London Borough of Bromley (19 002 478)

Category : Children's care services > Friends and family carers

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 06 Jul 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her when she took on the care of her grandchildren. The Council failed to explain to her fully the basis of her agreement to look after the children. It has addressed her complaint about lack of financial support. There were other failings in communications. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the impact of the poor communication.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complained that that the Council:
      1. Failed to deal properly with the agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 for accommodating her grandchildren. In particular she says the agreement was not legitimate or appropriate because it did not identify any safeguarding concerns about the children, the Council did not explain it properly to her or her daughter, the Council kept it in place for too long and delayed returning the children to their mother;
      2. Misled her about the assessment it was carrying out. She did not realise it was an assessment for a Special Guardianship Order and she says this was not necessary;
      3. Children's social care staff bullied, threatened and harassed her;
      4. Stopped her daughter accompanying her and her grandchildren on a trip over Christmas 2017 shortly before they were due to leave, despite written permission from the psychiatrist for her to travel;
      5. Issued care proceedings in January 2018 when there were no grounds to do so;
      6. Failed to provide adequate financial support for her to look after the grandchildren. She says that the amount now offered by the Council is not adequate because it has offered the equivalent of the Child Arrangements Order Allowance, rather than the Fostering Allowance rate.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated the complaint that the Council:
      1. Failed to explain the implications to her and her daughter of the agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 for accommodating her grandchildren, and delayed allowing the children to return to their mother;
      2. Misled her about the assessment it was carrying out. She did not realise it was an assessment for a Special Guardianship Order and says this was not necessary;
      3. Children's social care staff bullied, threatened and harassed her;
      4. Intervened at short notice to prevent her daughter accompanying her and her grandchildren on a trip over Christmas 2017, despite written advice from the psychiatrist permitting her daughter to travel;
      5. Failed to provide adequate financial support for her to look after the grandchildren.
  2. As a result she says she and her family experienced distress. Also she lost annual leave entitlement and incurred expenses in having to look after the children for longer than necessary and attend unnecessary meetings.
  3. I explain at the end of this statement why I have not investigated other parts of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, 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, , sections 26(1), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I considered relevant law and policy. I gave the Council and Mrs X an opportunity to comment on a first and second draft decision and considered their responses before reaching my final decision.
  2. 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

What I found

Councils’ duties towards children

  1. Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need by providing services appropriate to the child’s needs. (Children Act 1989, section 17)
  2. Local authorities have a duty to provide accommodation for any child in need in their area who appears to them to need accommodation because:
    • there is no-one who has parental responsibility for the child;
    • the child is lost or abandoned; or
    • the person who has been caring for the child is prevented, whether permanently or temporarily and for whatever reason, from providing suitable accommodation or care.
  3. The local authority may not provide accommodation in these circumstances if the person who has parental responsibility objects. It can either provide the accommodation or arrange for accommodation to be provided. (Children Act 1989 section 20). I refer to this as ‘section 20 accommodation’. A child accommodated in this way is a 'Looked After Child' (LAC).
  4. The courts have decided that ‘active consent’ from a parent is not required for a council to make such an arrangement. But as a matter of good practice the council should give parents clear information about their rights under section 20, what action the council has taken, and the responsibilities it has in relation to their child. (Williams and another v London Borough of Hackney [2018] UKSC 37, [2018] All ER (D) 106 (Jul))

Family and friends care

  1. The principle in law is that all children, including looked after children, should wherever possible be care for by their families and friends. Therefore a council may fulfil its legal duty to accommodate a child by placing it with relative or friend. That relative would be considered to be a family and friends foster carer. The local authority has to carry out checks and approve their suitability to care for the child and monitor the child’s welfare. The family member caring for the child is then entitled to receive weekly fostering payments to help care for the child at the same rate as foster carers working for the council (apart from professional fees). The Council refers to family and friends carers as ‘connected persons carers’.
  2. Sometimes a council considers a friend or relative is the most appropriate person to care for the child but the need is urgent and there is not enough time to carry out a full assessment of the carer. In these circumstances the council may give temporary approval pending a full assessment. Once the council has successfully completed the assessment it may approve the connected person as a foster carer to up to 16 weeks, or longer in certain circumstances. (Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, Regulations 24 and 25)
  3. A Child Arrangements Order (CAO) is an order of the court which decides where and with whom a child should live. The carer with the CAO shares parental responsibility equally with the birth parents. Any support councils provide to carers with a CAO is discretionary and the allowances may be means-tested. However the courts have has said that if a child was about to become a Looked after Child before the Order was granted then the council’s policy on allowances should take account of the duties it would have had when deciding whether to pay a CAO allowance. (M (R, on the application of) v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 1863 (Admin)). The council also has to consider the means and needs of the family. The carer is eligible to claim child benefit and child tax credits for the child they are looking after. Councils must have a policy showing when it would pay a CAO allowance.
  4. The Council’s ‘Family and Friends Care Policy’ says the Council may pay a discretionary CAO Allowance to the relative or friend with the CAO. It says this is usually where the carer was previously fostering the child or “exceptionally if making a CAO prevents the child becoming looked after”. It confirms the carer can claim child benefit and child tax credits if they are not being paid to the parent.
     
  5. A Special Guardianship Order (SGO) is a court order appointing a Special Guardian to care for the child. It gives the Special Guardian overriding parental responsibility, with the birth parents retaining only limited parental responsibility. The council may pay allowances under certain circumstances such as where it is necessary to enable the Special Guardian to care for the child or the child has particular needs. The courts have held that SGO allowances should be paid at the same rate as the fostering allowance, usually with deductions for child benefit and child tax credits.

What happened

  1. Mrs X has a daughter, Ms Y, who has two young children. Ms Y has a history of mental health difficulties. Since November 2016 the children had been staying with Mrs X during the week and attending school near her home. In January 2017 Ms Y contacted Children’s Social Care reporting that she was struggling to care for her children. A few days later Ms X contacted Children’s Social Care saying Ms Y was on her way to the office and had been having suicidal thoughts. Ms Y saw a social worker and confirmed her mental state. She admitted herself voluntarily to hospital that day. Mrs X took care of the children.
  2. The Council also received a referral from Ms Y’s GP outlining the difficulties Ms Y was facing. The Council opened a social care case and allocated a social worker, SW1.
  3. Ms Y was discharged in early February 2017. She referred herself back to hospital shortly afterwards following a decline in her mental health and was admitted.
  4. The following day Mrs X went to the Children’s Social Care office to say she could no longer look after the children as she worked full-time and was struggling to pay for childcare. She saw SW1 and they discussed the support the Council could offer. SW1 said the Council could cover the cost of before and after-school care. Council records note Mrs X said she felt much better knowing the Council would support her financially.
  5. The same day SW1 went with Mrs X to see Ms Y in hospital to discuss arrangements for looking after the children. Mrs X and Ms Y signed a single-sheet document headed ‘Placement Plan’. The Council says this was Ms Y’s consent for the Council to accommodate the children under section 20. Mrs X complains SW1 did not explain to her or her daughter that this is what the agreement was. This is a key area of dispute in the complaint and I discuss it later in this statement.
  6. The Council gave temporary approval to Mrs X as a connected person carer pending a full assessment. SW1 then carried out the assessment of Mrs X’s suitability as a carer which was completed in March 2017. The Council paid Mrs X a weekly allowance to help her care for the children at its fostering allowance rate.
  7. The Council also decided to assess Mrs X for a Special Guardianship Order. This was discussed at the LAC Review meetings in March and May 2017 which Mrs X and Ms Y attended. The Council also wrote to them both at the end of the March confirming an SGO assessment would take place and enclosing the relevant forms.
  8. The Council’s long-term plan was for the children to return to their mother’s care when she was well enough. In the meantime the children continued to live with Mrs X. Children’s Social Care was involved through LAC Review meetings and Child in Need meetings, which Mrs X and Ms Y attended, as well as social worker visits to Mrs X’s home. The children had contact with their mother. The Council also received updates on Ms Y’s progress with her mental health. In June 2017 the Council extended the temporary fostering arrangements with Mrs X.
  9. By July 2017 Ms Y and Mrs X felt Ms Y’s condition had stabilised and the prognosis was positive. They asked for the children to return home. On 19 July 2017 the Council held a family meeting with Children’s Social Care staff, Ms Y and Mrs X to discuss a transition plan for returning the children. There was a discussion about the need to identify school places for the children nearer Ms Y’s home. The social worker was to contact the admissions team to look into this. Mrs X agreed to keep the school places where the children were currently attending until new places were available. The meeting noted that the children were happy and settled at school. Mrs X also said she had made a back-up plan for the children to attend a summer club in case they did not return to their mother over the summer holidays. The meeting agreed that the Council would draw up a two-week transition plan, with Mrs X and Ms Y sharing the care, and the children should be back home by the end of the month.
  10. The following day Mrs X contacted Children’s Social Care about her daughter’s concerns about the children returning home without having a named school to transfer to. Mrs X also said she was concerned Mrs Y’s mental health may be declining again. The Council decided to put the transition plan on hold while it held a further meeting with professionals, including the Mental Health Team, and the family to agree a plan. Mrs X says the Council did not tell her or Ms Y about this decision.
  11. In late July Mrs X made enquiries about school places available near Ms Y’s home. At the same time the Council obtained information from the Mental Health Team involved with Ms Y about her current condition. Based on the information provided the Council decided it would be better for the children to remain with Mrs X until Ms Y’s condition was more stable.
  12. At a further meeting to discuss the plan in August 2017 the Council says Ms Y asked for extra time for the children to stay with her mother to ensure she was ready to care for them and in order to find school places. Mrs X disputes she asked for this. She says the Council did nothing during this period to find school places and so she contacted the Council’s head of the ‘Virtual School’ who deals with education for Looked After Children, but she says by then it was too late to find a place before the start of term in September.
  13. In September 2017 the Council allocated places for the children at a school close to Ms Y’s home from the end of the month. The children returned to live with her on 25 September 2017. The Council says Ms Y explained she had brought the move forward as the children were eager to start at their new school. Mrs X disputes their return was earlier than planned. She says it was the return date discussed with the SW at time family plan agreed.
  14. In November 2017 Children’s Social Care received a referral from the hospital where Ms Y had attended A&E. The hospital reported that Mrs X was concerned about Ms Y’s safety as she was expressing suicidal thoughts again. Ms Y was admitted to hospital. The Council contacted the children’s school which was aware of Ms Y’s relapse. It also contacted Mrs X who confirmed her daughter’s mental decline and said she was staying at Ms Y’s home to look after the children.
  15. In November 2017 a meeting took place with Mrs X, and social care staff including a new social worker, SW2 and the Team Manager. Mrs X says the Team Manager bullied her at this meeting. She says Council officers put pressure on her to apply for an SGO, but she did not know what this was and wanted to seek legal advice. The Council’s account of events is that it asked her for her views about caring for the children and she said she would be willing to look after them if Ms Y did not recover. It says it explained her options and advised her to seek legal advice, which she agreed to do.
  16. Mrs X continued to look after the children while Ms Y was in hospital, getting extra support from her wider family. After seeking legal advice she told the Council she would be willing to care for the children if the Council placed them with her and provided support for her. She did not wish to take private proceedings herself.
  17. At the end of November 2017 the Council held a legal planning meeting and decided to start interim care proceedings and update its assessment of Mrs X’s suitability to care for the children. It noted that Mrs X did not wish to take her own proceedings for an SGO following advice from her solicitor. The Council decided it therefore had to issue proceedings.
  18. On 5 December 2017 Mrs X sent an email to the Council to say she was planning a trip aboard booked for a long weekend with Ms Y and the children over Christmas. Mrs X spoke to the consultant psychiatrist at the hospital involved with Ms Y’s care. He provided a letter authorising Ms Y’s absence from hospital for the long weekend. Mrs X booked the trip.
  19. There was a meeting held with Mrs X and Ms Y on 7 December 2017 to explain the Council’s decision to start care proceedings. Mrs X and Ms Y disagreed with the Council’s view as they felt it would be too disruptive for the children. Ms Y did not agree to the Council accommodating them under section 20. The meeting also discussed a further SGO assessment with Mrs X. She said she would need to discuss the matter with her solicitor and decide whether she wished to proceed with an assessment. Mrs X says she also raised the proposed trip abroad at this meeting and the Council did not object.
  20. During December while Ms Y was in hospital the Council was in contact with the Mental Health Team to try and find out about Ms Y’s current condition, diagnosis and prognosis. The Mental Health Team said Ms Y had not given permission for them to provide this information to the Children’s Social Care, on the advice of her solicitor.
  21. On 22 December 2017 the Council contacted Ms Y’s solicitor to say if Ms Y did not agree not to go away on trip with the family the Council would put the matter in front of the court to make a decision in the children’s best interests. Ms Y’s solicitor discussed the matter with Ms Y and reported to the Council that she had decided not to go. Mrs X took the children on the trip herself.
  22. At the same time the Council sent Mrs X a proposed working agreement between the Council and Mrs X and Ms Y. This said that currently the children were living with Mrs X “under the family arrangement following their mother’s hospitalisation due to mental health problems”. The Council wanted Ms Y to sign a section 20 agreement for the children to be accommodated in the care of Mrs X. When Ms Y left hospital she would stay with Mrs X while Mrs X remained as the main carer for the children. Mrs X says neither she nor her daughter signed the agreement. They signed a separate document confirming the family contingency plan they had already made.
  23. In January 2018 the first hearing of the legal proceedings took place. The court decided to make a CAO for the children to live with Mrs X with an Interim Supervision Order to the Council. There was a written agreement between the Council, Mrs X and Ms Y approved by the court under which Ms Y would have no unsupervised contact with the children. It also included an agreement that Mrs X would attend Child in Need meetings every four to six weeks. The Child in Need meetings took place, with a new social worker, SW3 now involved. The court discharged the CAO in September 2018 and the children returned to live with Ms Y.

Complaint to the Council

  1. In August 2018 Mrs X made a complaint to the Council about lack of financial support to help look after her grandchildren. She said she had asked for support repeatedly but the Council had ignored her. She asked the Council to reinstate the kinship payments she had received previously and backdate them to January 2018 when the CAO was made in her favour.
  2. The Council’s response in September 2018 was that there was no evidence in its records that Mrs X had repeatedly asked for financial support. It said there was evidence in the minutes of the Child in Need meeting in January 2018 that she said she did not need any support from children’s services. It explained Mrs X had previously received allowances as a connected person following her temporary approval under fostering regulations. However it explained that CAO allowances are discretionary so she was not automatically entitled to them. But the Council decided that since the children had previously been Looked After it would use its discretion to make a payment to her equivalent to the CAO payment under its policy for period of the CAO. It explained that the payment is less than allowances for kinship carers as people with a CAO may claim benefits for the children.

Analysis – was there fault causing injustice?

Complaint a) That the Council failed to explain the implications to Mrs X and her daughter of the agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 for accommodating her grandchildren, and delayed allowing the children to return to their mother

  1. Ms Y is taking legal action against the Council about this matter and Mrs X is not making a complaint on her daughter’s behalf. I will only look at the complaint from Mrs X’s point of view.
  2. At various points in the Council’s records the Council has noted that when SW1 visited Ms Y in hospital in February 2017 and spoke to her and Mrs X they “signed the section 20 agreement”. The notes say SW1 explained what this meant and that Ms Y and Mrs X understood. This is recorded in the Placement Plan, the authorisation for the Plan and the minutes of the legal planning meeting in November 2017. These documents say Ms Y and Mrs X understood that the children would stay with Mrs X until Ms Y was well enough to have the children back. The Council would assess Mrs X. If the assessment was negative or Mrs X decided she could not care for the children, they would have to go into foster care as there were no other suitable family members available to look after them.
  3. Mrs X disputes that the Council explained the true position to her and her daughter and says she remained unaware of it until she took legal advice.
  4. I have considered the evidence on this point. The Council has not provided any note of the meeting at the hospital where the discussion took place. The document that Ms Y and Mrs X signed in February 2017 headed ‘Placement Plan’ makes no mention of section 20 or parental responsibility. It does not mention where the children would be living or with whom. The only consent given on the form is for medical treatment. Mrs X says this is the only paperwork she saw.
  5. The Placement Plan itself is a longer document with more detail about the arrangements. This document, which contains the reference to both Mrs X and Ms Y understanding what a section 20 agreement means, was signed off in March 2017. Mrs X says she did not see this document and I have not seen any evidence that she did. She says her understanding was that the purpose of signing the agreement was to allow the Council to provide help with childcare costs. Mrs X’s focus on the concern about childcare costs is borne out by the record of discussions noting she was happier knowing the Council would cover these costs, allowing her to continue to work. Mrs X has maintained throughout the complaint that she was not aware of the wider implications of what she signed. Based on the evidence I have seen, I consider on balance that the Council was at fault in failing to fully explain to Mrs X what she was signing and what a section 20 agreement and its implications were.
  6. I have considered the impact of this failing on Mrs X. In my view, the lack of a proper explanation caused her unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty.
  7. Mrs X says her and her daughter’s lack of understanding of the position also resulted in the children remaining in her care for longer than she would have wished. She says neither she nor her daughter realised Ms Y had the right to exercise her parental responsibility and take the children home any time she wished. She says this resulted in pressure on them, as the Council threatened to take care proceedings if it was not satisfied Ms Y was able to care for the children. However if Ms Y had decided to end the section 20 arrangement sooner and she and Mrs X had decided the children should return home, the Council would have had to assess the risks to the children. If it had considered it necessary to protect the children by preventing them returning home before it considered Ms Y was ready to care for them, it would have taken steps sooner to start care proceedings, as it eventually did. So I do not consider that the failure to explain properly what a section 20 agreement entails led directly to the consequences Mrs X claims.
  8. Mrs X also complains that part of the reason for the delay in the children being able to return home was delay in finding school places for them. The Council denies this, saying the main reason was the need to ensure Ms Y had made a full recovery and her mental health was stable enough to be able to safely look after the children. It says the availability of school places would not be a factor until after it was decided the children should return home.
  9. The Council’s prime responsibility was to safeguard the welfare of the children. It needed to be sure Ms Y was well enough to care for the children without exposing them to risk of harm. It kept the situation under review, liaising with the Mental Health Team. The transition plan agreed in July 2017 included the aim that the children would be able to return to Ms Y’s care by end of the month. Availability of school places was a factor in the arrangements and plan included the social worker contacting the Admissions Team. There is evidence that Ms Y was concerned that school places were identified for the children before they returned home. The Council has not provided evidence of any steps it took during the summer to find places. Mrs X says it was the Council’s lack of action which prompted her to make enquiries herself to the Head of the Virtual School and that this is what led to the Council allocating places. On balance I take the view that the Council has not demonstrated it took adequate steps to identify school places over the summer of 2017. Once the children had school places Ms Y brought them home.
  10. However I could not conclude on the basis of the information I have seen that this was the main reason for the length of time it took for the children to return to their mother. There is evidence that the Council decided it had to put the original transition plan on hold because of information provided by the Mental Health Team about the state of Ms Y’s mental health. Mrs X says the Council did not tell her about the change of plan. I have not seen evidence that it did.
  11. Another issue to consider is that in November 2017 when Ms Y had a relapse and was admitted to hospital, the children returned to Mrs X’s care. I cannot say that if the children had returned earlier the relapse would not have occurred earlier.
  12. For all the above reasons I do not consider there is enough evidence to be able conclude that the time the children spent in Mrs X’s care was prolonged because of fault by the Council.

Complaint b) That the Council misled Mrs X about the assessment it was carrying out. She did not realise it was an assessment for a Special Guardianship Order and she says this was not necessary.

  1. The Council carried out two assessments of Mrs X’s suitability to care for the children. The first was in February to March 2017 when Ms Y first went into hospital. This resulted in a decision to treat Mrs X as a connected person carer. The letter confirming the outcome referred to her as a kinship carer and confirmed the payments she would receive.
  2. The second was in July 2017. The LAC care plan in May 2017 refers to the Council needing to carry out SGO assessment when considering the future care arrangements for the children The Council has provided evidence in the form of the minutes of LAC Review meetings in March and May 2017 where Mrs X and Ms Y were present, and a letter to them confirming that the Council would be carrying out an SGO assessment of Mrs X.
  3. It has also provided a copy of the assessment document headed ‘Special Guardianship Assessment and Court Report’ completed at the end of July 2017. It is a long and detailed assessment referring to discussions with Mrs X. It concludes with the recommendation that Mrs X should be considered as a Special Guardian. It says:

“The legal framework and purpose of a Special Guardianship Order has been fully explained to [Mrs X] and she reports that she fully understands that if the order is granted she will assume and share parental responsibility with [Ms Y]. She is aware that she will however be the decision maker for the children and have the overriding parenting rights in terms of making decisions regarding [the children’s] day to day care. [Mrs X] has remained in full agreement to progress with the assessment and has expressed her wish to be considered as an appropriate alternative carer.”

  1. The report is signed by the social worker who carried out the assessment, SW2, a senior practitioner and two team managers. The Council has checked with the then senior practitioner who confirmed she sent Mrs X a copy of the SGO assessment.
  2. Mrs X says she was not aware she was undergoing an SGO assessment. It is clear from the records she did not wish to apply for an SGO and my understanding is the SGO assessment document of July 2017 was not put forward to the court at this time. In November 2017 when the Council held its legal planning meeting and decided to start interim care proceedings, it considered it needed to update the assessment. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the Council told Mrs X of the proposed SGO assessment and explained it to her.

Complaint c) That children's social care staff bullied, threatened and harassed Mrs X.

  1. Mrs X complains about the behaviour of two members of staff. These are the Team Leader, in particular at the meeting in November 2017, and the social worker who became involved at the start of the legal proceedings in January 2018, SW3. The Team Leader no longer works for the Council. Investigating this part of the complaint further would not be productive as the Council would not be able take any action even if I were to find fault. If Mrs X wishes to make a complaint about the Team Leader’s professional conduct it would be open to her to contact the Health and Care Professions Council.
  2. Mrs X complains about the behaviour of SW3 and about remarks she made which she says were derogatory. Mrs X says after a Child in Need meeting at the children’s school in January 2018, one of the professionals who attended from the Mental Health Team made a complaint about SW3’s behaviour. In response to my enquiries SW3 denied making the alleged comments. She says meetings she had including home visits with Mrs X were generally amicable, but became more strained after the question arose about contact with the children’s father. SW3 recalls a discussion with the worker from the Mental Health Team at the Child in Need meeting in which she stressed the need for up-to-date information about Ms Y’s mental health in order to assess risks of contact with the children. The Team had not yet provided the information. This discussion is confirmed in the minutes of the meeting. But SW3 denies any knowledge of complaints made about her behaviour following the meeting.
  3. I appreciate that Mrs X felt under stress during the period covered by this complaint. There were concerns about her daughter’s mental health and ability to cope with the children. There were differences in view between Mrs X and the Council about the best approach to their long-term care. The Council says it can understand why she might have felt under pressure from the Council. However I do not consider I have enough evidence to be able to uphold this part of the complaint.

Complaint d) That the Council intervened at short notice to prevent Ms Y accompanying Mrs X and her grandchildren on a trip over Christmas 2017, despite written advice from the psychiatrist permitting Ms Y to travel.

  1. Mrs X sent an email to the Council on 5 December 2017 about the proposed trip. I have not seen any evidence that the Council raised any objections to Ms Y going on the trip or raised concerns about it at this point. The Council’s response to this part of the complaint is that its main role was to ensure the safety of the children. It says the psychiatrist may have taken the view that it was safe to for Ms Y to travel. But the Council took the decision it would be too great a risk for the children to go abroad with their mother where she could not access support if she suffered a relapse. It was during this period that the Council was trying to get updated information about Ms Y’s mental health condition. This would inform its view of the risks to the children. It was having difficulty getting a clear picture because Ms Y withheld consent for the Mental Health Team to share information with Children’s Social Care. It is not for the Ombudsman to interfere with the Council’s professional judgment as long as it considered the matter properly. The Council has explained its reasoning and I do not consider it was at fault in the way it reached its decision.
  2. Nevertheless Mrs X complains that the Council left it till 36 hours before they were due to travel to intervene, causing distress to the family. The Council say this was because of the need to obtain medical opinion about the risks. I accept that the Council did not wish to act without obtaining the necessary information. But I consider it could reasonably have warned Mrs X that it was considering the issue earlier. This would have given her time to prepare herself and the children for the changed circumstances.
  3. I do not consider I have grounds to criticise the Council’s decision to intervene, which would have caused distress in any event. So my view is it would not be appropriate to recommend that the Council reimburse the cost of the trip, as Mrs X wishes. But in my view the timing of the Council’s intervention caused some additional avoidable distress which warrants a remedy.

Complaint e) That the Council failed to provide adequate financial support for Mrs X to look after her grandchildren.

  1. The Council provided financial support from February to September 2017 while it treated Mrs X as a connected persons carer. Mrs X complains about the period when the CAO was in place. She says she repeatedly asked for financial help. The Council denies this and says she could have asked for support through her legal representative at the time. I do not propose to investigate this dispute further. This is because even if the Council failed to respond to requests for financial support while the CAO was in place, in my view it has remedied the situation by its response to Mrs X’s complaint.
  2. The Council has offered Mrs X a retrospective payment covering the period of the CAO. The payment offered is equivalent to the CAO allowance she would have received if the Council had paid it at the time. I do not find fault with its approach. CAO allowance payments are discretionary and are not required to be at the same level as foster carer payments. The Council has offered payments in line with its policy. The policy takes account of whether the child was previously or about to be Looked After in deciding whether to pay the allowance. So I do not see grounds for the Ombudsman to criticise the Council’s offer. If Mrs X considers the policy to be unlawful she would need to challenge it in court.
  3. Mrs X also says she lost paid leave and incurred expenses in attending unnecessary Child in Need meetings. However it was part of the agreement made in court that she would attend these meetings. The Council has confirmed that Mrs X found it difficult to attend the meetings because of her work commitments and childcare arrangements. But it says it tried to take this into account when arranging meetings, after the initial meeting which was inconvenient for her. SW3 said she also had to change the date of a meeting at short notice but Mrs X was accommodating about this. There may have been difficulties arranging mutually convenient times, but I do not consider this amounts to fault on the part of the Council.
  4. The Council did not provide any financial support to Mrs X when she started caring for the children again in November 2017 when Ms Y was re-admitted to hospital. The Council’s view is that it had no duty to assess Mrs X as a temporary connected person carer at this point as it had done previously. This was because Ms Y had made it clear she did not agree to the Council accommodating her children under a section 20 agreement and made her own arrangement with Mrs X to look after the children. Mrs X has also provided evidence to support this view. She said she and Ms Y already had a contingency plan in place agreed with the social worker that if Ms Y had to go into hospital again Mrs X would step in and look after the children. When the Council proposed a working agreement based on Ms Y signing a section 20 agreement in December 2017, Mrs X and Ms Y did not agree to sign it. For these reasons I do not find fault in the Council not offering an allowance to Mrs X to look after the children between November 2017 and January 2018.

Summary

  1. Based on the evidence I have seen, I make the following findings:
    • The Council did not explain sufficiently to Mrs X what a section 20 agreement was, and it did not take timely action to identify school places. But I cannot say these faults resulted in the children spending an unnecessarily prolonged period in Mrs X’s care.
    • There were other failings in the Council’s communications with Mrs X. It delayed in telling her of possible concerns about Ms Y going on the proposed trip. It failed to explain to her it was putting the transition plan on hold in light of the further report about Ms Y’s mental health.

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed that within one month of the final decision on the complaint it will take the following action:
    • Apologise to Mrs X for the faults found.
    • Pay her £400 to recognise the distress and anxiety caused by the poor communication identified and £200 to recognise her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
  2. The Council has provided evidence that since the events of this complaint the section 20 agreements people with parental responsibility sign include a statement confirming the Council has explained their rights to them. The Council has also provided copies of the information it provides to potential family and friends carers. There is therefore no need for me to make any recommendations about reviewing the information it provides.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have found fault by the Council in failing to communicate effectively with Mrs X. I am satisfied with the action the Council has agreed to tak to remedy the injustice caused and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I have not investigated the complaint about whether the section 20 agreement was legitimate or lawful. That would be a matter for the courts, and Ms Y is taking legal action herself. I have not investigated the complaint about whether the Council had grounds for starting care proceedings. This again would have been a matter for the court to decide when it considered the applications. It did not find that the Council should not have brought the proceedings and it made Orders it considered appropriate. The Ombudsman has no power to interfere with these decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings