Summary: Miss X complained the Council has not given her contact with her grandchildren as agreed in a court order. There was no fault in the frequency or length of contact. However, the Council was at fault for not telling Miss X about changes to contact arrangements and its decision to suspend contact for three months. It also failed to consider her complaint at stage two. The Council should apologise to Miss X for any injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has not given her contact with her grandchildren as agreed in a court order. She said it had failed to invite her to looked after child (LAC) reviews or tell her about her grandchildren’s progress or whereabouts. She said she was deeply unhappy that she was not seeing her grandchildren as much as she would like.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 a council’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)
5. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the Council’s response.
7. I considered the relevant legislation and Council procedures.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
9. Miss X and the Council both had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law

10. The Children Act 1989 (the Act) allows a court to make a care order placing a child in the Council’s care as a looked after child. All looked after children must have a care plan. The Council holds looked after child (LAC) reviews to oversee the care plan, check progress and make any necessary changes.
11. Unless the court makes a contact order, the contact arrangements for a looked after child are set out in the child’s care plan. Under schedule 2 of the Act, the Council should promote contact (unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with the child’s welfare) between the looked after child and:
• his parents;
• any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; and
• any relative, friend or other person connected with him.
12. Parents of looked after children keep their parental responsibility, even when a child is under a care order. Only they have a right to be informed and consulted about all decisions unless the court approved care plan says otherwise.

Background

13. Miss X is the maternal grandmother to two children, A and B. In December 2016, the Council started care proceedings as it decided it was not safe for A and B to remain in their mother’s care. The Council placed A and B into foster care. The Council allowed Miss X weekly contact with her grandchildren and she attended LAC reviews.
14. As part of the care proceedings, an Independent Social Worker assessed Miss X to see if she was a suitable carer for A and B. They felt that if the grandchildren were put in her care they would be at risk of further significant harm. The Council decided to place A and B in a long-term foster care placement.

What happened

15. The Council completed a care plan for A and B for the final court hearing. That set out the level of contact between A and B; their mother, and Miss X. In A’s care plan completed March 2018, it said “following discussion at the Final Hearing the LA agreed that the duration of monthly contact [with Miss X] shall be up to four hours in the community”.
16. It went on to state that “contact [with Miss X] will take place after school for a period of two hours”, and that if the contact fell in school holidays, it would then “increase to four hours in duration”. It would supervise contacts between Miss X and the children until they had been in their long-term placement for at least two-three months. It said it would then review contact.
17. In B’s care plan it said, “It is proposed that [Miss X’s] contact was reduced to once per month for a period of two hours fully supervised by the applicant”.
18. In March 2018, the court made a full care order for A and B in favour of the Council. A ‘contract of expectations’ was attached to the final court order. That contract said the duration of monthly contact with Miss X would be “up to four hours in the community” and that it would be supervised. It also said Miss X would be invited to meetings about A and B. However, the court did not make a contact order that would have set out legally enforceable contact arrangements concerning Miss X.
19. Miss X did not see A and B in April 2018. In May, she contacted Officer G about her next visit. Officer G said she thought Miss X did not want contact with her grandchildren because the Council had decided to put them into foster care. It arranged a contact for Miss X that month.
20. In June, Miss X did not have contact with her grandchildren. The case records show Miss X contacted the Council to query the date. When she telephoned, the Council told her contact was for that day; Miss X cancelled the contact as it was too short notice.
21. The next day, Miss X contacted Officer G and said she was unhappy about contact. She said it should last four hours, not 1.5 hours, and that it should not be supervised. Officer G told Miss X they were assessing the needs of the children and would make contact decisions in their best interests.
22. In July 2018 Miss X complained the Council had not:
1. arranged contact monthly, for four hours as agreed in court and that those contacts should be unsupervised;
2. invited her to care team meetings;
3. given her the dates of future contact.
23. The Council responded that month. It said:
1. The court order was confusing, and her contact with A and B was described in their care plans - not the contract of expectations. That contact was for two hours a month, supervised. It said two hourly contacts were not practically possible because the Council did not supervise contact out of school hours. It said it had considered increasing contact time in school holidays, but the Council did not feel it would be in the best interests of A and B.
2. There was no legal requirement for the Council to invite Miss X to any meetings for A and B as she did not have parental responsibility. Because of Miss X’s poor relationship with her daughter, Officer G had decided that it was not appropriate for Miss X to attend meetings.
3. It was sorry for not providing a contact sheet, and for the difficulties Miss X experienced trying to contact the Council. It provided a list of contacts for the year.
24. Miss X continued to contact the Council about contact arrangements. In September 2018, the Council said it had made Miss X’s solicitor aware of the Council’s position on contact arrangements, and said it understood Miss X was meeting with them to discuss this further. In February 2019, Miss X contacted the Council stating her solicitor had not been sent anything by the Council.
25. The Council did not escalate the complaint to stage two because it considered the matters she complained about were for the Court. In its response to enquiries the Council accepted that it should have escalated Miss X’s complaint to stage two.
26. In February 2019, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
27. The case records show the Council continued to review A and B’s contact with Miss X through 6 monthly LAC reviews. These show it discussed suspending contact when A and B moved into their permanent placement, to allow them the opportunity to settle. It did not tell Miss X this until 13 June 2019, the day of the arranged contact.
28. In the most recent LAC review the Council decided to reduce Miss X’s contact to six times a year during school holidays. That would allow A and B to develop a sense of permanency in their new home. The Council sent Miss X a letter explaining this on 2 October 2019. It invited her to the office to discuss any concerns she had about the contact situation.

My findings

29. At the final court hearing a contract of expectations was attached to the court order. Although not legally binding, we expect councils to normally follow such agreements or explain why, having considered the circumstances of a case, they decide not to do so.
30. As looked after children, A and B have a care plan. The Council must keep that plan under review and can made changes to it as necessary. That can include changes to contact arrangements.

The frequency and duration of Miss X’s contact with A and B

31. There are differences between both A and B’s care plans and the contract of expectations. A’s care plan refers to contact being both “up to” four hours and that it “will increase to 4 hours”. Contact being for two hours during term time is not referred to in the contract of expectations.
32. Although subtle, given the importance of these documents, I find the lack of consistency between them fault. That fault meant the Council failed to clearly communicate to Miss X the contact arrangements for A and B. That has caused her upset as she was left unclear about contact arrangements.
33. Since court, Miss X’s contact with her grandchildren has been 1.5 hours per month in term time. The Council said it had not provided the full two hours of contact during term-time because it does not have staff available outside office hours to supervise contact. The fact the Council proposed contact arrangements that it did not have the staff to supervise was fault. It also failed to tell her about its reasons for reducing contact until after she complained.
34. Although A’s care plan says contact would increase to four hours in school holidays, Miss X only has two hours contact with her grandchildren. The case records show the Council has considered the length of contact and that it has assessed two hours to be in the best interests of A and B. The Council was not at fault for only offering two hours. However, it failed to tell Miss X about the decision to change contact length until after she complained. That was fault.
35. The failure to communicate the reasons for shorter contact has caused Miss X an injustice. It has caused avoidable upset, as she has not seen her grandchildren for the length of time expected.

Frequency of contact

36. Between March 2018 and May 2019, Miss X has been offered 13 contacts out of a possible 15. The Council did not offer a contact in April 2018. That appears to be because the Council mistakenly thought Miss X did not want contact with her grandchildren. In its complaint response it apologised and sent Miss X a list of arranged contacts. That remedies any injustice caused.
37. There are conflicting accounts about Miss X’s contact in June 2018. The Council said Miss X was aware of the contact; she said she believed it was a different day. As the contact was offered and Miss X chose not to attend the Council was not at fault.
38. There were no case records for a contact in January 2019 therefore I cannot be certain it took place. However, in the main, the Council has arranged monthly contact for Miss X and her grandchildren as set out in the care plan. The Council was not at fault.
39. In June 2019, the Council suspended Miss X’s contact with her grandchildren for three months after they moved into their permanent placement. The decision was agreed in the LAC reviews. There was no fault in the Council’s decision, however, it failed to tell Miss X until the day of her contact. That was fault. That has caused Miss X an injustice, it has caused upset and frustration.
40. Following A and B’s move to permanence, the Council decided to change Miss X’s contact with her grandchildren to six times a year. That was discussed and agreed at the LAC review. There was no fault in how the Council made that decision. The Council sent Miss X a letter in October 2019 telling her about the changes to contact.

The supervision of contact

41. Both the care plan and the contract of expectations said that Miss X’s contact would be supervised until A and B moved into their permanent placement; at that point the Council would review contact arrangements. The Council was not at fault for supervising the contact.
42. A and B are now in their permanent home. In response to enquiries, the Council said it plans to continue supervising Miss X’s contacts because the safeguarding concerns identified by the Independent Social Worker in their assessment for court remain. The Council is entitled to make that decision. However, the Council has not explained the reasons for its decision to Miss X. That lack of communication is fault.

Attendance at care meetings and LAC reviews

43. As Miss X does not have parental responsibility for her grandchildren, the Council does not have to invite her to meetings or keep her informed of her grandchildren’s whereabouts. However, as explained at the outset, the Council did agree Miss X could attend meetings in the contract of expectations. It did not tell her that she could not attend until after she complained. That was fault. That lack of communication caused Miss X an injustice.

The complaints process

44. The Council said it would not consider Miss X’s complaint at stage two because it was about contact arrangements. It said if Miss X was not happy about contact then it was a matter for the Courts. The Council has accepted that it should have considered the complaint at stage two. That was fault. That meant there was a period of seven months, where Miss X’s complaint did not progress. That has caused Miss X an injustice, as it has caused her frustration as she has tried to resolve matters with the Council.

Agreed action

45. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X for its lack of communication with her since the court order and for failing to keep her informed of changes to contact arrangement. It should also apologise for not investigating her complaint at stage two.
46. The Council has also already offered to meet with Miss X to discuss any concerns she has about contacts. Within that, the Council should agree how it will communicate with Miss X in future.

Back to top

Final decision

47. There was no fault in the frequency or length of contact the Council arranged for Miss X and her grandchildren. The Council was at fault for not telling Miss X it had decided to suspend contact for three months and for failing to consider her complaint at stage two. The Council has agreed to my recommendations therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman