Suffolk County Council (19 011 786)

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

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 23 Jun 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs F complains about some actions taken and records kept by the Council when she acted as a kinship foster carer. We uphold her complaint finding fault in the Council’s communications when it began child protection enquiries and in its complaint handling. Its actions caused Mrs F avoidable distress, frustration, time and trouble. At the end of this statement we set out actions the Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

  1. I have called the complainant ‘Mrs F’. Her complaint concerns a period between May 2018 and April 2019. During this time Mrs F and her husband acted as kinship (or family and friends) foster carers for ‘G’, a child related to them who was the subject of an Interim Care Order. Our investigation has considered five issues raised by Mrs F.
  • First, a complaint the Council did not perform satisfactory safeguarding checks on Mr and Mrs F when they went to collect G from hospital and took him into their care.
  • Second, events that took place in January 2019 when Mr and Mrs F became the subject of enquiries undertaken by the Council under Section 47 of the Children’s Act 1989. Mrs F complains the Council did not tell them about this at the time nor the outcome of those enquiries.
  • Third, Mrs F complains an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) wrongly recorded a statement she made at a child in care review meeting for G, held in January 2019.
  • Fourth, Mrs F raises a concern the Council may not have paid her the correct fostering allowance.
  • Fifth, Mrs F asks us to consider the Council’s handling of her complaint.
  1. Mrs F says the Council’s faults have caused her and her husband to suffer distress and put them to unnecessary time and trouble. Mrs F says the statement attributed to her at the January 2019 meeting caused particular distress when read by other family members.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I investigated those parts of the complaint summarised at the second to fifth bullet points above. I did not investigate the first part of the complaint for reasons explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as NHS Trusts that manage hospitals. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
  2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault, or
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
  1. 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. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:
  • Mrs F’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information she provided, including that gathered in a telephone call with her.
  • Written information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
  • Relevant law and Council policies where referred to in the text below.
  • Comments made by Mrs F and the Council on a draft decision setting out my proposed findings.
  1. 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

  1. I considered each part of Mrs F’s complaint in turn. I will first set out the key facts covering each part of the complaint before setting out my findings.

Key facts

The complaint about the Section 47 enquiries

  1. When G went to live with Mr and Mrs F he was under 12 months old. G was the subject of an interim care order because of concerns he had suffered non-accidental injury. He has complex physical health problems which required Mrs F taking him to multiple medical appointments.
  2. Mrs F attended an appointment with a consultant paediatrician in January 2019. The consultant reported noting a bruise on G’s thigh. The consultant reported her finding to the Council as G was non-ambulant and Mrs F could not explain how he bruised. Although the consultant also noted Mrs F’s view the bruise may have resulted from G playing with a toy in his cot. The consultant also noted Mrs F had actively attended all G’s appointments at the hospital. Neither the consultant nor colleagues working closely with Mrs F and G in other departments, had any concerns for the care provided to G. The consultant had therefore allowed Mrs F and G to return home having advised she would contact the Council.
  3. When the Council received contact via email from the consultant it decided to call an initial strategy discussion. This is the first stage in child safeguarding procedures when the Council receives any report which might suggest a child at risk of significant harm. In a written policy which covers such discussions, the Council explains the purpose of a strategy meeting is to decide whether to progress a report to enquiries under Section 47 of the Children’s Act. Within 10 working days the Council must then decide whether to call a child protection conference which may decide to place a child on a child protection plan.
  4. The Council’s notes show that one of its social workers and a senior officer both spoke with the consultant who thought the bruise probably arose accidentally. The Council said it wanted to investigate as it did not know if G could lift a heavy toy. It suggested joint investigation with police, but the police did not consider this suitable given the consultant’s view. The Council therefore resolved to carry out enquiries on its own under Section 47 of the Children’s Act.
  5. The strategy meeting notes said the social worker assigned G’s case would tell G’s birth parents and Mrs F of this decision. The Council says its social worker told Mrs F of its decision a few days later. But it has not provided any notes to show they did this. Mrs F says she did not learn the Council had begun enquiries under Section 47 until told of it by a third party some weeks later.
  6. Within a few days Mr and Mrs F received a planned visit at home from the Council when the social worker carried out a routine supervision visit to check on G’s welfare. In her notes she recorded Mr and Mrs F were “very upset” by the Section 47 enquiries. Mrs F says this recording is inaccurate. She only became upset the couple were the subject of Section 47 enquiries when she learnt of this some weeks later.
  7. A child-in-care review meeting also took place at Mrs F’s home. This involved various professionals including G’s social worker and another social worker supporting Mr and Mrs F as foster carers. An IRO chaired the meeting. The meeting covered various matters and the minutes recorded the recent incident where G presented with a bruise. Mrs F showed the meeting the toys she thought G may have grabbed and hit against his thigh. The minutes recorded G grabbing for the toys and being “much more mobile than previously seen”. The minutes added: “it was the consensus of the review that G’s bruise was likely to have been caused from the toy”.
  8. G’s social worker visited Mr and Mrs F again in February and April 2019 for further supervision visits. Their notes record there were “no further concerns” following the report of the bruise. They also recorded as an action point on both occasions that “Section 47 to be completed and shared with the carers as the family have not yet had an outcome”.
  9. The Council acknowledges it did not write to Mr and Mrs F with the outcome of its Section 47 enquiries. It says this was because it thought the outcome apparent from the child in care review meeting.

The complaint about the minutes of the child in care review meeting

  1. As I noted previously, the January 2019 child in care review meeting covered various matters. In a section headed ‘what’s not working so well’ the IRO recorded Mrs F saying her family “had been destroyed by another family”.
  2. Mrs F is insistent she did not say this. Mrs F said she spoke of the pressure on the wider family (including G’s birth parents and other relations). She said the enquiries which led G to enter care and ongoing court proceedings had “destroyed the family”.
  3. Mrs F questioned the record on receiving the minutes, which was around a month after the meeting. She contacted the IRO who then sent an email to Mrs F and copied in other professionals involved in G’s case in early March 2019. The IRO said they believed their record correct but noted Mrs F’s view in the email and said: “I am recording your view so both viewpoints are available”.
  4. When Mrs F later complained the Council said that its social worker also recalled Mrs F saying what the IRO recorded. The Council also believed from conversations with other professionals involved in the case that Mrs F had said the words attributed to her. While Mrs F has support for her account from her husband and other family members present at the review.
  5. Mrs F has two concerns about the implications of the minute. First, that it caused some distress to her when wider family members read the minute given the implication of such a remark. Mrs F says a solicitor representing another family member questioned her about it during later court proceedings to decide G’s future.
  6. Second, Mrs F considered the Council may have put weight on this statement when it prepared reports for those court proceedings. I find this was so. The Council prepared a final statement in February 2019 for a court hearing in April 2019, which resulted in G returning to the care of his birth parents. In part of the statement reflecting Mr and Mrs F’s views the Council recorded the impact of proceedings had “destroyed the family”. However, in a section setting out the IRO’s views, they again quoted Mrs F as saying she had been “destroyed by another family”. The IRO speculated that this implied a “deep-seated frustration” which might impact on G if he remained in Mr and Mrs F’s care long-term. The IRO recommended in these circumstances Mr and Mrs F may need more emotional support.
  7. In comments made in response to my enquiries, the IRO has said that in March 2019 they understood they could not amend review minutes once completed. However, the note implies this understanding was wrong. So, they could have amended the review minutes rather than attach the email sent to Mrs F.

The complaint about fostering allowances

  1. The Council says that when G went to live with Mr and Mrs F, they first paid Mrs F as a ‘Tier 1’ foster carer. This is the lowest banding used by the authority which pays foster carers on five bandings dependent on matters such as the child’s age, needs and experience of the foster carers.
  2. In August 2018 the Council agreed to increase the payments to Mrs F to ‘Tier 3’. It took this decision in recognition of the special needs that G has because of his disability and the ability Mrs F showed in meeting those needs.

The complaint procedure

  1. Mrs F made her complaint in June 2019. She received an acknowledgment of receipt around two weeks later. The Council then sent Mrs F a partial reply at the end of July 2019.
  2. Mrs F contacted this office and after we contacted the Council it sent a further reply in August 2019 answering the other parts of her complaint. Both its letters came from a service manager from the team managing G’s case. The manager’s response showed a personal familiarity with the case and decisions taken around G’s care.
  3. Mrs F asked the Council to escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaint procedure. The Council’s Customer Rights service, separate to its Children’s Services, reviewed the correspondence and declined to do so. It said that it did not consider it could expand on the responses it had given via the service to Mrs F and considered the replies from the service proportionate.

My findings

The complaint about Section 47 enquiries

  1. From all I have read I am satisfied that Mr and Mrs F knew the Council had resolved to make some enquiries into the circumstances where G presented at hospital with a bruise. I am also satisfied the Council could reasonably use Section 47 of the Children’s Act to make those enquiries. However, I have seen nothing which shows it contacted Mr and Mrs F to tell it of its decision despite this being agreed. The child in care minutes show the Council discussed the bruise with Mr and Mrs F. But they do not show Mr and Mrs F being told the enquiries were made under Section 47 of the Children’s Act. Nor is there any record to confirm the Council’s account that its social worker told Mrs F the Council was making such enquiries.
  2. I have also not seen any record which confirmed the Council’s decision not to hold a child protection conference. I find this implied in the minute of the January 2019 child in care review meeting, but nowhere have I seen the decision recorded. The Council also acknowledges not writing to Mr and Mrs F with the outcome of its investigation. This was despite its social worker twice noting it should do so.
  3. I find in the Council policy an expectation that it should have attended to these matters. Its policy says:
  • “Child protection enquiries can be extremely stressful and frightening experiences for families. Children’s Social Care therefore has a responsibility to engage with and offer support during the course of assessments and investigations, to make the process as transparent, manageable and stress-free as possible”. [paragraph 4.8.2]
  • “Unless there are very clear reasons why it would be unsafe to do so, the child’s parents / carers should be given clear information about the concerns being raised (as described in the initial Danger Statement), the processes of the assessment, and what the possible outcomes are. A written leaflet about s.47 enquiries should always be provided”. [paragraph 4.8.3]
  • “Parents should be kept informed and involved as fully as possible throughout about the enquiry, its outcome and any subsequent actions, unless this would jeopardise the safety and welfare of the child or any police investigations” [paragraph 4.8.6]
  1. I can find no good reason for the Council not following these policy requirements. I accept that at the January 2019 review all parties agreed G’s bruise arose from playing with toys. So, the Council may have considered there was no need to confirm the outcome in writing. But it should still have appreciated that Mr and Mrs F would have some anxiety inherent to all such enquiries. Or that it might distress them later if learning the Council had begun these enquiries under Section 47 of the Children’s Act.
  2. Mrs F therefore suffered avoidable distress, over and above that which is inherent to such enquiries. That was her injustice. I set out below action the Council has agreed to take to remedy that injustice.

The complaint about the child in care review minutes

  1. I cannot take a view on exactly what Mrs F said at the child in care review meeting. I accept in good faith that Mrs F does not believe she made the statement attributed to her. But I also have no reason to doubt the good faith of the IRO who recorded something different. Both sides have supporting witnesses from those present at the meeting who favour one version of events over the other.
  2. There is no compelling evidence such as an audio recording which would lead me to prefer one version over the other. Consequently, I cannot uphold Mrs F’s complaint on the terms in which she framed it: i.e. that the Council wrongly recorded her words.
  3. I have next gone on to consider how the Council recorded Mrs F’s disagreement with the minute. Mrs F made it clear on reading the minutes, what she believed she had said and what she meant. I note I have seen no other record which suggests Mrs F had ever expressed any negative view about wider family. So, even if the Council believed it had captured Mrs F’s words correctly this suggests Mrs F mis-spoke. That her words did not have the meaning implied.
  4. I consider the Council therefore needed to ensure that its records reflected this. It appears from the IRO’s comments made in reply to my enquiries there was scope for the Council to amend the review minutes contemporaneously to reflect this. Although they did not know this at the time. But in attaching an email setting out Mrs F’s comments to the case record I consider the Council found a practical workaround. So, I am satisfied it captured Mrs F’s disagreement with its record keeping.
  5. But a further consequence that flowed from the minute is that in papers presented to the family court the IRO expressed views based on their understanding of what Mrs F had said. I note the IRO made those comments before Mrs F commented on the minutes. They did not revise their analysis following Mrs F’s comments.
  6. I have considered if this should lead to a finding of fault, but I not persuaded of this taking account of the following. First, the IRO’s statement concerned what might happen if G did not return to his birth parents. This did not arise. Second, the IRO’s views would be just one of many considerations for the Court to consider in the event this scenario arose. This included Mrs F’s own statements where she corrected any misunderstanding arising from the review minutes. Third, I note there are multiple other references in the Council papers that speak highly of the care given to G by Mrs F. I consider any negative impression presented by the statement attributed to Mrs F outweighed by the many positive statements.
  7. In addition, even if I did find fault here the same reasons would not lead me to find any fault caused an injustice to Mrs F.

The complaint about fostering allowances

  1. I do not uphold this part of the complaint. I have considered the Council’s published policy on foster care allowances. This explains the maximum allowance the Council will pay for a child under five years old is at Tier 3 of its banding. Tiers 4 and 5 are only usually payable to children aged over seven years. Further, the Council says it will only make Tier 3 payments in exceptional circumstances, where the child needs “a high level of care arising from severe physical or learning difficulties”.
  2. I am satisfied the Council reasonably applied this guidance to the facts of G’s case. It treated his as an exceptional case. It could not consider any higher payment given the policy it applies.

The complaint procedure

  1. I uphold this part of the complaint. First, on its website the Council says it will acknowledge complaints in three working days. It did not do so on this occasion which was fault.
  2. Second, I cannot find out from the website when it commits to responding to complaints from foster carers. But I consider four weeks a reasonable timescale. Mrs F had to wait longer for a reply to her complaint and when she received a reply it was incomplete. She had to wait over two months for a response to all parts of her complaint. That was too long. The delay was a fault.
  3. Third, I am not persuaded the Council carried out a sufficiently rigorous internal review of the replies Mrs F received to her complaint. While it is reasonable a service should reply at first to a user’s concerns, the Council should have within its complaint procedure a degree of impartiality and objectivity. I accept that its Customer Rights team may provide this as it is a separate service to that complained about. But I am disappointed that service did not reach its own findings on Mrs F’s complaint or ask an independent person to review a complaint. Had it done so here then Mrs F may not have had to also come to this organisation to pursue her complaint. I consider it a fault therefore the Council declined to carry out a ‘Stage Two’ investigation.
  4. These faults have caused Mrs F injustice. She has experienced more frustration, time and trouble in pursuing her complaint than needed.

Agreed action

  1. In paragraphs 36 and 49 above I have identified where fault by the Council caused an injustice to Mrs F. To remedy that injustice, the Council has agreed that within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint it will provide her with a written apology accepting the findings of this investigation.
  2. The Council has also been invited to consider how it can avoid a repeat of the faults identified in this case. It has said that it will be briefing all relevant staff on the importance of informing carers when it begins enquiries under Section 47 of the Children’s Act and to ensure they receive a written record of the outcome. I expect it to have completed this action within three months of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs F. I have set out action agreed by the Council to remedy this injustice. I am satisfied I can complete my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I decided not to investigate Mrs F’s complaint about the circumstances where she and Mr F collected G from a hospital and took him into their care. Mrs F considers any checks made on their identity were inadequate and this raises concern about if the Council has satisfactory safeguarding procedures.
  2. There are two reasons I have not investigated this. First, I considered it doubtful we could say the Council had responsibility for any identity checks on the day in question. It was the hospital that discharged G into Mr and Mrs F’s care by agreement with the Council. I considered checks on identity the responsibility of the relevant hospital trust therefore, which is not an organisation we can investigate.
  3. Second, I also considered the complaint did not identify any injustice to Mr and Mrs F. There is no question the hospital should not have discharged G to their care. Clearly no harm came to Mr and Mrs F or G as a result of the hospital or Council practice. I understand Mrs F’s motivation is that of a wider concern to ensure effective safeguarding of children. But that would not be reason for us to investigate in this case, given the lack of any potential injustice.

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