Summary: Mrs X, a former foster carer, complained about the Council’s response to allegations made against her and the way it removed children from her care. We did not find the Council to be at fault because it followed the correct procedure.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s:

• failure to follow the correct procedure during a child protection enquiry into an allegation made against her; and
• failure to follow the correct procedure when it removed two long term foster children from her care; and

2. She says this caused significant distress, trauma and mistrust of the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mrs X’s complaint identified 30 separate areas of concern. I do not propose to examine these matters individually here. Our role is not to provide answers to each and every criticism a complainant may have about a council.
6. Instead, my investigation has focussed on what I consider to be the two main areas of potential fault, summarised at paragraph one above.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of my investigation I have:

• considered the complaint and documents provided by Mrs X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• considered the relevant law, guidance and Council policy;
• spoken to Mrs X; and
• sent my draft decision to both parties and invited comments on it. I considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and policy

Child protection investigations

8. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018 provides guidance on how councils should protect and support children. The document states that “whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, there should be a strategy discussion.” The purpose of the strategy meeting is to decide a plan of future action to safeguard the child’s welfare.
9. If the strategy discussion concludes the child is at risk of, or has suffered, significant harm the Council must carry out a child protection investigation known as a Section 47 enquiry.

Allegations against foster carers

10. Councils assess and approve foster carers. Where there are concerns about the care provided, a council’s Fostering Panel can recommend deregistration based on evidence provided to it by the fostering team.
11. The National Fostering Minimum Standards 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.
12. The Council’s policy states the LADO must be consulted within day of an allegation having been made. If there are safeguarding concerns, a section 47 strategy discussion must take place. During the course of the investigation carers have the right to received details concerning the nature of the allegations. They will be notified of the outcome.
13. The fostering service will reassess the status of carers upon conclusion of a child protection enquiry. This is called a “Standards of Care” assessment.

Removal of foster children

14. A council shall not allow the placement of a child with a particular person to continue if it appears to them that the placement is no longer the most suitable way of performing their duty. Where it appears to an authority that to continue a placement would be harmful to the welfare of the child concerned, the council shall remove the child forthwith.
15. It will be a matter of professional judgement for the social worker, based on their knowledge of the child and carer, that the child’s welfare is not being adequately safeguarded.
16. If a decision is made to terminate a foster placement, the Care, Planning and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 and guidance advises councils to carry out a statutory review of the child’s case and ensure the views of all the people concerned have been heard, unless there is an immediate risk of significant harm, requiring immediate removal.
17. The Council’s policy states it can remove a child from a placement if it decides that the continuation of the placement is no longer suitable in fulfilling its duty to the child or that continuation of the placement would be detrimental to the welfare of the child.

Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO)

18. 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.

What happened

19. I have set out below a summary of key events. It is not intended to be a detailed account of everything that happened.

The section 47 enquiry

20. In 2020, Mrs X and her husband Mr X fostered two siblings (P and Q).
21. In January 2023, Q’s school was made aware of a safeguarding concern that involved Mrs X. This led to a section 47 enquiry. Mrs X was interviewed by the police at the school, with a social worker also present.
22. The police told Mrs X no action would be taken by them. The Council made a decision that it would be disproportionate to remove the children to a place of safety and they should return home with Mrs X that evening. The fostering social worker called Mrs X over the weekend to ask how she was. Mrs X was sent a copy of the relevant Council policy four working days after the incident.
23. Five working days after the incident, relevant professionals met with Mrs X to discuss the incident at school.
24. Within a week, Mrs X was told the section 47 enquiry was completed and the Council was satisfied that the allegation was unsubstantiated. Because a section 47 enquiry had taken place this meant Mrs X’s registration as a foster carer would be the subject of a “Standards of Care” review by the Council’s Fostering Panel.
25. The Panel decided Mrs X was allowed to continue fostering.
26. Mrs X says the whole process was unnecessary and extremely distressing. She feels the Council acted disproportionately and damaged her previous good relationship with the school and other professionals. She feels it had an influence over what happened later that year.

The removal of the children

27. Several months later, Mrs X called the Council expressing her concerns about P. She said she would like to discuss the possible removal of P.
28. Mrs X also made inappropriate comments about P to her school. The school reported this to the Council. The social worker discussed this with Mrs X and the LADO.
29. The Council carried out a sibling assessment, the outcome being P and Q should stay together. During the course of its enquiries into this matter, the Council became concerned about Mrs X’s ability to put the children’s emotional needs first. It decided both girls should be removed and placed in a different foster home together.
30. The sudden removal of the children caused Mrs X considerable distress particularly as she was not allowed to contact P and Q or have a handover meeting with their new carers. She felt the Council did not put the needs of the children first and they had been denied being part of a proper family unit.
31. She felt her relationship with the Council had broken down and so resigned as foster carer.
32. Despite this resignation, the Fostering Panel still had to make a formal decision about Mrs X’s registration as foster carer. The Panel decided, had Mrs X not resigned, she would have been deregistered as a foster carer in any event.
33. She complained to the Council and then the Ombudsman about the way it managed the section 47 enquiry and subsequent removal of P and Q.

The Council’s position

34. The Council has provided Mrs X and the Ombudsman with a detailed response to Mrs X’s many concerns about events leading up to the removal of P and Q. Whilst overall the Council did not uphold her complaint, some areas of service improvement were identified. The Council apologised for distress caused to Mrs X by some occasional lapses in communication and failure to remove her from a database. I consider the apology already given by the Council is an appropriate and proportionate response and the Ombudsman cannot add anything further to this.
35. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council has said:

• The decision to remove the children and cancel Mrs X’s registration was a unanimous one, fully supported by all professionals involved.
• The decision was not based on a single incident, but in the context of ongoing concerns raised by several professionals involved with P and Q.
• The removal of the children was subject to a transition plan.

Analysis

36. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not my role to consider whether the Council made the right decision to remove P and Q. Nor is it my role to say whether the Council was right to carry out a section 47 enquiry into the allegations made against her. My role is to consider if the Council has followed the correct processes in its decision-making. If there was no fault in the decision-making, we cannot question the outcome or find a council at fault because a person disagrees with its decision.

The section 47 investigation

37. A child protection investigation will inevitably be distressing for any parent. It is therefore important to try to ensure things are done properly. Mrs X raised concerns about not being informed status of the enquiry and not being properly supported.
38. I have not found fault for the following reasons:

• Mrs X was promptly made aware of the allegation against her.
• Both the LADO and Independent Reviewing Officer were involved from an early stage in the section 47 procedure.
• Mrs X was contacted over the weekend to find out how things were at home.
• Mrs X was provided with a copy of the relevant policy. I appreciate this was not done on the day of the incident, but a few days later, but in the context of a child protection investigation that occurred immediately before the weekend, I do not consider this sufficiently serious to make a finding of fault especially as this information was accessible to Mrs X online.
• The Council carried out a home visit within a week the incident. Both P and Q were seen separately, and their views and feelings considered. Mrs X was also given the opportunity to discuss her concerns.
• Although the children were returned to the care of Mrs X on the day of the incident, this did not necessarily mean no further action would be taken afterwards, as expected by Mrs X
• The decision to end the section 47 investigation was verbally communicated to Mrs X a week after the incident. Mrs X was notified as soon as this decision was made.and there was no delay in bring the enquiry to a close. She was also told a Standards of Care process would follow.

39. Overall, I am satisfied the evidence shows the Council carried out a balanced, child-focussed proportionate investigation within the required timescales. There was no fault.

The removal of the children

40. I am satisfied, based on the evidence I have seen there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the removal of P and Q and her Mrs X’s subsequent deregistration. I say this for the following reasons.

• The decision to remove the children was evidence based. It was not based solely on a single inappropriate comment made by Mrs X to the school.
• Mrs X was given several opportunities to explain her actions and comments.
• The removal of the children was subject to a transition plan to avoid, as far as possible, a negative impact on P and Q.
• Mrs X was notified in person of the Council’s decision to remove the children and the reasons why this was necessary.
• Mrs X was offered external peer support when Mrs X gave her verbal resignation.
• The Council, in discussion with the LADO decided the threshold for Standards of Care had been met. This was a professional assessment of the evidence available at the time, made by the correct people. the Ombudsman cannot interfere with this type of professional decision.
• An independent person who was not previously involved with the case was nominated to carry out the Standards of Care review.

41. Overall, I am satisfied the actions taken by the Council were fair, proportionate, child-focussed and evidence based.
42. In reaching this decision, I do not, in any way, seek to dismiss or minimise Mrs X’s experience that I acknowledge has been extremely traumatic. However, there is no clear fault in the actions taken by the Council that is within the Ombudsman’s remit.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have not found the Council to be at fault. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman