Summary: Mrs X complained about the support the Council provided to her during a fostering placement and the length of time it took in making a decision about her future as a foster carer. The Council had acknowledged there was fault and had implemented learning points. The Council agreed to remedy the personal injustice to Mrs X by apologising to her and making a payment to reflect the distress its failures caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains about the Council’s lack of support and treatment of her after the child she was fostering had an accident whilst in her care.
2. Mrs X also complains about the length of time it is taking the Council to advise her of its decision regarding her future as a foster carer.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. I considered Mrs X’s complaint and the information she provided.
6. I considered the information I received from the Council following my enquiries and further enquiries.
7. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Minimum Fostering Standards

8. The National Fostering Minimum Standards 2011 (NFMS) says investigations into allegations against carers should be carried out quickly and should provide protection to the child but also support to the person subject to the investigation. Foster carers should be told in writing about allegations against them and given information about the timescale for completing the investigation.
9. Paragraph 22.8 of the NFMS says a foster carer’s approval should be reviewed as soon as possible after the investigation has concluded.

The Council’s Policy

10. The Council has a Fostering Statement of Purpose (the ‘Statement’) where it says that the Fostering Team managers are responsible for managing allegations, liaising with the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) and making sure that the person against whom an allegation has been made is kept informed of the progress of the investigation and receives independent support during the investigation.
11. At the end of the investigation a comprehensive summary of the allegation, investigation and outcome will be produced and the foster carer’s suitability to continue to foster will be reviewed. Any serious, substantiated allegation will always be notified to the Fostering Panel (the Panel) which will then make recommendations to the Agency Decision Maker regarding continuation or variation of approval.

What happened

12. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not cover everything that happened.
13. Mrs X is a foster carer and has fostered children for approximately 28 years.
14. In January 2019, a baby, C, was placed with Mrs X. In June 2021, C suffered burns from a cup of tea she pulled down on herself while they were staying in Mrs X’s caravan. C was admitted to hospital where she stayed for a few days. Mrs X stayed with C throughout her stay.
15. The accident was managed by the Council as a Standards of Care (SoC) matter as it involved a health and safety issue. The Council had not completed any health and safety checks of Mrs X’s caravan prior to the accident.
16. The Council arranged for a support worker to assist Mrs X in caring for C. A support worker attended Mrs X’s home for 8 weeks until C was no longer in her care (C remained in Mrs X’s care until she was adopted in July 2021). After C was adopted, Mrs X did not have a child placed with her.
17. The Council increased the level of contact and visits from council officers to Mrs X after the accident.
18. The SoC meeting was held on 8 December 2021. It recommended Mrs X’s approval to change to 1 child, 0-18 months old.
19. The Panel met on 4 May 2022 and recommended Mrs X’s approval to foster to continue but to be changed to one child aged 0-24 months. The Council, specifically the Agency Decision Maker, agreed with the recommendation and wrote to Mrs X in June 2022 to advise her of this decision.
20. Mrs X complained about several events that occurred after C’s accident. I consider the Council’s stage one response to her complaint as thorough and detailed.
21. The Council upheld and partly upheld some aspects of Mrs X’s complaints. Rather than evaluate each point of complaint, I have summarised Mrs X’s complaint to two areas; how she was treated by the Council after C’s accident and the uncertainty around her future as a foster carer.

Back to top

Analysis

The Council’s treatment of Mrs X after C’s accident

22. The Council upheld parts of Mrs X’s complaint about the events that followed C’s accident. I have reviewed the Council’s complaint responses to Mrs X.
23. Mrs X is unhappy the Council did not provide physical support when C was in hospital immediately after the incident. I appreciate Mrs X is of the view a social worker should have been physically present at the hospital. However, this is not something the Ombudsman would make a finding of fault on. Support was given to Mrs X during the time C was in hospital, but this was via telephone. I consider this was sufficient in the circumstances.
24. The NFMS guidance says foster carers should be supervised by a named, appropriately qualified social worker. In response to the incident, the Council increased contact and visits to Mrs X. The annual review report shows Mrs X’s Supervising Social Worker (SSW) visited her on four occasions between October 2021 and January 2022.
25. In Mrs X’s case, the SSW appears to have changed at least three times in the six months after C’s accident. This was a stressful time for Mrs X and it is understandable she felt support was lacking when she had to rebuild relationships repeatedly in such a short space of time. The Council has acknowledged Mrs X experienced difficulty in accessing support and there were occasions when she did not receive a response to her requests for support.
26. Mrs X complained about the Council supervising her for eight weeks after the accident and until C was adopted. A support worker was appointed to assist with the care of C from 8am to 7pm, 7 days a week. The Council acknowledges a meeting should have been held with Mrs X regarding the support worker’s role. Failure to do this is fault and it resulted in confusion and frustration for Mrs X. This confusion is evidenced in the case notes as they show Mrs X was assured on several occasions that the support worker was not there ‘to spy on’ her but to support her.
27. The notes also show that Mrs X was confused about whether the support workers could take care of C if she went to an appointment but she was told it was not their role. This response further exacerbated Mrs X’s view that the support workers were there to supervise her and not assist with caring for C. The Council acknowledges there was miscommunication between staff and the messages that were being delivered to Mrs X. This is also fault. The Council has apologised to Mrs X and implemented learning points to improve internal communication between staff.
28. There is further fault in the Council’s failure to ensure the support workers had appropriate PPE when entering Mrs X’s home.
29. The Council also found it had failed to provide Mrs X with feedback and notes from meetings. It apologised for any anxiety this failure may have caused.

Mrs X’s future as a foster carer

30. From the evidence I have seen, the Council has communicated to Mrs X her approval has changed to one child, 0-18 months. This is reflected in the SSW’s report of Mrs X’s annual review which was held in September 2021. Although this review was held before the SoC meeting, it appears the information in the report has been added after the review meeting. The report specifies what the change in approval is and is then followed by a statement that says Mrs X is “okay with this approval”. I would expect the Council to have shared the updated report with Mrs X.
31. In addition to this, the Council sent a letter to Mrs X in June 2022 with its decision following the Panel’s recommendations in May 2022. This letter informed Mrs X that the Council had decided she was suitable to be re-approved as a foster carer for one child aged between 0-24 months.
32. The Council says every foster carer who has been through the SoC procedure must be re-presented to the Panel. In this case, it took nearly six months for the Council to arrange this meeting with the Panel and for Mrs X to be advised of the Panel’s decision. This is fault.
33. Due to the lack of information Mrs X has received from the Council about the SoC procedure, she does not know what the process, is unaware of how long it is going to continue and what it will entail. Mrs X describes it as something that is ‘hanging over her head’ and wants clarity on what the Council’s plan is with regards to her future as a foster carer.
34. Although there is evidence Mrs X’s foster carer approval was communicated to her, I have not seen any communication from the Council explaining that the SoC process is complete or what stage it is at. In absence of this evidence, I find fault with the Council.
35. The Council has accepted fault on parts of Mrs X’s complaints. It is welcomed that the Council has implemented the learning points that arose from Mrs X’s complaint.

The injustice to Mrs X

36. On the basis of the information I have seen, the faults caused injustice to Mrs X which warrant a remedy. I appreciate the conversations and the events that took place after C’s accident were difficult for council officers and for Mrs X. However, the faults and the learning points identified by the Council indicate it could have been handled better.
37. Mrs X has 28 years of experience as a foster carer with no previous history of complaints against her. She has a good relationship with C’s adopters who she remains in contact with and babysits C on occasions. This is a testament to her hard work and character. These are factors acknowledged by the Council. However, I do not consider the apologies offered are sufficient to reflect the impact the Council’s actions had, and are still having, on Mrs X.
38. The faults by the Council have resulted in Mrs X losing confidence in her abilities as a foster carer and she has also lost trust and confidence with the Council. I consider this is the biggest personal injustice to Mrs X, particularly when taking into account her record as a foster carer. The faults caused frustration and also exacerbated the distress Mrs X was feeling after C’s accident. The evidence also shows Mrs X was inconvenienced by the support workers on several occasions due to absence or turning up later than planned.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. To remedy the personal injustice to Mrs X, the Council has agreed that within four weeks of this final decision, it will:
• apologise to her for the identified faults;
• advise her, in writing, the SoC procedure it is following, with the intention of providing her with clarity on the process, what it entails and when it is likely to end; and
• pay her £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the faults.
40. Although I welcome the learning points identified by the Council, there was no learning from the length of time Mrs X waited for the Council’s decision after the SoC meeting. The Council has agreed that within three months of this final decision, it will review the length of time taken from the SoC meeting (8 December 2021) to Mrs X being advised by the Agency Decision Maker of its decision (8 June 2022) and implement improvements to ensure carers are not waiting so unnecessarily long to be advised of the outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

41. There is fault by the Council, and these caused injustice to Mrs X. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will carry out the above actions as a suitable way to remedy the injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman