Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about a LADO investigation and the removal of a child they were fostering. There was no fault in the Council’s response to allegations by a child Mr and Mrs X fostered.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about a LADO investigation and the removal of a child they were fostering. Mrs X complains she was unable to work until the investigation concluded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council. I invited Mr and Mrs X and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr and Mrs X are foster carers for the Council.
6. On 20 July 2023, a child fostered by Mr and Mrs X told a social worker he had self-harmed as a consequence of his strained relationship with Mrs X. Mrs X says she informed the Council of the incident herself.
7. On 27 July 2023, the matter was discussed at a ‘JAGS’ meeting. JAGS (joint agency group supervision) meetings provide a mechanism to reflect on cases which are complex, feel ‘stuck’ or are drifting. The meeting decided the social worker should refer the matter to the LADO.
8. The LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer) is responsible for overseeing allegations against adults who work with children.
9. A social worker made a referral to the LADO later the same day.
10. The LADO decided the Council should investigate and the Fostering Service appointed independent investigators.
11. The investigators shared their report with Mr and Mrs X on 1 November 2023.
12. The Council held a ‘final outcomes meeting’ on 9 November 2023, but only in respect of allegations against Mrs X.
13. The Council decided to conduct a separate investigation concerning Mr X. The Council held a ‘final outcomes meeting’ in respect of Mr X on 10 January 2024.
14. Following the investigations, the Council concluded some of the concerns were ‘substantiated’ but others were not. It decided to make a referral to the fostering panel for the panel to consider Mr and Mrs X’s suitability as foster carers.
15. I understand a fostering panel was due to consider Mr and Mrs X’s suitability to continue fostering in April 2024. Mrs X says the Head of Service made a separate report to the panel recommending they continue as foster carers.
16. Mrs X complained to the Council on 12 January 2024. She complained about the LADO investigation and the removal of a foster child. The Council sent its final response on 13 August 2024.
17. The Council did not uphold Mrs X’s complaints about the LADO investigation or the removal of the child. The Council explained that it had followed the correct procedure to investigate the allegations, and the removal of the child had been authorised by a senior officer.
18. The Council acknowledged the decision to undertake a separate investigation in respect of Mr X had caused two months delay. The Council also acknowledged it had missed opportunities to challenge some aspects of the children’s care at an earlier stage.
19. Half the points in Mrs X’s complaints related to her disagreement with the contents of the investigation report and her dealings with the Council following the removal of the child. The Council did not uphold these complaints.
20. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mrs X complained to us. In addition to the distress caused by the matter, Mrs X says she was unable to work because of the LADO investigation which had a significant impact on the family finances.

Consideration

21. I do not investigate the allegations against Mr or Mrs X. This is the Council’s job. My role is to check the Council followed the correct procedures and the process was fair.
22. The Council must comply with the Fostering Services National Minimum Standards issued by the (then) Department for Education.
23. Standard 22 deals with handling allegations and suspicions of harm.
24. The following sections are relevant to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint:
• 22.6 Allegations against people that work with children or members of the fostering household are reported by the fostering service to the LADO. This includes allegations that on the face of it may appear relatively insignificant or that have also been reported directly to the police or Children and Family Services.
• 22.9 Investigations into allegations or suspicions of harm are handled fairly, quickly, and consistently in a way that provides effective protection for the child, and at the same time supports the person who is the subject of the allegation. Fostering services follow the framework for managing cases of allegations of abuse against people who work with children as set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children.
25. I have carefully considered all the papers from the LADO and the Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint.
26. A child said that he had self-harmed as a result of his strained relationship with Mrs X. It is not for me to judge whether this amounts to an allegation of emotional harm which merits consideration by the LADO. That is a decision for those to whom the allegation was made. The threshold in the national minimum standards is clearly low. Consequently, I find no fault in the Council’s decision to refer the child’s allegation to the LADO.
27. The LADO decided the Council should investigate the allegations and the Fostering Service appointed an independent investigator. I can see from the papers that although there was some confusion about the inclusion of Mr X, which caused delay, both Mr and Mrs X had an opportunity to respond to the allegations. They were given copies of the investigator’s report and they provided a substantial written response before the Council made a decision.
28. I find the process was fair and there were no significant delays.
29. In its complaint response, the Council acknowledged some opportunities to address ‘standards of care’ concerns had been missed in the past. It is possible these concerns might have been resolved earlier if the Council had addressed them at the time. But I cannot say there would never have been any allegations.
30. Mrs X wants to challenge the negative things that have been written about her during the investigation. It is clear from her lengthy written response to the investigation report that she feels a strong sense of injustice.
31. I do not underestimate the importance of these matters to Mrs X. However, even if I were to agree with Mrs X, I could not say the outcome of the LADO investigation would have been different. The fact the Head of Service wrote to the Fostering Panel to recommend Mr and Mrs X continue as foster carers indicates the limited significance the Council attaches to these matters. I do not consider there is anything more I could add.
32. Mrs X described the distress caused by the removal of the children she fostered. I do not doubt all she says. The children can, of course, complain themselves if they wish.
33. Mrs X complains about the impact on her income of the investigation. She says she was unable to work during the investigation. While this is regrettable, it is not the result of fault by the Council. It is a private matter between Mrs X and her employer. I understand Mrs X worked for the Council at the time.

Back to top

Decision

34. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s response to allegations by a child Mr and Mrs X fostered, and no significant delay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman