrs B have exercised their right to challenge the Council’s decision by appealing to the Independent Reviewing Mechanism.

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 have spoken to Mr and Mrs B and considered the information they have provided in support of their complaint.
6. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries.
7. The complainants and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The National Fostering Minimum Standards says investigations into allegations against carers should be carried out quickly and should provide protection to the child but also support to the person subject to the investigation. Foster carers should be told in writing about any allegations against them and given information about the timescale for completing the investigation. They should also be told about the payment of allowance and any fee while investigations are continuing.
9. A council shall not allow the placement of a child with a particular person to continue if it appears to them that the placement is no longer the most suitable way of performing their duty. Where it appears to an authority that the continuation of a placement would be detrimental to the welfare of the child concerned, the council shall remove the child forthwith.
10. Part 5 of the 2011 Fostering Services Regulations provides for the assessment of foster carers. A council must carry out an assessment which is referred to a Fostering Panel. A Panel can only make a recommendation as to whether the person is suitable.
11. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for the management and oversight of investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.
12. The fostering minimum standards say “Allegations against people that work with children or members of the fostering household are reported by the fostering service to the LADO. This includes allegations that on the face of it may appear relatively insignificant or that have also been reported directly to the police or Children and Family Services.”
13. One of the standards for fostering services is to ‘ensure that a clear distinction is made between investigation into allegations of harm and discussions over standards of care. Investigations which find no evidence of harm should not become procedures looking into poor standards of care - these should be treated separately.”
14. It will be a matter of professional judgement for the social worker, based on their knowledge of the child and carer, that the child’s welfare is not being adequately safeguarded. Children cannot always describe unhappiness so understanding what the child’s daily life in the placement is like; routine, mealtimes and whether the foster child is treated the same way as the birth children, is key to understanding what may be having a negative impact on the child.
15. The Council’s Payments Policy and Guidance for foster carers states the following:

“Retainers during Investigations

There may be occasions when a child or children may be removed from a foster carer due to concerns regarding the care of that child, which then requires a formal investigation. In these circumstances, the foster carer will not be in a position to have another child placed with them.

In such situations the carer will receive the equivalent age-related professional fee of the fostering allowance for a period of 8 weeks. No payment will be made after week 8. However the Head of Service is able to withdraw this ongoing allowance in exceptional circumstances where there is clear evidence that there has been significant harm to a child when placed in the care of a foster carer. The foster carers will be informed of this authorisation by the Head of Service in writing within three days of the decision being made and given the opportunity to respond to this.”

What happened

16. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
17. Mr and Mrs B have been foster carers for the Council since March 2014. Child C was placed with Mr and Mrs B shortly after birth in October 2018.
18. In early May 2019, two incidents occurred involving two of Mr and Mrs B’s birth children, Child D and Child E. Child D’s school made a safeguarding referral to the Council after Child D made a disclosure about the incidents.
19. A child protection investigation was started by the Council and the Police two days after the school’s referral. A strategy meeting convened on 15 May 2019 determined that Child C should be removed from their placement with Mr and Mrs B and this took place on 16 May 2019.
20. The Council conducted further assessments of Child D and Child E. The Council spoke to the children and obtained evidence from other professionals, including the schools the children attended. The Council concluded the allegations made by Child D following the incidents involving their sibling and Mr B were substantiated but that significant injuries had not been incurred and both children were safe and willing to remain in their parents’ care. The Council continued its involvement with the family under Child in Need procedures.
21. The Council started a separate standards of care assessment to determine if Mr and Mrs B were able to continue as foster carers. On 7 June 2019, the Head of Service for the Fostering Team wrote to Mr and Mrs B to inform them of their decision to withdraw payment of any fostering allowance due to the safeguarding concerns raised about their own children and the impact on Child C.
22. Mr and Mrs B wrote to challenge this decision on 14 June 2019. They questioned the Council’s view that significant harm had been caused to Child C when they had not witnessed the incidents involving Child D, Child E and Mr B. The Head of Service responded on 2 August 2019. They explained they were satisfied the criteria for withdrawing payment of allowance had been met in Mr and Mrs B’s case. The Head of Service explained how the significant harm caused to Mr and Mrs B’s own children was a factor in the decision they had made to withdraw allowance payments. They expressed concern that Mr and Mrs B did not consider Child C had been affected by the incidents when research into the impact of abuse or violence within the home on young children is well established and understood. The Head of Service provided further clarification by quoting some of the research undertaken by Women’s Aid and UNICEF which indicates children do not have to witness an incident in the home in order to be affected by it.
23. The Council completed its standards of care assessment of Mr and Mrs B on 23 July 2019. This assessment recommended Mr and Mrs B be allowed to continue as foster carers subject to adhering to the Child in Need plan for their own children and once a sufficient period of time had passed without any further concerns being raised.
24. Mr and Mrs B continued to raise concerns with the Council’s decision to withdraw payment of the fostering allowance while the matter was ongoing. The Council maintained its position in its responses and said it would keep this under review until the Fostering Panel review.
25. The Fostering Panel met to consider the standards of care assessment on 10 October 2019. The Panel considered the information provided in the assessment and heard from Mr and Mrs B in person. The Panel unanimously decided that Mr and Mrs B should not be allowed to continue as foster carers for the Council. The Panel concluded Mr and Mrs B failed to meet two of the minimum standards for foster carers – standard 4 (safeguarding children) and standard 6 (promoting good health and wellbeing). The Panel noted additional concerns had come to light during the standards of care assessment which related to a breach of confidentiality. The Panel noted that this breach alone was enough to de-register Mr and Mrs B as foster carers for the Council.
26. Mr and Mrs B approached the Ombudsman shortly before the Fostering Panel Review meeting because they remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to their concerns about the decision to end Child C’s placement and payment of fostering allowances.

Analysis

27. The Council made its decision to end Child C’s placement with Mr and Mrs B two days after it received the safeguarding referral from Child D’s school. The delay between Child D’s disclosure and the school’s referral to the Council is not fault by the Council. The Council acted promptly when it became aware of the incidents and followed its procedures for considering the referral. Where there is no fault in the way a council makes a decision, I cannot question the merits of the decision simply because Mr and Mrs B feel it is unfair.
28. Mr and Mrs B have questioned the Council’s view of the perceived and potential impact on Child C of the incidents involving their two children and Mr B. The Council has provided clarity for its view to Mr and Mrs B on more than one occasion. Their disagreement with the explanations does not mean the Council’s view is flawed or one it is not entitled to make.
29. Mr and Mrs B have strongly objected to the content of the Council’s assessment of their children. They say this contains information that does not accurately reflect what happened during the incidents. There appears no fault in the Council’s response to Mr and Mrs B’s concerns on this issue. The Council has explained it will not alter the information because the assessment reflects the direct accounts given to it by Child D, Child E and other third parties, such as staff at their respective schools. This is an appropriate approach as the focus of such an assessment should always be the wellbeing of the children involved. I am satisfied the Council’s confirmation that it has retained a copy of Mr and Mrs B’s comments alongside the assessment within its records is an appropriate response to their concerns.
30. Mr and Mrs B are deeply concerned about the Council’s decision to stop making fostering allowance payments. They say this will significantly impact on their family as the allowance was their main source of income. The Council has followed its own policy in respect of fostering allowance payments, which states it has the discretion to end payments during ongoing investigations. I am satisfied the Council’s decision was made by someone with the appropriate level of seniority (a Head of Service) and without procedural fault. I am not permitted to question the merits of such a decision where I can find no evidence of procedural fault.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman