Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to follow the correct procedures when it removed a foster child from her care. She says the Council made a flawed decision and it failed to communicate with her and her family. We find the Council was at fault for its lack of transparency and its communication with Ms D. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained the Council failed to follow the correct procedures when it removed a foster child from her care. She says the Council made a flawed decision and it failed to communicate with her and her family.
2. Ms D says the Council’s actions have had a detrimental impact on her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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.
6. 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

7. I considered information Ms D submitted with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
8. Ms D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. Local authorities have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
10. Statutory guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children’ (March 2015, updated in 2018) provides guidance about child protection investigations for all agencies. Local authorities should designate an officer or team of officers to be involved in managing and overseeing allegations against people who work with children. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.

The Council’s policy

11. The policy states that any person who receives information or suspects a child has suffered or is suffering harm in a foster placement must immediately tell the child’s social worker or their manager.
12. On receipt of such information, the child’s social worker or their team manager must immediately tell the LADO, his or her team manager, the supervising social worker and refer the matter to the assessment team.
13. The assessment team will gather background information and arrange a strategy meeting within two working days. The purpose of the meeting will be to be decide if an investigation is necessary and how it should be carried out.
14. Unless there are circumstances when the details of the allegation cannot be shared immediately, the foster carers should be advised of the allegation and the process. Where considered appropriate by those at the strategy meeting, the foster carers should be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations before any final decision is made about necessary action to protect the child and other children in the household.
15. The strategy meeting will be reconvened to conclude the investigation. The aim of the final strategy meeting is to agree on the outcome of the investigation and responsibilities for any further action, including reporting on the matter to the fostering panel and/or considering whether it may be appropriate to make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service.
16. The Chair will tell the foster carers (if not in attendance), the child, the parents and other relevant agencies of the recommendations made at the meeting.

What happened

17. Ms D, and her husband (Mr D), fostered a child (F) through a private fostering agency (Agency A). The Council has parental responsibility for F.
18. In February 2019, the Council received a report from Ms D’s former employer. This was about disciplinary proceedings that had been taking place for several years. Ms D had not told the Council or Agency A about these proceedings.
19. Ms D lives in a different Council area (Council Z). Therefore, the LADO at Council Z held a strategy meeting. Officers from the Council and Agency A attended. The LADO at Council Z agreed that Agency A would conduct its own investigation. The Council said it would visit Ms D with Agency A to discuss the safeguarding process.
20. The Council visited Ms D later that day. It explained that Agency A would investigate matters. Once the investigation was complete, the Council would review the report. Agency A told Ms D a possible outcome could be to deregister her and Mr D as foster carers. The Council told Ms D she could seek independent advice.
21. The social worker visited F two weeks later but did not discuss the investigation.
22. The LADO at Council Z held a further meeting on 11 March. Agency A said it was concerned Mr D and Ms D were not transparent in their information sharing and they had not worked well with colleagues. The Council said F’s school had reported that Mr D and Ms D were verbally challenging and had not engaged well. The Council decided to remove F because it was not satisfied Mr D and Ms D would work well in partnership with other professionals from a range of agencies. Agency A said it would suspend them as foster carers and investigate the new concerns.
23. The Council visited Mr D and Ms D after the meeting. It said it could not share any information with them, but it would move F to another placement within the next few days.
24. Mr D complained to the Council on 12 March about its decision to remove F and its failure to explain the decision. The Council responded the following day. It said it would send a detailed letter to Agency A setting out the concerns. It also said it would ask Agency A to share the letter with him and Ms D.
25. The Council sent a detailed letter to Agency A on 14 March. It set out the issues and said it was the responsibility of Agency A to share the concerns with Mr D and Ms D.
26. The Council removed F on 14 March. Ms D received the Council’s detailed letter the following day.
27. A few days after the Council removed F, Ms D sought legal advice and applied to court to get him back. The judge told the Council to facilitate contact between F, Mr D and Ms D. The Council arranged this in April 2019.
28. The court process ended in January 2020. The judge decided F should not return to Mr D and Ms D’s care.
29. During this time, Ms D was also dealing with whether she and Mr D would remain as foster carers for Agency A. After a two-year process, Agency A made the final decision it would no longer approve Mr D and Ms D as its carers.
30. Ms D and Mr D complained to the Council again on 23 June 2021 about the process it took when it removed F. The Council responded and said it would not consider the complaint because it was out of time, it was considered in court, and they had no parental responsibility for F.
31. Ms D remained unhappy with the Council’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

32. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to do so. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. The Council removed F in March 2019, but Ms D did not refer her complaint to us until July 2021. I will exercise discretion to look at the Council’s actions in 2019 because Ms D was involved in the court process until January 2020. She was also involved in the review process surrounding whether she would remain as a foster carer for Agency A until June 2021. Ms D was dealing with other matters, and this is a good reason why she could not complain to us sooner.
33. Ms D says the Council made a flawed decision to remove F and it failed to communicate with her and her family. The Council says although it did communicate with Ms D, it was Agency A’s responsibility to tell her about the concerns.
34. The Council told Ms D on 19 February about the LADO process, that Agency A would be investigating her and that it was because of the disciplinary proceedings regarding her former employer. Ms D was given an opportunity to respond during Agency A’s investigation. Therefore, I am satisfied Ms D was aware of the LADO’s investigation and possible outcomes. She was also informed she could seek independent advice.
35. The Council’s policy is clear where appropriate foster carers should be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations before any final decision is made. In the second LADO meeting, the Council referred to two new reports it had received from F’s school with safeguarding concerns. However, it failed to tell Ms D about these concerns and give her a chance to respond. There is no evidence those at the meeting considered this before ending the investigation. The Council instead said that Agency A should investigate the new concerns separately and once the LADO investigation had ended. This is fault. While I understand the Council Z arranged the LADO meeting, the Council should have had due regard to its own policy as it was its decision to remove F.
36. The Council also failed to explain to Ms D when it visited her on 11 March 2019 why it was removing F. This is fault. She found out about it four days after the Council had removed F. There is nothing in the Council’s policy that says it is the responsibility of the fostering agency to tell foster carers about the concerns.
37. The Council’s faults have caused Ms D an injustice as she was caused unnecessary frustration and uncertainty due to a lack of transparency. Ms D says this does not accurately reflect how she felt when the Council removed F. She says she felt bereft, and it has had a detrimental impact on her family. I do not dispute the significant impact the Council’s decision to remove F has had on Ms D and her family. However, I cannot say the outcome would have been any different if the Council had acted without fault. The main reason why the Council decided to remove F is because Ms D had not told it about the disciplinary proceedings with her former employer. It was concerned she could not work openly with professionals. These are allegations she responded to during Agency A’s investigation. The Council was not satisfied with her response, and it was considered in detail during the LADO meeting. Therefore, even if the Council had allowed Ms D to respond to the new safeguarding allegations, it is more likely than not it still would have decided to remove F.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 15 March 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Ms D.
• Pay Ms D £150 for the uncertainty and frustration caused.
• Using this case as an example, issue reminders to all relevant staff to ensure they must appropriately communicate with foster carers and allow their voices to be heard during a LADO investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

39. There was fault by the Council, which caused Ms D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman