Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove a child from the complainant’s foster care before waiting for the independent review body to make its decision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains that the Council removed a foster child from her care before the appeal body had considered the case.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered the minutes from the Council’s fostering panel and the decision made by the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM). I also considered the Council’s fostering procedures and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s fostering procedures

4. The policy says that when termination of the approval for a foster carer is being considered, plans for the termination of any current placement will also be required and made as appropriate.
5. If a foster carer disagrees with a decision to end their approval as a foster carer they can appeal to the IRM. The IRM is a body that is independent of the Council.

What happened

6. Mrs X had been the foster carer of child A since 2012 and of child B since 2014. In 2019 child B reported that Mrs X had hit him on the head. Child B also reported that Mrs X said that he should keep quiet about the incident or else he would be separated from his brother. Mrs X says she hit the child accidentally but everyone has ignored her statement that it was not a deliberate act.
7. The Council did a child protection investigation and placed child B with a different foster carer. The Council also had concerns that child A’s needs were not being met and placed him in respite care and then in a different long-term placement.
8. The fostering panel considered Mrs X suitability as a foster carer in July. It recommended the Council deregister her. It decided she had breached five of the minimum standards including safeguarding.
9. Ms X appealed to the IRM. She complained to the Council that child A had been removed but the IRM was not due to hear the appeal until December. In response the Council explained that, regardless of the deregistration, the Council had already decided to move the child as his needs were not being met. It said he was doing well in the new placement and it would be confusing and unsettling for him to have any further contact with Mrs X.
10. In December the IRM upheld the Council’s recommendation to deregister Mrs X as a foster carer.
11. Mrs X says child A has lost the only home he knew and he should have been allowed to stay with her until December. She wanted him returned to her care until the IRM had heard the appeal. Mrs X says the care she provided to child A for seven years has been ignored.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says that when the panel has recommended deregistration the Council must also arrange the termination of the current placement. In addition, the Council had already decided to move child A, regardless of the deregistration. The Council’s decision to move child A, without waiting for the IRM decision, was consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. In addition, as the panel had recommended deregistration, partly for safeguarding concerns, it would be incompatible with the overall requirement to safeguard children, if the Council had allowed child A to remain with Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman