Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to end their arrangement to foster a child after five years causing distress and financial loss. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So we are completing our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Mr X. He and Mrs X are foster carers. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to end their arrangement to foster a child, Y after five years. Mr X says
• The Council’s decision is wrong and changed its reason for ending the arrangement.
• The Council removed a permanence care plan for them to foster Y on a long-term arrangement and refused to provide a copy of the permanence report.
• The Council has denied their request to pursue the complaint to stage 3 of the Children’s statutory complaint procedure.
• The Council has only allowed them limited contact with Y since the child left their care.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused distress to them and Y. Mr X says they have been caused time and trouble in complaining and suffered financial loss. Mr X wants the Council to acknowledged it behaved wrongly and adjust its procedures accordingly. Mr X asks the Council to provide financial compensation and a statement about the high quality of care they gave to Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. 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

5. I have read the papers submitted by Mr X and spoken to him about the complaint. I considered the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Mr X 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 legislation and guidance

7. Section 26(3) of the Children Act 1989 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 panel review hearing by a panel of independent people.
8. There are timescales for considering social care complaints. Getting the Best from Complaints 2006 provides detailed guidance on how councils should conduct investigations. A council has the maximum of 65 working days to complete the Stage 2 investigation. If the Council has investigated something under this procedure, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. But we may look at whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Background to the complaint

9. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
10. Mr and Mrs X are foster carers with a private fostering agency. The Council placed Y with them as a foster child in 2015. Y has autism and some speech and language delay. A social worker visited Y each month for a Looked after Child (LAC) visit and the Council carried out an annual review each year. Y’s birth father, Mr Z had contact with Y during this time and in October 2020 formally requested Y to be placed in his care. The Council considered a move to Mr Z’s care was in Y’s best interest if assessed as suitable.
11. In November 2020 the Council gave Mr and Mrs X’s fostering agency notice to end Y’s placement with them. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council in December 2020 to challenge the Council’s decision. Mr and Mrs X said Y was stable with them and thriving. Mr and Mrs X considered allegations made they were not supporting Y’s cultural needs or contact with his father were unsubstantiated. The Council held a LAC review in January 2021 and Y was placed with a Council foster carer.
12. The Council completed a placement plan for Y in January 2021 and responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint in February 2021. The Council explained its reasons for moving Y to another fostering placement were based on the needs of Y and not on ‘allegations’ made against them as foster carers. It confirmed it had given them the required 28-day notice of the move.
13. The Council said it discussed with their agency in December 2020 what was assessed and felt to be in Y’s best interest to achieve the aim of returning to Mr Z’s care. The Council confirmed it had been the subject of discussions at the LAC reviews and contact had already taken place with Mr Z. The Council had never matched Y with Mr and Mrs X for long term care, and they had been made aware of this at several reviews. It was made clear Y would be facilitated back to Mr Z’s care subject to positive assessments, Y’s wishes and following detailed reports.
14. The Council agreed and acknowledged Y‘s development improved with Mr and Mrs X. But it considered Y’s cultural and racial identity central to the child’s development which could not be achieved by contact visits or imported knowledge alone. This would be given best by family preferably. The Council acknowledged there had been issues over Mr and Mrs X’s contact with Mr Z so communications from the Council were given through their fostering agency. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
15. Mr and Mrs X did not agree with the Council’s response and asked to go to stage 2 of the children’s’ complaints procedure.

Mr and Mrs X’s complaint through the Children’s Complaints procedure

Stage 2 complaint

16. The Council considered the complaint through the children’s complaints procedure and appointed an Independent Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) to oversee the investigation.
17. The IO and IP meet with Mr and Mrs X in March 2021 via a video link to discuss the complaint. Mr and Mrs X agreed a statement of complaint. The IO investigated the complaint and interviewed relevant council officers. The IO issued the report in June 2021.
18. Mr and Mrs X made 11 complaints. In summary the complaints and findings are;
• Complaint one. The Council removed Y from Mr and Mrs X’s care after five years where he was happy, stable, and thriving. The Council gave 28 days’ notice and no reason for the decision. But told Mr and Mrs X’s agency the move was because it was no longer a racial match or supporting contact with Mr Z. Mr and Mrs X considered the Council had not been transparent throughout the process.
• The IO found the Council followed the correct procedures to give notice to Mr and Mrs X. The Council carried out a review and held a review meeting in November 2020 to gain the views of all involved with Y. The meeting noted Mr Z’s wish to have Y living with him. It noted the concerns raised over many years that Mr and Mrs X had been unable to meet Y’s identify needs and support contact with Mr Z. The Council looked to find an alternative foster carer if it was not in Y’s best interests to be placed with Mr Z. Mr X attended the meeting so was aware of the discussions to place Y with an alternative foster carer. Y’s views were also sought and recorded. The IO found the Council gave the correct notice period and were clear with the reasons for moving Y. The IO did not uphold this part of the complaint.
• Complaint two. The Council failed to seek Y’s views and feelings about the move and did not place the child at the centre of the transition process.
• The IO found the Council commissioned a mentoring service to support Y, express the child’s views and feelings and support the relationship with Mr Z. The mentor and Mr Z were part of the transition process. The Council also asked a social worker who previously worked with Y to be part of the transition planning. The IO found the Council recorded Y’s views and feelings on the move. The IO did not uphold this part of the complaint.
• Complaint three. The Council removed an independent advocate Mr and Mrs X found to support Y saying there were too many professionals involved. Mr and Mrs X appointed the advocate as the child stated they did not wish to move so their feelings were not being considered.
• The IO found the Council did not dismiss the advocate. But it confirmed there were many professionals involved and not in Y’s best interest as it could be overwhelming. The Council was already supporting Y to express views and feelings. The IO found no evidence Y stated they did not wish to move so did not uphold this part of the complaint.
• Complaint four. The Council did not stick to the transition plan when removing Y from their care. Mr and Mrs Y considered there were issues with timekeeping, introducing professionals at the last minute, lack of support and failure to answer their questions. The Council failed to approach Y’s school or support network for views and no handover to the new foster carer to help Y.
• The IO found the Council considered Mr and Mrs X resistant to the transition, not supporting the plan and unable to support Y with it. The Council reported receiving mixed messages from Mr and Mrs X and their agency about the move which they did not agree to. The IO noted Mr and Mrs X provided representations from Y’s head teacher which expressed concern about the disruption to Y.
• The IO looked at review reports and care plans from 2018 onwards which noted Y’s current care arrangement was not formally matched and agreed as a long-term arrangement. This was due to concerns about Y’s contact with Mr Z’s and Mr and Mrs X’s support of this. The Council noted long term effects on Y around identity and cultural needs. A report in July 2019 did not endorse a permanent placement with Mr and Mrs X. In June 2020 a report referred to Y’s cultural and racial needs from the child’s family which were different to those of Mr and Mrs X’s. The Council considered the issues about promoting contact with Mr Z by Mr and Mrs X were impacting on Y and it had to manage the contact outside of the foster carers’ input.
• The IO found the Council’s decision to move Y to an alternative placement was well documented and evidenced within records of meetings and care plans available to all parties. The Council’s concerns were raised during meetings attended by Mr and Mrs X from 2018. The IO noted that as Mr and Mrs X were unable to engage in the transition process it prevented any opportunity for handover between foster carers. The IO did not uphold the complaint.
• Complaint five. The Council moved Y quickly to the new foster carer after being told it would not happen. Mr and Mrs X say the Council misled them when they understood their care arrangement for Y would be permanent and served notice quickly.
• The IO found evidence the Council documented its concerns about matching Y with Mr and Mrs X long term, and they were aware of the reasons why. The Council gave Mr and Mrs X copies of all review and meeting reports, so they were aware of the reasons. The Council gave Mr and Mrs X the required notice to move Y. The IO did not uphold the complaint.
• Complaint six. Mr and Mrs X questioned why the Council moved Y before Mr Z’s parenting assessment began.
• The IO found the difficulties in the relationship between Mr and Mrs X and Mr Z, they did not agree with the move and would not be supportive of the parental assessment would have put undue strain on Y. So, the Council agreed it would benefit Y being at a different foster carer for the parenting assessment to go ahead. The IO did not uphold the complaint.
• Complaint seven. The Council did not consider Y’s autism and other disabilities in its actions, so the child had no time to process the change of circumstances. Mr and Mrs X were concerned about the support provided to Y.
• The IO found the Council commissioned a special mentoring service for Y, so the child’s views and wishes were heard. The Council also used a previous social worker Y had a good relationship with to help with the transition. So, the Council considered Y’s needs by arranging appropriate support. The IO found the Council had documented over several years its reasoning for changing Y’s foster placement and Y had been included in discussions, meetings, and reviews. The IO did not uphold the complaint.
• Complaint eight. Mr and Mrs X questioned the Council’s concerns about cultural match in the foster care arrangement and only brought it up before Y was moved. Mr and Mrs X said the reviews all stated they were meeting Y’s cultural needs.
• The IO found the Council’s issues and concerns of the cultural match of the foster care arrangement being provided by Mr and Mrs X was clearly documented from 2018. The IO did not uphold this part of the complaint.
• Complaint nine. The Council wrongly accused them of not supporting Y’s contact with Mr Z when evidence showed the contrary.
• The IO found the Council documented Mr and Mrs X provided Y with a loving and stable environment and supported the child with their needs. But the Council was clear and consistent in documenting the reason for it moving Y to another foster placement. This was due to the relationship between Mr and Mrs X and Mr Z. The Council made a best interest decision to move Y so the child could maintain regular and consistent contact with Mr Z. The IO found the Council’s reasoning and decision making clearly documented in the case records. And the decision arrived at reasonably and correctly. The IO did not uphold this part of the complaint.
• Complaint ten. The Council told Mr and Mrs X Y’s case was booked into a permanency panel in July 2020 as stated in the review documents. But the Council has not confirmed whether the panel went ahead nor provided them with a copy of the permanence report.
• The IO found the Council scheduled a panel meeting for June 2020, but it did not take place as an officer could not attend. The Council did not reschedule the meeting and Y was never formally matched with Mr and Mrs X due to the ongoing contact issue with Mr Z. The Council said Mr and Mrs X had been aware of this since 2017. The panel meeting did not take place so there was no permanence report to give to Mr and Mrs X. The IO did not uphold the complaint.
• Complaint eleven. Mr and Mrs X have only been allowed letterbox contact with Y since the move which they were surprised about after being Y’s carer for five years. Mr and Mrs X consider the Council has not explained why or taken account of Y’s communication difficulties.
• The IO found the fostering agency told the Council Mr and Mrs X would not be advocating for any contact with Y. But they changed their mind a few weeks later. This was when the letterbox contact started as Y was not ready to see them. The Council agreed to see how the letterbox contact went first.
• The IO found the matter still ongoing and beyond the remit of the investigation to intervene in day-to-day management of cases. But could not see any fault by the Council. The IO encouraged and recommended the Council and Mr and Mrs X to continue to work together to find a solution to benefit Y and their wishes. The IO did not uphold this part of the complaint.
19. The Council considered the IO’s report and wrote to Mr and Mrs X accepted the findings. The Council agreed with the IO’s recommendation to continue working with them to explore the level of contact Y wished to have. The Council advised Mr and Mrs X they could request to go to stage 3 of the complaints procedure if they were unhappy with the outcome. The Council said they should request this within 20 working days of the receiving the Council’s letter.

Mr and Mrs X’s request for Stage 3

20. Mr and Mrs X asked to go to stage 3 on 21 July 2021. The Council sent Mr and Mrs X a form to complete so it could understand why they wanted to proceed to stage 3. Mr X responded they wished to proceed without completing the form as they were seeking legal advice on their next steps which would become clear.
21. The Council told Mr and Mrs X it needed them to set out in writing the outstanding complaints and desired outcomes before it could accept the complaint for a Review Panel. The Council agreed to allow them until the end of August 2021 so they could seek legal advice. The Council asked if Mr and Mrs X were happy to proceed on that basis. Mr X responded asking the Council to leave the complaint open until they gathered advice to reply. The Council responded it would hold the complaint open pending more information from them.
22. Mr X emailed the Council on 12 October 2021 saying he now had the information to move the complaint to stage 3. Mr X alleged Council officers had been dishonest and lied about matters. Mr X referred to the current contact arrangements with Y and there had been successful video calls which went against the IO’s comment that letter box contact was appropriate. Mr X said Y was still confused about the situation which supported their view the child had not been properly consulted.
23. Mr X said they were having to push Y’s social worker for face-to-face contact with Y as Mr Z was not accepting it. Mr X said they were upset Mr Z was not allowing contact. Mr X asked again about the notes of the permanency panel meeting, and he would be escalating the issue to the Information Commissioner.
24. The Council refused Mr X’s request to go to stage 3 as it considered the request was out of time. The Council said it agreed to hold the complaint open until the end of August 2021. It confirmed its later email was an agreement to hold it open until then and not agreeing to a further extension. The Council said it would have no reason to hold the case open for longer as the regulations were clear complainants had 20 working days to submit a request from the date of the Stage 2 letter and panels must be held within 30 working days of the request.
25. The Council considered Mr X’s allegation about officers lying was serious and outside of the complaint remit. The Council said it needed further evidence of what Mr and Mrs X were saying and would need to be referred to a senior manager to consider.
26. The Council noted Mr X’s email referred to issues about current contact. The stage 2 had been about their unhappiness with letterbox contact. The Council agreed to keep working to explore contact and keep it under review. The Council said a review panel would not investigate what happened since the stage 2 so was outside the panel’s remit.

The Council’s comments on the complaint

27. The Council confirms Y’s placement with Mr and Mrs X was a therapeutic fostering placement. But it was not matched for Y at the outset. The Council acknowledged Y formed a significant attachment to Mr and Mrs X. But there were always ongoing issues about Mr and Mrs X’s understanding of and support of Y’s identity needs and more importantly the significance of Y’s ongoing relationship with Mr Z. The Council considers Mr and Mrs X, and their fostering agency were aware of the issues especially about contact between Y and his birth family. The Council tried to work with Mr and Mrs X to remedy this with limited success.
28. Mr Z maintained contact with Y but been unable to become the child’s permanent carer until his situation changed in October 2020. The Council has carefully considered Mr Z’s wish to become Y’s carer against the background of Mr and Mrs X’s inability or unpreparedness to support Y’s background and relationship with Mr Z. The Council continues to assess Mr Z’s ability to assume sole care of Y.
29. The Council says its decision has been made following an extensive and detailed process to establish the best plans to support this after considering Y’s overall long-term welfare needs. At no time did it put forward that Y should be placed on a permanent basis with Mr and Mrs X.
30. The Council confirms it has it was aware of Y’s wishes and feelings and supported the child through professionals working with them. Y has also been able to show some understanding of the care plan as documented by records of the reviews.
31. Mr and Mrs X currently have direct contact with Y six times a year as Y wishes to have contact with them. The contact is supervised due to Y’s vulnerability and understanding. The Council is currently reviewing contact arrangements as it received a challenge about the frequency.

My assessment

32. I do not intend to reinvestigate the complaints Mr and Mrs X raised at stage 2 of the statutory complaint procedure. This is because I am satisfied from the evidence provided the complaints have been considered in detail. It is a thorough and robust investigation into the complaints. This includes Mr and Mrs X’s concerns about the Council’s decision to remove Y from their care and the reasons for doing so. Mr and Mrs X were interviewed by the investigating officers and given an opportunity to put forward their concerns. The Council accepted the findings and recommendation made about exploring contact arrangements. It has provided evidence to show it is currently carrying out the recommendation. So, I do not consider I can add anything further to the investigation already carried out or achieve a different outcome for Mr and Mrs X.
33. Mr X’s concerns about the existence of a permanency plan report for Y to remain with them has also been considered at stage 2. The Council and IO confirmed there was no report due to the meeting being cancelled. Mr and Mrs X say they intend to pursue their concerns about the report’s existence with the Information Commissioner. This is the route for Mr and Mrs X to use if they wish to pursue this further. The information Commissioner can consider whether the Council correctly responded to Mr and Mrs X’s request for information.
34. The Council accepts the final email about leaving the complaint open was referred to leaving it open until the end of August 2021, not indefinitely until Mr and Mrs X provided information. The Council advised Mr and Mrs X their response in October 2021 was out of time to progress to stage 3. In addition, the issues they raised were about events after the stage 2 which would not be in the remit of the stage 3. And Mr and Mrs X did not provide any evidence to support their allegations of dishonesty by Council officers.
35. I consider there was a lack of clarity by the Council about when it expected Mr and Mrs X to provide the evidence they referred to and request a stage 3. It would have been better if the Council confirmed again, it was willing to leave the complaint open only until the end of August 2021 according to the statutory timescales. But I do not consider it an issue to pursue further or sufficient to warrant a finding of fault by the Council on this point. This is because Mr and Mrs X have not provided the evidence they referred to in support of their allegations about officers. And the issues they raise about contact with Y are ongoing so not within the remit of the stage 3 review panel.
36. The Council is arranging contact according to the best interest of Y who has requested it. This is currently an ongoing issue, so I consider Mr and Mrs X’s concerns about this to us are premature. Mr and Mrs X need to formally complain to the Council about this first as the arrangements are being reviewed.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I am completing my investigation. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr and Mrs X’s concerns about a decision to end a foster arrangement they had for a child.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman