Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of allegations made against her and her husband when they were foster carers between 2017 and 2019. She says the Council did not complete a thorough investigation into the allegations. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not properly considering all relevant information. We have made recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of allegations made against her and her husband when they were foster carers between 2017 and 2019. She says the Council:
• did not complete thorough investigations into the allegations;
• did not tell them what the allegations were; and
• did not keep them updated during the investigations.

The Council completed a stage two investigation into the complaint, but Mrs X complains the investigation was not carried out fairly or correct, and the report contained wrong information.

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 Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mrs X and the Council and considered their comments.
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Milton Keynes Safeguarding Children Board Procedures Manual: Allegations Against Carers: Foster, Short-Break Lodgings and Approved Adopters

9. The procedure notes the fostering team manager must consult with the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) for advice when a referral is received. It notes the Council must hold a strategy discussion, in the form of a meeting, within two working days.
10. It highlights that during the investigation, carers have the right to:
• details about the nature of the allegations (timing will be dependent on children’s social care investigation);
• contact details for the relevant managers;
• a copy of the procedures being followed;
• a statement about future placements and financial arrangements;
• make a written statement to the fostering team;
• approximate timescale for the investigation;
• details of independent support and how to get it; and
• receive details in writing of all decisions made and action taken.
11. The procedures state that following the investigation, a further strategy discussion must be held to ensure all information is shared. This meeting is also to decide on the outcome of the investigation.
12. Within two weeks of the concluding strategy discussion, a letter should be sent to all parents (including carers) outlining the conclusion made and the actions to be taken.
13. The procedure also notes the fostering team must review the status of the carers within 28 days of the conclusion of the enquiry and present a review report to the fostering panel.

Allegations Against Foster Carers

14. This procedure sits alongside the safeguarding children board procedures above.
15. It notes that any person who receives information or suspects that a child has, or may have suffered, harm in a foster placement must immediately tell the child’s social worker and their manager. The child’s social worker must then tell the LADO.
16. The LADO must implement the local safeguarding children board inter agency procedures in relation to the allegation. The LADO will gather relevant background information and hold a strategy meeting within two working days of the referral. The purpose of the meeting is to decide if an investigation is necessary, and if so, how it should be carried out.
17. The procedures note the Managing Allegations meeting must consider:
• The nature of the allegation, its source and reliability.
• How and by whom the investigation is to be conducted. It notes that in situations where the Police recommend no further action, then the supervising social worker (or their manager) must interview the foster carers about all allegations. Interview notes must be taken and made available.
• The timescales for the investigation.
• Arrangements for reconvening the strategy meeting.
18. It highlights the Council should advise the foster carers of the allegations (as agreed at the strategy meeting) unless the Council cannot share the details or nature of the allegations immediately due to the circumstances.
19. It also notes the Council should give foster carers the opportunity to respond to the allegations before any final decision is made, if considered appropriate by those at the strategy meeting.
20. To end the investigation, the Council will hold a strategy meeting. The purpose of the final meeting is to agree on the outcome of the investigation. The Council will provide a summary of outcomes letter to the foster carers on conclusion of an investigation. The letter will provide a summary of the details of the allegation, the investigation, and the outcome.

What happened

21. Mrs X and her husband, Mr X, were foster carers for two children, A and B.
22. At the beginning of May 2017, a member of the public contacted the police to report concerns about two children being verbally, and sometimes physically, abused by adults. The police identified the adults concerned as being Mr and Mrs X and contacted the Council.
23. The Council called Mrs X to tell them of the allegations. Mrs X said the social worker just told her someone had made an allegation and did not give her any details about the allegations. There is no record the Council asked Mr and Mrs X to comment on the allegations made.
24. The Council held a strategy meeting three days after first receiving the referral. In the strategy meeting, the Council discussed a visit to the children and the action taken by the police to follow up with the member of the public. The Council noted the member of the public would not report the concerns if there was no truth to it. The Council also considered past similar allegations. There is also no record the Council checked Mr and Mrs X’s daily logs before it made its decision.
25. During the meeting, the Council decided the outcome of the investigation. The professionals agreed the physical abuse was unsubstantiated, but the emotional abuse was substantiated. The finding of substantiated meant there was enough identifiable evidence to prove the allegation. The Council decided to remove the children from Mr and Mrs X’s care.
26. Following the strategy meeting, the Council met with Mr and Mrs X to tell them of the outcome of the strategy meeting.
27. Mrs X was not happy with the outcome of the Council’s investigation and raised a complaint.
28. Near the end of May 2018, the Council received a referral. The referral noted a child previously cared for by Mr and Mrs X had disclosed Mr X had insisted on touching their private area while having a bath. The child also said Mr X had insisted on drying them alone and dressing them after every shower. The child said they told Mr X they did not want him to dry or dress them. It was also alleged Mr X had previously hit them on their back.
29. The Council held a strategy meeting six days after the referral. During the strategy meeting, the Council considered the history of allegations made against Mr and Mrs X, the nature and source of the allegation, and comments and views raised by other placements. It was noted the police would speak with the child. The Council scheduled another strategy meeting for June 2018.
30. The Council met with Mr and Mrs X in the morning before the second strategy meeting. The Council told them of the allegations and asked them to comment. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council whether it was A who had made the allegations. The Council told them it could not tell them who had made the allegations.
31. Mrs X told the Council Mr X had never been with a child on his own. Mrs X said it was always her, or her mother, who washed A when she first arrived but that for two years, A washed herself. Mr X also said he had never hit a child.
32. During the second strategy meeting, the Council noted the police had spoken with the child twice. During these meetings, the described how Mr X would wash them. The police noted the child did not mention any physical abuse during the meetings. The police said it would not be taking any further action.
33. The attendees discussed information about other disclosures the children (previously cared for by Mr and Mrs X) had made. The records referred to the professionals looking at letters and pictures from the children. The Council noted one child had written Mr X had hit them on the nose and another had written Mr X hit them in the arm, neck and mouth. The Council also noted the comments raised by Mr and Mrs X.
34. The outcome agreed was the sexual abuse allegation was unsubstantiated and the physical abuse allegations was substantiated on the balance of probabilities.
35. The Council provided Mr and Mrs X with an outcomes letter at the end of September 2018. The Council noted in the letter it was completing the fostering household review for the fostering panel.
36. In December 2018, the Council completed the household review and recommended Mr and Mrs X should be deregistered as foster carers.
37. In January 2019, the Council asked for advice from a panel adviser. They reviewed the documents and asked the Council to provide more information to allow the panel to give due consideration to the household review recommendation. The panel adviser asked for further information on the following:
• Managing allegations meeting May 2017: “emotional abuse substantiated. Please state what the evidence was for this.”
• Managing allegations meeting June 2018: “what was the evidence for the physical abuse being substantiated on the balance of probabilities.”
38. In March 2019, Mr and Mrs X resigned as foster carers due to health reasons.

Analysis

May 2017 allegations

39. The evidence shows the Council only held one strategy/Managing Allegations meeting. Before this meeting, the Council had spoken with the children and the police had followed up with the member of the public who first raised the concerns. Therefore, it appears the Council’s investigation into the allegations took place before the first strategy meeting.
40. There is evidence the Council had contacted Mrs X before the strategy meeting. However, Mrs X said the Council did not provide any details about the allegations. The Council’s records noted the social worker told Mrs X they could not provide any details about the allegations. Therefore, the evidence suggests the Council did not tell Mrs X what the allegations were before the strategy meeting.
41. This meant Mr and Mrs X did not have the opportunity to respond to the allegations before the Council reached the final decision. The Council’s procedures note the Council should give foster carers the opportunity to respond to the allegations before any final decision, if considered appropriate by those at the strategy meeting. In this case, there is no evidence those at the strategy meeting had considered this before ending the investigation. This is fault.
42. In addition, I am of the view the Council did not consider all the relevant evidence available to them at the strategy meeting. For example, the Council did not review the carers daily logs. The Council should have compared these logs with the allegations to test their validity and add context. Not considering all the relevant evidence is fault.
43. There is also no evidence the Council provided Mrs X and Mr X with a summary of outcomes letter within two weeks of the end of the investigation. Again, this is not in line with the Council’s procedures and this is fault.
44. I consider the faults identified caused Mrs X and Mr X an injustice. This is because they lost the opportunity to comment on the allegations.
45. Further, while it is not possible to say what decision the Council would have made had it followed the correct process, there is uncertainty about whether the Council would have made the same decision had it made it without fault.

May 2018 allegation

46. If an allegation is substantiated, this means the Council is satisfied there is enough evidence to prove the allegation. It is clear from the available evidence there was a conflict of information regarding the allegations of physical abuse.
47. On the one hand, the children had clearly made disclosures of Mr X hitting them in letters and pictures. On the other hand, Mr X denied hitting the children and the police had also noted the child did not raise the issue of physical abuse when they spoke with them.
48. It is for the Council to weigh up the available evidence to reach a decision on balance. It is not for the Ombudsman to question the merits of a decision, or professional judgement, when it has been made properly. However, I am not satisfied the evidence shows the Council made its decision properly.
49. This is because the records do not show the Council’s thought process and rationale or that it considered all the relevant evidence. The Council has not set out how it reached its decision on balance because the Council has not showed why one set of evidence outweighed the other. Instead, the Council has merely stated it decided on balance the allegation of physical abuse was substantiated.
50. Finally, there is also evidence another professional was concerned the Council had not provided enough information to allow the fostering panel to give due consideration to the recommendation of the household review. They had asked what the evidence was for the physical abuse was being substantiated on the balance of probability. This adds weight to my view the Council’s decision was not made properly.
51. I consider the fault identified has caused Mrs X and Mr X an injustice. This is because they cannot be confident the Council made its decision properly.

Agreed action

52. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following:
• Write and apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the faults identified.
• Reconsider both the May 2017 and May 2018 allegations and ensure it considers all relevant information before making its decision. The Council should provide Mr and Mrs X an outcomes letter setting out the decision, and how it was reached, within two weeks of the final strategy/Managing Allegations meeting.
• Remind all relevant staff of the importance of accurate record keeping. The Council should highlight the importance of ensuring the strategy meeting/Managing Allegations notes clearly set out what evidence was considered and how the professionals reached their decision.
53. The Council should complete the above within 6 weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

I find fault with the Council for not properly considering all relevant information when it investigated the allegations against Mr and Mrs X in May 2017 and 2018. The Council has accepted my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman