Staffordshire County Council (24 013 139)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X and Mr Y complained about the Council’s biased and inaccurate information which led to its decision to remove their foster child from their care. They also complained about a lack of support and the Council withholding information. We do not find the Council was at fault.
The complaint
- Mr X and Mr Y complained about the Council’s biased and inaccurate information which led to its decision to remove their foster child (Z) from their care. They also say the Council failed to support them as foster carers and there was a lack of consistency and continuity. Finally, they say the Council withheld information which led to it placing Z in community care rather than with a family member.
- Mr X and Mr Y say the Council’s actions have caused mental distress and upset. It has also placed them in financial difficulty.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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)
What I have and have not investigated
- My investigation covers events from October 2023 to October 2024. Any reference to events before October 2023 will be for context and background purposes only.
How I considered this complaint
- I considered evidence provided by Mr X, Mr Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
- Mr X, Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Child Protection
- Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
- The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in:
- no further action;
- a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
- a decision to convene a strategy meeting.
What happened
- This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
- Mr X and Mr Y were foster carers for Z for several years. The Council has shared parental responsibility for Z.
- A physical altercation took place between Mr X and Mr Y in May 2023. The Council created a safety plan agreement for Mr X and Mr Y to follow to ensure Z was not at risk of significant harm. The Council said it would complete announced and unannounced visits at their house. Mr X and Mr Y agreed to work with alcohol services and a counselling service.
- The fostering social worker (Social Worker A) visited Mr X at home in November. Mr X said he was doing well, and Z was doing well at school. He said Mr Y was experiencing some stress at work, but he was attending counselling to deal with it.
- The Council assigned a new social worker (Social Worker B) at the end of November. Social Worker B contacted Mr X and Mr Y to introduce herself. She visited them at home in January 2024. Mr X said he would be attending a healthy relationships course. He asked if the Council would agree to fund mileage to the course. The Council agreed to this.
- A GP made a referral to the Council in June. She said she had an appointment with Mr Y about stress at work and at home. Mr Y told her Mr X was using drugs. Mr Y also said Mr X had an affair the previous year. The Council arranged a meeting with other professionals. Professionals in the meeting decided the concerns met the threshold for a section 47 investigation as they wanted to get further information about the risks to Z.
- Social Worker B visited Mr Y to discuss the concerns. Mr Y said the issues about Mr X’s drug use were historic and the Council was already aware of them. He said he was having time off work and had referred himself for counselling support. The Council reviewed the information and decided to continue with a section 47 investigation because of the historic issues. Social Worker B also spoke to Mr X. Mr X said there had been a misunderstanding. Social Worker B said there was some confusion over how recent events in the referral were, but the Council wanted to understand Mr Y’s increased stress levels.
- Social Worker B and Z’s social worker had a joint support visit at Mr X’s and Mr Y’s house. Mr Y said the past few months had been stressful and he had financial worries. The social workers drew up a plan and said they would explore couples counselling for Mr X and Mr Y and vouchers so Z could attend a holiday club. Z’s social worker said she would complete a child and family assessment to capture Mr X’s and Mr Y’s stressors and progress with support.
- Mr X and Mr Y asked the Council if Z’s mother (Ms V) could go on holiday with them. The Council confirmed its agreement.
- The Council’s fostering department agreed to fund half of the costs for Mr X and Mr Y to attend couple’s counselling. Social Worker B asked Z’s social worker whether the children’s team would fund the other half.
- Social Worker B visited Mr Y and Z at home in late August. Mr Y said Z’s grandmother (Ms W) went on holiday with them. He said Mr X knew about it but did not want to say in case the Council cancelled it. Ms W had an argument with Ms V on the holiday. He also said Ms W had bought some people back to where they were staying on holiday and she had stayed over at his and Mr X’s house a few times that year. Social Worker B said she had concerns about his and Mr X’s ability to protect Z. She said Ms W needed a risk assessment because of her history.
- The Council reviewed the file and decided to visit (Social Worker B and Z’s social worker) Mr X and Mr Y to discuss the new concerns about Ms W going on holiday with them. Mr X said he did not tell the Council due to fear. Mr Y said the Council could not stop Ms W seeing Z because it had not carried out a risk assessment and therefore it could not say there were risks. Social Worker B explained Ms W had not engaged in a risk assessment and she had recent police engagement and historic concerns. Mr X accepted he made a mistake. Mr Y said it was not a mistake. The social workers told Mr X and Mr Y they could engage in more visits to show the Council it could trust them. Mr Y said he did not agree to this.
- The Council held a meeting with professionals. Professionals were concerned Mr X and Mr Y had provided conflicting information and had not been honest about Ms W. They decided Z should stay with her support carer (Mr Y’s mother).
- The Council held a strategy meeting. Professionals in the meeting agreed the threshold was met for a section 47 enquiry and a child and family assessment. Officers held a further meeting after the strategy meeting to decide whether Z could stay with Mr Y’s mother. Officers said they wanted to ensure Mr Y’s mother could understand the concerns, prioritise Z and transport her to and from school. They said Mr Y’s mother had made some comments they were concerned about. They also said the children’s team would be happy to pay as Mr Y’s mother would need to take time off work, but she needed to be aware it would be for eight weeks. Z’s social worker contacted Mr Y’s mother to discuss the issues. She emailed officers after the call and said Mr Y’s mother could not look after Z because it was a lot of responsibility, she would have to take Z to school and back and Mr X and Mr Y were not allowed to be involved in her care. The Council found an alternative foster placement for Z.
- Mr Y spoke to Social Worker B. He said he was unhappy Z’s social worker did not offer his mother taxis to help transport Z to and from school. Social Worker’s B’s manager sent an email to the children’s team about Mr Y’s concerns. Z’s social worker’s manager responded. She said Z’s social worker told Mr Y’s mother she would expect her to travel with Z in taxis to and from school. Z’s social worker also said the Council would not want Mr X and Mr Y to have contact with Z while she settled. Mr Y’s mother said she could not meet all that was required for Z. Social Worker B’s manager spoke to Mr X and Mr Y and explained why the Council made the decision to move Z to an alternative placement.
- The Council wrote to Mr X and Mr Y and sent a detailed letter about its concerns and why it removed Z from their care. This included the issues from May 2023 onwards.
- Mr X and Mr Y sent a detailed complaint to the Council. They said it had failed to support them. They also said it had not acted in Z’s best interests, and it had misrepresented information. The Council responded and said it was addressing their concerns through the fostering concerns process. As part of the process, it would assess their suitability as foster carers and if they were unhappy with the outcome, they could request a review. Therefore, it would not investigate their complaint.
Analysis
- Mr X and Mr Y strongly believe the Council misrepresented information, and this led to it removing Z from their care. The Council visited Mr X, Mr Y and Z regularly. It took contemporaneous notes of each visit. When there were concerns about Z’s care, it held meetings with several professionals to get a full understanding of the case. It also shared its concerns with Mr X and Mr Y and provided them with an opportunity to respond. It considered all the relevant information, weighed up the risks against the protective factors and made a professional judgement to remove Z from their care. Although Mr X and Mr Y strongly disagree with the Council’s decision, I have not seen any evidence the information was biased or inaccurate. I do not find fault.
- Mr X and Mr Y say the Council did not tell them Ms W could not see Z. I have reviewed the Council’s notes of its visits at Mr X’s and Mr Y’s house. Mr X told the Council he did not tell it about Ms W coming on holiday due to fear. Mr Y said Mr X knew about the visit but did not want to say in case the Council cancelled it. I have also seen a case note from 2022 which states Ms W could not see Z until the Council carried out a risk assessment. Therefore, I am satisfied Mr X and Mr Y knew they would have to check with the Council first before they invited Ms W on holiday with them and before she spent time with Z. I do not find fault.
- From October 2023 to October 2024 Mr X and Mr Y had two social workers. Z also had two assigned social workers during this time, although sometimes a duty social worker supported her when her assigned social worker was unavailable. A certain degree of social worker change is to be expected due to turnover of staff, sickness and referrals to more appropriate teams. This is outside of the Council’s control. Social Worker A provided a case handover to Social Worker B. There is no evidence Mr X, Mr Y and Z did not have consistent and continuous support. I am satisfied the Council kept in regular communication with them, visited often and provided support where it could. I do not find fault.
- Mr X and Mr Y say the Council did not explain to Mr Y’s mother it could provide financial support with taxis to take Z to and from school. This led to its decision to place Z in community care rather than with Mr Y’s mother. There is no record of the call between Z’s social worker and Mr Y’s mother. Therefore, it is not possible for me to make a finding on whether Z’s social worker told Mr Y’s mother about the financial support for taxis in the call. Social Worker B’s manager made appropriate enquiries with Z’s social worker and the manager when Mr Y raised his concerns. The manager was satisfied Z’s social worker had discussed taxis, as well as Z not having contacting with Mr X and Mr Y, but Mr Y’s mother decided not to proceed. It is clear from the file there some other wider concerns about whether Mr Y’s mother would be a suitable carer for Z outside of any transport arrangements. The Council considered Mr X’s and Mr Y’s concerns, but made a professional judgement it should still seek an alternative foster placement for Z. That was a decision it was entitled to take.
Decision
- I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman