Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council ended foster placements of three children, the investigation it carried out before removing the children and the way it communicated with her. I have found no fault with the Council’s investigation of the substantive issues Mrs X complained about. I have found fault with the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has offered to apologise and pay Mrs X £300 for the injustice caused by this.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council ended foster placements of three children, the investigation it carried out before removing the children and the way it communicated with her throughout this period.
2. Mrs X says the situation has caused her family significant distress and impacted their wellbeing.

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 discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
6. Mrs X and the Council now have the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Complaints procedure

7. The Council considered the complaint under the Birmingham Children’s Trust local complaints procedure. Mrs X’s complaint is about Birmingham Children’s Trust. The Trust is owned by the Council and for the purpose of this investigation the Council remains the body in jurisdiction. I will refer to the ‘Council’ throughout this statement.
8. There is a 10 working day timescale for stage one complaints, which starts for the date the complaint is accepted. This timescale can be extended to 20 working days if the complaint is complex or if an advocate needs to be appointed.
9. The timescale for completing the stage 2 investigation is 25 working days from when the statement of complaint has been agreed by the complainant and the Council. This timescale can be extended to a maximum of 65 working days where the complaint is complex.
10. Stage three is the final stage of the procedure and reviews whether the complaint was adequately investigated at stage two.
11. 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

What happened

12. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
13. Mr and Mrs X were foster carers registered with the Council. At the time of the complaint the Council had placed three children with them. Child A was placed in September 2020, Child B in November 2021 and Child C in December 2021.
14. In December 2021, the Council carried out an annual review and no concerns were noted. A social worker visited every six weeks.
15. On 15 March 2022, Child B left the placement and ten days later the Council placed Child D with Mr and Mrs X.
16. On 11 April 2022, Mrs X escorted Child D to a contact centre to have contact with her birth mother. When Mrs X returned to pick up Child D, she was informed by Officer 1 that the birth mother had raised concerns about Child D’s presentation. It was also alleged the car seat and blanket were dirty.
17. Shortly afterward, the police spoke to Mrs X and explained they were placing all three children under child protection immediately. Child C and D were placed in alternative placements. Child A remained with Mr and Mrs X with an updated safety plan.
18. The next day, the Council held a safeguarding strategy meeting regarding all three children. It was agreed that section 47 enquiries were necessary. This is whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm in the form of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect
19. On 14 April, the social worker visited Mr and Mrs X to complete the six weekly at home supervision. The social worker (SW) explained she could not comment on the incident that took place on 11 April. The SW completed a check of the house and Child A. The SW agreed to keep Mr and Mrs X updated and asked them to contact her if they required any support.
20. On 10 May the 28 day notice of -termination period ended regarding Mr and Mrs X as foster carers and Child A was moved to an alternative placement.
21. On 16 May, the Council registered a formal complaint from Mrs X, under stage 1 of its complaint’s procedure. In June, the Council issued three separate partial responses to Mrs X.
22. On 15 July, the Council issued a final stage one response to Mrs X. Mrs X remained unsatisfied and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two.
23. On 5 August, the Council appointed an independent investigator to investigate Mrs X’s complaint at stage two. The investigation considered the six key elements of the complaint. These are detailed below in paragraphs 25 and 26. This took over six months to complete.
24. On 7 September, the Council sent Mr and Mrs X a resignation of foster carers letter.
25. In February 2023, the Council issued its stage two response. The investigation upheld one element of Mrs X’s complaint, that a council officer made an inappropriate comment that Mrs X presented as “passive aggressive” during an unannounced home visit. The investigator said the comment was not helpful or appropriate. The Council agreed and apologised in writing to Mrs X.
26. The stage two investigation did not uphold Mrs X’s complaints that:

• the Council removed the foster children from their care without following the correct procedure;
• the Council continued to allow Child A to remain in their care for another 28 days after removing the other two foster children;
• they were exposed to unacceptable and unprofessional behaviour by the Council, such as threatening emails and unannounced visits during unsocial hours;
• the Council refused to allow Mr and Mrs X to remain as registered foster carers, without having to go through a full fostering assessment again; and
• the Council did not provide advice, support to Mr and Mrs X whilst they experienced the loss and stress of all three children being removed from their care.

27. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Mrs X bought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the complaint procedure failed to recognise that:

• Officer 1 had informed the police that Child D had nappy rash, which led to all three children being removed;
• The SW said if they had not resigned as foster carers, she would have de-registered them; and
• The SW referred to Mrs X as passive aggressive during an unannounced visit but did not explain why.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

28. The Council has acknowledged there was a delay in responding to Mrs X’s stage one response and it was unacceptable practice to send three separate responses. The Council agrees that it should have sent one single response.
29. The Council has also acknowledged the stage two investigation was delayed due to staff cancelling meetings arranged by the independent investigator and the Council finalising its response.
30. To remedy the injustice caused by the delay in responding to the complaint, the Council has offered to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment of £300.
31. As the Council has accepted fault with the way it handled Mrs X’s complaint, I do not intend to investigate this matter further. I will however consider whether the remedy proposed by the Council is appropriate.

Analysis

32. When a case has been considered via an independent stage two complaints’ procedure, we generally do not reinvestigate the substantive issues. The complaints procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of the concerns raised. This means reinvestigation is neither necessary nor warranted unless there are serious and fundamental flaws in the way the case was investigated.
33. With this context in mind my investigation has focussed on Mrs X’s specific areas of concerns about the complaint procedure set out at paragraph 27 above.

Officer 1 had made false claims and informed the police that Child D had nappy rash.

34. The stage two investigation report includes a chronology of events and refers to interviews with key staff. This included details of Officer 1’s communication with the police. Officer 1 confirmed that she did speak to the police as they were gathering information. Officer 1, told the police there had been concerns raised about the presentation of Child D, including by the birth mother stating that Child D had nappy rash. I have found no evidence to suggest the Council failed to follow the correct process with regards to the overall element of this complaint. The report does not state the decision to remove all three children from Mr and Mrs X’s care was based on what Mrs X alleges as false claims by Officer 1.
35. I understand that Mrs X feels aggrieved by the removal of all three foster children and feels this was unjustified. But it is not our role to question decisions that have been made properly. The Council had a duty to carry out enquiries following the concerns raised and removal of the children by the police. It is not for the Ombudsman to question how the Council did so. I have found no fault by the Council.

The SW said if they had not resigned as foster carers, she would have de-registered them.

36. Mrs X originally complained to the Council about its decision to refuse Mr and Mrs X to remain as registered foster carers, without having to go through a full fostering assessment process again. I have reviewed the evidence considered by the independent investigator. I have found no evidence to support Mrs X’s claims.

The SW referred to Mrs X as “passive aggressive” during an unannounced visit but did not explain why.

37. This aspect of Mrs X’s complaint has been upheld and the Council has apologised. This comment was made during an unannounced visit. Because I was not present, I cannot determine why the comment was made and in what context.

Conclusion

38. Overall, I am satisfied the Council carried out a robust, independent investigation of Mrs X’s complaint.
39. As set out in paragraphs 28-31, the Council accepts there was fault with the Council’s complaint process. This caused distress in the form of uncertainty and frustration to Mr and Mrs X.
40. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. This is a symbolic payment. In cases where the distress is severe or prolonged, we may recommend more.
41. The Council has offered a payment of £300. I consider this to be an appropriate amount to remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s handing of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Recommended action

42. Within one month of my final decision the Council should apologise to Mrs X and pay her £300 for the distress caused by the delay in responding to her complaint.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Draft decision

Subject to further comments by Mrs X and the Council, I intend to complete my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman