Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s involvement in the child protection concerns raised as part of his, and his wife’s, role as foster carers. He considered the Council did not ensure the process was impartial and followed proper procedures. He considered the outcome was flawed as a result and that has caused distress to him and his wife and led to their decision to resign as foster carers. The Council failed to refer the complaint to stage three of the statutory complaint process but that did not cause significant injustice to Mr B.

The complaint

1. I call the complainant Mr B. He complained about the Council’s involvement in the child protection concerns raised as part of his, and his wife’s, role as foster carers. He considered the Council did not ensure the process was impartial and followed proper procedures. He considered the outcome was flawed as a result and that caused distress to him and his wife and led to their decision to resign as foster carers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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

4. 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 sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.
5. 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

Child protection

6. The Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children sets out councils’ responsibilities to safeguard children. Where a council believes a child may be at risk of harm it should carry out an initial assessment. This enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in:
• No further action
• A decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs
• A decision to convene a strategy meeting (see below).
7. The child and family must be informed of the action to be taken.
8. The social worker should see the child as soon as possible if the decision is that there should be further assessment.
9. Where the initial assessment shows a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm the council and the police hold a strategy discussion. This may be a telephone discussion. The purpose of a strategy discussion is to decide immediate safeguarding actions and to decide the extent of information giving, especially to parents. A strategy meeting may include other professionals involved with the child.
10. The lead agency (generally the Council, but sometimes Health) must see the child, seeking his or her views and record the outcome. Where the social worker decides emergency action is not needed they will meet with the family and agree plans to safeguard the child’s welfare. The child may be considered a child in need and safeguarding activity stopped.
11. In case where significant harm is still a concern, the strategy discussion:
• Shares information;
• Agrees the conduct and timing of any criminal investigation;
• Decides whether to make enquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989.

Complaint procedure

12. The law sets out a three stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

The Local Authority Designated Officer

13. 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

14. 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.”
15. 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.”

The Council’s procedure

16. The Council had a procedure for managing allegations against staff or volunteers that was in place at the time relevant to these events. It was under this policy that the Council considered the referral about Mr and Mrs B. This refers to the role of the LADO and the employer. In this case that is the Independent Fostering Agency (IFA) who employed Mr and Mrs B.
17. The responsibility for informing the accused person of the nature of the allegation, how enquiries will be conducted and possible outcome is the employer.
18. There are up to three strands in the consideration of an allegation:
• A police investigation of a possible criminal offence;
• Children's social care enquiries and/or assessment about whether a child is in need of protection or services;
• Consideration by an employer of disciplinary action.
19. If the allegation is not demonstrably false and there is cause to suspect that:
• A child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm;
• A criminal offence may have been committed against a child;
• There is a significant safeguarding risk with the organisation.

The LADO will convene an Allegation Management Meeting (AMM). This is a multiagency meeting, chaired by the LADO, to share information, plan actions to safeguard children and address the allegations.

20. Amongst other things the AMM should consider the current allegation in the context of any previous allegations or concerns and decide what information can be shared, with whom and when.
21. The AMM should take into account the following definitions when determining the outcome of allegation investigations:
• Substantiated: there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegation;
• False (Education): there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation;
• Malicious: there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation and there has been a deliberate act to deceive;
• Unfounded: there is no evidence or proper basis which supports the allegation being made, or there is evidence to prove that the allegation is untrue;
• Unsubstantiated: there is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation; the term therefore does not imply guilt or innocence

What happened

22. The child at the centre of this complaint, 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.
23. Mr and Mrs B are employed by an independent fostering agency (IFA). The placing authority is in a different council area, Council Y, but Mr and Mrs B live in this Council’s area. In the middle of November 2018 there was an incident at home where X became angry and the police attended. X’s social worker 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.
24. 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. It was for Swindon Borough Council to take the lead in managing these allegations as that was where the incident occurred. This was done through a series of allegation management meetings, AMM. The first AMM was held just under a week after the incident. The allegation being considered related to the incident and also wider concerns about Mr and Mrs B’s care of X.
25. There was a further meeting in early December. 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”.
26. Also early in 2019 there was an assessment of the standards of care provided by Mr and Mrs B. After the initial report in January there was an amendment in March and a further one in May.
27. Mr and Mrs B resigned as foster carers later in 2019.
28. Mr and Mrs B complained about the AMM process and the Council considered it under the statutory children complaint procedure. An independent investigator reported in December 2019. He did not uphold the complaints made.

Analysis

29. The key issue for Mr and Mrs B was the conduct of the AMMs. They were not involved in those meetings but consider they were not conducted properly and the information presented to them was biased against them and not accurate. They consider the outcome should have been unfounded rather than unsubstantiated.
30. Where a complaint has been considered under the statutory children complaint process we will not normally re-investigate unless we consider the process was flawed. I do not consider the investigation itself was flawed but the final stage in the process should have been referral to a stage three panel. The Council did not do that. It has accepted that was fault.
31. But, in terms of the substance of the complaint, I consider the independent investigation was sound. However, it was limited in its scope to the conduct of the AMM. The investigation could not consider the actions of the IFA or of Council Y. I have considered a complaint about Council Y on which we are issuing a separate decision. I am finding fault that not all relevant information about previous placements was shared. But this was fault by Council Y, not this Council.
32. The investigating officer noted the original allegation about the one incident mushroomed into a wider concern about potential emotional abuse and Mr and Mrs B’s ability to work with older children. I agree this was the case but the role of the AMM was to consider the allegation in the context of any previous allegations or concerns. It was also relevant that X was not the only child cared for by Mr and Mrs B so consideration had to be given to them. There was not, therefore, fault in the range of the information covered by the AMM.
33. The AMM rightly required there to be a standards of care assessment. The first report was in January which was then amended twice following the submission of further information. The final report in May concluded 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 that the original allegations against Mr and Mrs B were unfounded.
34. Given the outcome of the standards of care assessment I understand why Mr and Mrs B considered the decision of the AMM should have been the same, rather than unsubstantiated. But although there was some fault in the information before the AMM about one aspect of a previous placement this was not so significant that it would have altered the outcome. As I do not consider there was any other fault in the AMM process I cannot say the decision reached was flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was fault by the Council in failing to refer the complaint to stage three but that has not caused significant injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman