Summary: We found no fault on most of Ms Y’s complaints against the Council about when it removed two sets of foster children from her care. The investigation of the allegations against her was done in line with procedures, there was no fault with the decisions to remove the children, and it was entitled to hold an early household review of her fostering status which was done without fault. It accepted it failed to send her confirmation of a variation to her terms of approval as a carer and failed to ensure she received all the supervision she should have done. These failures were fault and caused her an injustice. The Council previously agreed to pay her £250. It also agreed to review why the failures happened and ensure procedures are in place and followed in the future.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the way the Council:
1. investigated and dealt with an allegation against her while she fostered young children;
2. removed the children from her care without warning;
3. pressured her to agree to an early annual review; and
4. failed to carry out this annual review properly.
2. As a result, this affected her wellbeing as she felt unsupported and anxious about how they were all treated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms Y, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I also considered information sent in confidence which I cannot disclose as it contains information about third parties.
7. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms Y and the Council. I consider the response received from the Council.

Back to top

What I found

Foster Carers Handbook

8. If an allegation is made against the foster carer, or family member, the Council notifies them verbally and in writing.
9. The allegation is investigated fairly and confidentially according to its Multi-Agency Safeguarding Children Procedures. All investigations are overseen by the Designated Officer in the Council, the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). The LADO co-ordinates and oversees allegations and monitors the progress of cases to ensure they are dealt with as quickly as possible.
10. A multi-agency Strategy Meeting is called within 2 working days of an allegation received where there are concerns a child suffered significant harm. It decides whether an investigation by Children’s Social Care Services and/or the Police is needed and if so, how it will be done. The carer is given the chance to respond to the allegation before a final decision is made. The Council may look for a new placement for the child with no placements of any other children with the carer during the investigation until it is concluded.
11. The fostering service provider ensures the carer will have information about: how they will be supported during the investigation; contact details of the independent agency who can provide support; insurance arrangements for legal expenses.
12. The approval status of foster carers is reviewed annually or whenever there is a change of circumstances about the standards of care. First annual Household Reviews are presented to the Fostering and Permanence Panel and then three yearly. Where there is a change in carers ‘terms of approval’, or where there has been a complaint or allegation, a Household Review is completed and presented to the Panel for consideration.

National Minimum Standards

13. Standard 22 (Handling allegations and suspicions of harm) states:

• Allegations against those working with children are reported by the fostering service to the LADO.
• A clear and comprehensive summary of allegations, including details of how it was followed up and resolved, and a record of any action taken and decisions reached, are kept on the person’s file with a copy provided to them as soon as the investigation concludes.
• As soon as possible after an investigation, their approval as suitable to foster is reviewed.
• Investigations are handled fairly, quickly, and consistently in a way that provides effective protection for the child while supporting the person subject of the allegation.

Council Safeguarding Children Partnership Procedures Manual

14. The speed with which an assessment is carried out after the Council received a referral should be decided by the needs of the individual child and the nature and level of any risk of harm faced. Within a day of receiving it, the Council will decide the next steps which includes whether the child needs immediate protection and whether urgent action is needed. Where immediate protection is needed, action must be taken as soon as possible. The referral outcome may include a decision to assess and make child protection enquiries.
15. Assessments must be based on good analysis, timeliness, transparency, and be proportionate to the needs of the child and family. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has cause to suspect a child who lives, or is found in their area, is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it must make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. The maximum time for the assessment to conclude should be no longer than 45 working days from receiving the referral.
16. The outcome of the assessment might include carrying out a Strategy Meeting and section 47 child protection enquiries. The enquiries decide whether, and what type, of action is needed to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. Where there is a likelihood of serious immediate harm, it should act immediately to secure the immediate safety of the child.
17. A Strategy Meeting is held where there is reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. This will involve the council, the police, and fostering service, for example. It will share, seek, and analyse available information. The plan made should reflect the requirement to convene an Initial Child Protection Conference within 15 working days at which it decided to start the section 47 enquiry. During the enquiry, it should explain to carers the purpose, process, and potential outcome of it. The outcome will either be ‘Not substantiated’ or ‘Substantiated’.
18. The LADO must be contacted within one day for all cases where it is claimed a person who works with children has behaved in a way that has harmed, or may have harmed, a child. The LADO is responsible for providing advice, information, and guidance to employers around the allegations. The LADO is also responsible for managing and overseeing individual cases, monitoring the progress of cases to ensure they are dealt with as quickly as possible, and recommending a referral and chairing the Strategy Meeting.

What happened

19. Ms Y had been a single foster carer for a number of years when the Council asked her to care for two children (‘the boys’, aged 12 and 14), initially for one night, but which ended up 12 nights in total. The boys stayed with her some nights, and another foster carer for the remaining nights. The longest they remained with her was for seven nights in a row.
20. At the time, Ms Y was also caring for two other children, who were not related to the boys (‘the girls’, aged 20 months and 3). This was in addition to her own adopted children (15 and 17). The girls had been with her for about a year and were on a pathway to being adopted by another family.
21. In October 2023, the Council received allegations, both made by the boys, about Ms Y’s care of them and the girls. The following allegations were made on the same day:

• Allegation 1 (physical harm) was about Ms Y’s behaviour three days earlier towards the girls. It claimed Ms Y had slapped one of them.
• Allegation 2 (emotional harm and conduct/suitability) was made the same day the boys claimed the incident happened. It claimed Ms Y took the boys to school in her car when they were soaked by a passing vehicle while waiting for a bus. They told the school Ms Y had shouted at them. The Council ended the boys’ placement with her the same day after a social worker visited them at school.

22. The following day, a referral was made to the LADO.
23. Ten days later, the Council held a Strategy Meeting which decided to carry out a single section 47 investigation about the girls, with unannounced visits every ten days.
24. The Council held a LADO Managing Allegations Meeting (MAM) the following day. This was to consider both allegations as well as previous allegations made against Ms Y. Allegations management is the process by which allegations against people who work with children are investigated. The social worker, who Ms Y said was present at her home involving the slapping claim, was at the meeting.
25. The MAM decided:

• Allegation 1: To start Ms Y’s suspension as a carer. The allegation would be shared with her and the girls removed. This was because of a high level of concern, the girls’ needs, the need for safeguarding, and the plan for adoption. It also decided further information was needed.
• Allegation 2: To substantiate it.

26. The same day, a social worker called Ms Y about visiting her later that day. Ms Y said she was out with the children and could not return at the suggested time. Ms Y was unhappy about not being told why she had to return home.
27. As a result, the Council decided while it wanted the removal of the girls that day, it would wait until the following day. This was after consultation with the LADO. Ms Y was told about the intended visit.
28. The following day, social workers visited Ms Y’s home to remove the girls and explained allegation 1 to her. She denied the incident happened. Mrs Y was unhappy with this decision and wondered why it had taken the Council so long to remove them from receiving the allegation. The Council explained social workers wanted to meet her the day before, but Ms Y was on a trip with all the children and said she could not return by the requested time.
29. A Strategy Meeting was held the next day about the boys.
30. The Council sent Ms Y a letter explaining the outcome of the MAM a few days after it was held.
31. A second MAM was held in November and considered allegation 1 and reconsidered allegation 2. Allegation 1 was considered after an investigation during which information was obtained from involved professionals and Ms Y. The MAM decided allegation 1 remained unsubstantiated and allegation 2 remained substantiated. The meeting recommended Ms Y did not meet the National Minimum Standards 2011 for remaining as a foster carer and she was to be deregistered.
32. The Council wrote to Ms Y with the outcome of this MAM six days later.
33. Ms Y complained to the Council about her treatment. She was unhappy with the way it dealt with her complaint. There were delays, the response was sent in two parts separated by weeks, and she was unable to escalate it to the next stage of the complaint process. She claimed its internal investigation was flawed. She also claimed the Council failed to follow the National Minimum Standards and its own fostering policy.
34. Ms Y specifically complained about:

• the Council failing to send her written confirmation of granting an exemption to the number of children she could foster when placing the boys with her or an extension/variation to her terms of approval as a foster carer. The Council confirmed an exemption/variation was agreed for the boys during the shared care arrangement and for when they were solely in her care. It apologised for not sending her a copy;
• the way the Council dealt with allegation 2;
• the way the Council dealt with allegation 1. She was unhappy because she claimed a social worker was in her home at the time of the claimed incident, which the Council seemed unaware of; and
• not being told who the designated person responsible for managing allegations was or kept updated about progress of any investigation. The Council explained it does not routinely name the LADO as part of the process.

35. Under its complaints procedure, the Council found the following:

• It partially upheld her complaint about it not providing her with an exemption/variation. The Council said this was granted for the boys but not sent to Ms Y. It apologised for this failure.
• It also accepted it should not have asked her to care for the boys outside of her approval status.
• It upheld her complaint about lack of support/supervision from her social worker. The Council accepted formal supervision was not done every four weeks as required by its policy. There was an eight-week gap of supervision when the social worker was on sick leave along with a further one missing session later. It apologised for this failure.
• It offered £250 in recognition of these failures and their impact on her.

My findings

36. I consider the failings the Council identified under its complaints procedure amounts to fault because:
1. She was asked to care for the boys even though she was approved to care for i) one child or ii) a sibling group of two (aged 0-18 with a preference for 0-4 years) of any gender for short term, emergency, and respite placements. She already was caring for the girls when the boys were placed with her.
2. In addition, she was not sent proof of an approved variation and there were failures in the support/supervision she should have received.
3. She did not receive the required support/supervision.
37. I am satisfied these failings caused her avoidable injustice. She lost the opportunity to have supervision. She also had uncertainty about whether the Council had properly considered and approved her caring for the boys.

Complaint a): investigation of allegation

38. I found no fault on this complaint because:
1. The Council promptly made a referral when alerted to allegation 2 and visited the boys’ school to speak to them. A case discussion then took place which decided an alternative foster placement would be found for them that day.
2. The boys also made allegation 1 the same day. When made aware of it, a social worker visited the girls’ nursery. The following day, both allegations were included in the referral to the LADO.
3. Ten days later, the Council held a Strategy Meeting. This decided a section 47 investigation would happen and there would be a MAM. The MAM took place the following day.
4. I considered the procedure followed from receiving the initial referral. Having done so, I am satisfied it acted promptly by making a referral to the LADO, holding the Strategy Meeting, making enquiries, and holding the first MAM.
5. The records show allegation 2 was put to Ms Y. The referral noted her response. I am satisfied, therefore, Ms Y was made aware of the allegation at a point in time the Council considered appropriate in all the circumstances and was given the chance to respond.
6. I have seen the minutes of the first LADO meeting. Professionals from the fostering service, the supervising social workers, social workers for the children, the police, and an independent reviewing officer attended. The minutes showed:

• details of the boys, and the girls, were discussed;
• the meeting took account of previous allegations made against Ms Y over the years;
• the reason why the boys placement ended the same day they made allegation 2 against Ms Y. This was because they were scared, did not feel safe returning there, and had only been in foster care for a short period of time;
• the MAM substantiated allegation 2;
• allegation 1 had not been shared with Ms Y at this point. This was because the Council wanted the MAM to meet first;
• a need for further action before it could reach an outcome on this allegation. This included putting the allegation to Ms Y; and
• the Children In Care Team decided to move the girls the same day but needed an alternative placement arranging.
7. I am satisfied from reading the minutes of the meetings that the Council properly followed procedures and took account of relevant information.
8. Allegation 1 was confirmed as unsubstantiated at the second MAM following the removal of the girls. I have also seen the minutes for this meeting.
9. I also considered Ms Y’s complaint about the Council failing to identify that a social worker was at her house when allegation 1 incident took place. This social worker was present at the initial MAM. I have also seen notes which showed the incident was claimed to have taken place after this social worker had left the house, not when she was there.
10. I am satisfied the Council kept Ms Y updated about progress with the case because:
• It sent her a letter on 27 October 2023 which set out the outcome of the MAM held three days earlier. It noted she was already aware of allegation 2 and had then been made aware of allegation 1 the day after the MAM. The letter told her free independent support was available to her from the Fostering Network and gave contact details. It ended by suggesting a meeting with her to discuss the situation and for her to give further information in response.
• On 30 November, the Council sent her another letter. This was after the second MAM. It noted she had not taken up the offer to meet as part of the investigation, or to give a statement. She had also been offered an appointment with a mediator, but this was refused. Ms Y sent a statement instead, which she asked to be read to the meeting. This was shared at the meeting. A copy of the investigation report was sent to her at the end of December.
• On 2 January 2024, the Council wrote to Ms Y with an update on progress. It noted she was also sent a copy of the Household Review Report, and the independent reviewing officer offered her several dates for a review meeting which Ms Y refused.

Complaint b): removal of the children

39. Ms Y complained about the way the boys and girls were removed from her care. The boys went to school and did not return home. The girls were removed without any notice.
40. I found no fault on this complaint. This was because the records show why they were removed in the manner they were. When removing the boys, for example, consideration was given to what they said about being scared and the short period of time they had been in Ms Y’s care.
41. When removing the girls, for example, the evidence showed the Council considered their ages, their limited ability to say what happened, Ms Y’s history of previous allegations, some of which had resulted in the involvement of the LADO, as well as the girls’ background.
42. I am satisfied the Council acted in the best interests of all the children when reaching the decision to remove them.

Complaint c): annual review pressure

43. I found no fault on Ms Y’s complaint about the Council holding an early Household Review. This was because the Council could hold one early if there was a change in circumstances, which would include an allegation made.

Complaint d): annual review

44. I found no fault on this complaint by Ms Y that this review was not done properly. She gave the example of the school giving incorrect information about not having contact with her, when it had. The Council confirmed she raised this point with the Council and was asked to raise it with the school directly if she considered it inaccurate. I am satisfied this was evidence from the school, not the Council.

Back to top

Action

45. I took account of the Council’s offer to Ms Y under its complaints procedure. The Council’s offer of £250 is still available to Ms Y to accept.
46. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Review why it failed to send her a copy of the exemption/variation to the number of children she could foster and act to ensure these are promptly considered and sent to foster carers when made on future cases.
2. Ensure there are procedures in place when social workers are off work, for foster carers to still receive the required supervision/support.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. I found fault on part of this complaint. The agreed action remedies any outstanding injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman