West Berkshire Council (20 002 602)

Category : Children's care services > Fostering

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 08 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s involvement with a foster child who was placed with his family. He considered there was a lack of support when there were problems with the behaviour of the child and the Council permanently removed the child without following the proper process or considering what was in the best interests of the child. He said this caused him and his family distress. There was fault by the Council. It will apologise and make a payment to Mr and Mrs B.

The complaint

  1. I call the complainant Mr B. He complained in his own right and on behalf of his wife, Mrs B. He complained about the Council’s involvement with a foster child who was placed with his family. He considered there was a lack of support when there were problems with the behaviour of the child and the Council permanently removed the child without following the proper process or considering what was in the best interests of the child. He said this caused him and his family distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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. 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. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I interviewed the two officers I refer to below. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.
  2. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the relevant law, guidance and the Council’s policy

  1. Children who are looked after by a council (known as “Looked After Children”) may be placed in foster care. Foster care arrangements may be short or long term.
  2. All Looked After Children must have an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) whose role is to promote the voice of the child and ensure proper procedures are followed.
  3. All children in foster care must have a care plan which is reviewed regularly in meetings chaired by the IRO. The care plan must include information about the child’s health, care and educational needs. Children placed in foster care have a right for their views to be taken into account.
  4. Regulations state that when a council proposes to end a placement it must carry out a review of the child’s case. The council must ensure the views of all the people concerned have been heard, including the child and the IRO.
  5. Where a council considers there is an immediate risk of significant harm to the child, or to protect others from serious injury, the child must be removed from the placement. In this case there is no duty to carry out a review before the placement ends. Alternative accommodation must be found as soon as possible and the IRO told as soon as is practicable. Notifications must be made within ten working days of the end of the placement.

The designated officer

  1. 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. The LADO brings together senior representatives from the employer (in this case, the fostering agency), social workers and the police.

Fostering minimum standards

  1. 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.”
  2. 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.”

Disruption meetings

  1. It is the Council’s policy that consideration should always be given to convening a disruption meeting in relation to children whose placement has ended abruptly or on an unplanned basis. It is recommended this is chaired by an ‘offline manager’, who would normally be the child’s IRO.

What happened

Summary of the key events

  1. The child, X, went to live with Mr and Mrs B in 2010 when he was six years old. It started as an emergency placement but X stayed until the events which are the subject of this complaint in 2018.
  2. There were problems with X’s behaviour over 2018. Mr and Mrs B are employed by an independent fostering agency (IFA). There were meetings in September 2018 with the IFA, the Council and Mr and Mrs B to discuss the situation and what support should be provided. X started to attend some outside agencies.
  3. In the middle of the November there was an incident at home where X became angry and the police attended. X’s social worker, Officer R, visited X in school a few days later. X refused to return to Mr and Mrs B’s care and an emergency placement was found.
  4. The social worker had noticed scratches on X’s arm which he reported had been caused by Mrs B in the incident on the previous weekend. Mr and Mrs B live in a different Council area, Council Z. So Council Z took the lead in investigating the incident. This was done through a series of allegation management meetings, AMM. The first AMM was held just under a week after the incident. There was a further meeting in early December.
  5. The conclusion of the AMM in February 2019 was that the original allegation should be recorded as “unsubstantiated with training, guidance and awareness development needs identified”. Also, early in 2019, there was an assessment of the standards of care provided by Mr and Mrs B. After the initial report was issued in January 2019 and there were two amendments in March and May.
  6. Mr and Mrs B resigned as foster carers.
  7. A disruption meeting was held at the end of June.

Analysis

Before the placement ended

  1. It is clear that some problems were developing in the placement over 2018. There were meetings with Mr and Mrs B, and X started attending some external support. I cannot share information relating to X but it is clear the professionals had increasing concerns about the placement and its suitability for X. These increasing concerns were not shared in an explicit way with Mr and Mrs B. Some support was offered and not all information could be shared but officers were not as clear with Mr and Mrs B as they needed to be. I refer to this further below.

The incident and events immediately afterwards

  1. The Council was aware of the incident when it happened as X called the emergency duty team who forwarded it to the Council. He also texted Officer R the next day. Officers met on the Monday and the IFA visited Mr and Mrs B. Officer R saw X at school on Wednesday. He pointed out scratches on his arm and said they had occurred during the incident on the previous Saturday when Mrs B had tripped and grabbed his arm. X did not want to return to Mr and Mrs B and the IFA arranged alternative care from that evening.
  2. Given X’s stated wishes I do not consider there was any fault in the decision to arrange an alternative placement.
  3. On the same day the Council made a referral to the LADO in Council Z.

The Allegation Management Meetings

  1. Following the referral to the LADO in Council Z an AMM took place on Friday 23 November. Officer R and her senior colleague Officer S attended by phone. Other relevant parties were present including the police and the IFA.
  2. The notes of the meetings record Officer R giving an account of X’s description of the events of the incident the previous Saturday.
  3. Officer S referred to the ending of a placement in 2016 which had caused the breakdown in the relationship between the Council and Mr and Mrs B. She said Mr and Mrs B considered the placement should not have ended but it had been reviewed and concluded the social worker acted in the best interests of the child. However she did not report that we had investigated a complaint from Mr and Mrs B about this same matter and we had found fault by the Council about how the placement was ended. This is fault as it meant that all the relevant information was not before the AMM.
  4. At the next AMM officer R reported she had met with X again and referred to comments he had made.

Disruption meeting

  1. The Council commented that a disruption meeting should be held within six weeks, I presume, of the placement ending. That is not in the policy but it would seem a sensible requirement. Here the placement ended in late November but the disruption meeting did not take place until the end of June. By any measure that is an unacceptable delay.
  2. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure the circumstances leading to the disruption are properly reviewed. Mr and Mrs B attended the meeting as did representatives of the IFA, the IRO and Officer R and Officer S. It was chaired by someone from the IFA which is not in accordance with the usual policy but it is not a significant point in terms of this complaint.
  3. The minutes of the disruption meeting refer to there being a phone call strategy meeting between Officer S and the police after Officer R’s meeting with X on the Wednesday after the incident. This led to X going to another placement. The minutes show that Officer S reported the conclusion of this meeting was that any injury had not been caused maliciously. The chairperson asked if that was the case why had there been an AMM process. Officer S said that was a matter for the LADO at Council Z. She said there were wider concerns about the placement and that X was refusing to return and that was why the placement had ended. The chairperson continued to ask about the AMM process and Officer S was reported as saying they were not invited to attend the second AMM - she is recorded as saying it was just an initial strategy meeting to see if the threshold had been met.
  4. The notes of Officer S’s comments to the disruption meeting do not correctly describe what happened. When I interviewed Officer S I asked her about the comments that are recorded in the minutes. She said she did not recall being asked to approve the minutes which could have been because she was on a period of sabbatical leave. She agreed they were not accurate.
  5. I cannot come to a conclusion about how these inaccuracies have arisen. The other people who were present at the meeting have not questioned the accuracy of the minutes so there must be some question about whether Officer S’s comments were accurate. But, after the passage of so much time, further investigation will not lead me to a reliable conclusion.

Standards of care assessment

  1. As part of the AMM process a standards of care assessment was requested. The first report was in January 2019 which was then amended twice following the submission of further information. The final report in May concluded that Mr and Mrs B had over the years; demonstrated good standards of care and shown an understanding of child development and behaviour, had worked well with professionals and advocated on behalf of children in placement. However, as X became more complex and grew older they showed ‘gaps’ in their knowledge and understanding and became worn out with managing his behaviours. Appropriate training and support would enable them to continue as foster carers. The social worker concluded the original allegations against Mr and Mrs B were unfounded.

Enhanced rate of pay

  1. Mr and Mrs B had asked to be considered for the enhanced rate of pay. There was email correspondence between the Council and the IFA over September and October 2018. It was left that the IFA needed to provide more information about why the enhanced payment was needed and how it would be used to support the placement and X. The Council chased it up in December but there was then no further action. The placement had ended in the November.
  2. The Council commented it did not have the evidence to support an enhanced rate of pay but it offered to pay Mr and Mrs B £150 for its failure to follow this up. It is not the case that X’s autism spectrum diagnosis would have meant that there was an automatic payment of an enhanced rate. It was possible the IFA could have done more to support X and the placement and that is what the Council was considering. Therefore, the offer by the Council is a fair remedy.

Communication

  1. It is clear from the information that officers presented as part of the follow up to the ending of the placement that they had concerns about Mr and Mrs B’s ability to care for X as his needs changed as he got older. However, the Council was not clear in its dealings with Mr and Mrs B. I recognise there needed to be a balance about not worsening an already delicate situation and in respecting X’s privacy. But, once the placement had ended, officers expressed serious and long-standing concerns about some aspects of Mr and Mrs B’s abilities as foster carers. It was the Council’s responsibility to raise those concerns appropriately with them at the time.
  2. In this case it would not have made any difference to the final outcome. Given X’s wishes, it is unlikely the placement would have continued for very much longer. But it may have meant there was a more managed ending.

Agreed action

  1. The Council will apologise to Mr and Mrs B and pay them £200 to acknowledge the impact the failures in communication had on them. Also it will pay them £150 for the failure to follow up on the enhanced payment request. It will do this within one month of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault which caused injustice to Mr B and Mrs B.

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