London Borough of Wandsworth (20 001 412)

Category : Children's care services > Fostering

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 31 Jan 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it re-approved Ms X back onto the fostering register. The Council was at fault for the support provided to Ms X during a fostering placement. This caused injustice to Ms X and the placement ended. The Council agreed to carry out the actions at the end of this statement to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains:
      1. The Council failed to support her during a fostering placement which broke down.
      2. The Council unreasonably delayed in re-approving her as a foster carer.
  2. Ms X says her fostering placement broke down and this caused her distress. She also has missed out on fostering other children due to the time taken to re-approve her as a foster carer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  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

  1. As part of this investigation I considered the complaint made by Ms X and the response from the Council. I discussed the complaint with Ms X over the telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Council and considered any comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

  1. There has been extensive correspondence between Ms X, and the Council since September 2018. In this section of the statement I summarise key events but I do not refer to every single contact and communication.
  2. In September 2018 the Council placed a teenage child (DT) with Ms X as a foster carer. Ms X lived with her other children. Shortly after the placement started Ms X reported concerns about DT’s behaviour. This related to DT’s increased gaming, poor punctuality at school and refusal to do any household chores.
  3. Throughout DT’s placement Ms X reported several concerns about DT to the Council. The social worker involved with the case carried out visits during the placement, however did not hold any placement stability meetings with Ms X.
  4. In August 2019 DT did not return to Ms X’s home following a trip. DT decided to stay with a friend and contacted Ms X to tell her this. Ms X did not contact the Council’s fostering service until two days after DT was supposed to return home. During this time Ms X had limited communication with DT.
  5. At the end of August 2019 the social worker met with DT and DT made allegations about Ms X and her son. The social worker referred the matter to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). In September 2019 DT’s placement broke down and DT left Ms X’s home.
  6. The LADO decided the allegations did not meet the threshold for it to investigate and decided the Council should carry out a standard of care investigation instead.
  7. On 23 October 2019 the Council produced its standard of care report. The Council found the allegations DT made were not substantiated, however decided Ms X did the wrong thing by letting DT stay overnight elsewhere after returning from a trip. The standard of care investigation made several recommendations which included training for Ms X, considering whether Ms X would benefit from a break in fostering and reviewing whether the age range of children she was listed as being a carer for was appropriate.
  8. On 31 October 2019 the Council held a disruption meeting with Ms X to review what went wrong in the placement. The outcome of this was that Ms X was to attend Intensive Intervention Team (IIT) sessions to help her reflect on the issues within the placement and how these were managed.
  9. In November 2019 the Council carried out an Annual Household Review with Ms X. Ms X said the social worker spoke to her about her weight, mortgage and age. Ms X considered this was inappropriate. The notes from the meeting showed the social worker and Ms X discussed the reasons for the breakdown of the placement and events in Ms X’s life that could have impacted her fostering.
  10. In December 2019 Ms X’s case was considered by the fostering panel. The minutes from the panel meeting showed the panel decided Ms X was not ready to go back into fostering and needed more time to reflect on the outcome of the standard of care investigation.
  11. In early 2020 Ms X completed further training as recommended in the standard of care investigation. She also attended sessions with the ITT team.
  12. In April 2020 Ms X’s case was considered by the fostering panel. The panel decided to defer putting her back on the fostering register. The minutes from the panel meeting showed members thought Ms X was not ready to return to fostering as she needed further reflective and therapeutic support due to the experiences she had while a foster carer.
  13. On 11 May 2020 Ms X raised a formal complaint with the Council. Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her fostering breakdown and the way she was spoken to at her Annual Household Review meeting. Ms X also complained she had not been reinstated as a foster carer.
  14. On 8 June 2020 the Council provided its response to Ms X’s complaint. The Council said:
    • It should have held a placement stability meeting to explore concerns about the placement and how it could support Ms X as a carer. The Council said it fell short of its internal standards.
    • The allegations made by DT were referred to the LADO. The LADO said it did not meet the threshold for consideration, but the fostering service should carry out a standard of care investigation.
    • It was normal to explore bereavement at the Annual Household Review. The social worker admitted to discussing Ms X’s weight and how she was managing this. However officers had no recollection of mentioning her mortgage or kitchen. The Council said it would add Ms X’s concerns to her record.
    • In December 2019 the fostering panel decided to defer Ms X’s case as it felt she was not ready to return as a foster carer and needed more time to reflect on the standard of care investigation.
    • In April 2020 the fostering Panel also decided to defer Ms X’s case until a report was available from the IIT team and further work and support was undertaken with Ms X.
  15. Ms X continued to work with her social worker to address the concerns from the last placement. The Council agreed to look at changing the age range of the children Ms X could foster. The fostering panel looked at Ms X’s case again in December 2020 but deferred re-approving Ms X as it was unclear which age group would best suit Ms X.
  16. The fostering panel met in February 2021 to consider Ms X’s case. The panel decided to approve Ms X as a foster carer, however she could only provide respite carer for one child. The panel minutes showed panel members thought Ms X had still not fully recovered from trauma she had experienced. However the panel noted Ms X had shown commitment and resilience, was willing to learn and seek support.

Back to top

Analysis

a) The Council failed to support her during a fostering placement which broke down.

  1. During Ms X’s fostering placement with DT she raised concerns about DT’s behaviour on a continuous basis from around November 2018. This was about one month after the placement started.
  2. While the Council visited Ms X and provided support through the IIT team, it was clear from Ms X’s communication she was struggling to manage DT’s behaviour and the placement was breaking down. I consider the Council could have done more to support Ms X during the placement to help her care for DT and to prevent the overall breakdown of the placement. This was fault.
  3. As I have found fault I must consider whether Ms X suffered any injustice. If the Council had provided further support to Ms X, there is a possibility the placement would not have broken down, and Ms X would have received the support she needed to care for DT. As this was not carried out the placement with DT ultimately ended and Ms X was taken off the fostering register.
  4. I welcome that the Council has acknowledged it could have held a placement stability meeting to try to prevent the final breakdown of the placement and support Ms X as a carer to care for DT. However I consider it could do more to remedy the injustice to Ms X.
  5. However I do not consider the Council at fault for referring the allegations DT made to the LADO. 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.” In this case the LADO agreed a standard of care investigation was more appropriate.

b) The Council unreasonably delayed in re-approving Ms X as a foster carer.

  1. I have not found the Council at fault for delaying in re-approving Ms X as a foster carer. After her placement broke down the Council carried out a standard of care investigation. This identified recommendations which would help Ms X. This included additional training and engagement with the ITT team and support from the Council. Over the period Ms X was not on the fostering register she engaged in training and support.
  2. Ms X also said she was unhappy with the way the social worker spoke to her at the Annual Household Review following the breakdown of her placement with DT and in the lead up to the first fostering panel. The notes from this meeting do not show the social worker was rude to Ms X or inappropriate. In addition the Council said it will put Ms X’s concerns on the record, therefore there is nothing further I can add.
  3. The Council put Ms X’s case to the fostering panel several times over the period from November 2019 until February 2021. On each occasion the minutes of the fostering panel meeting show the panel members discussed Ms X’s case and provided reasons for deferring putting her back on the fostering register. This was a decision the panel was entitled to make. I recognise Ms X disagrees with the panel’s view, however without evidence of administrative fault, the Ombudsman cannot question the professional judgement of the Council’s officers, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
    • Provide Ms X with a written apology for not holding a placement stability meeting.
    • Pay Ms X £150 to recognise the distress suffered as a result of not holding a placement stability meeting.
  2. Within three months of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
    • Review what went wrong with Ms X’s fostering placement, identify any lessons learned and implement any changes needed to ensure a similar situation does not reoccur.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and found there was fault by the Council with the level of support it provided during Ms X’s placement. This caused injustice to her. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings