St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (19 020 206)

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

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 19 May 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s failure to provide sufficient support to her family since they started caring for two children and for its handling of her complaints about this. The Council was at fault for not completing support plan annual reviews for special guardians for at least five years, which has caused significant injustice to Mrs B and her family. The Council was also at fault for failing to complete recommendations following Mrs B’s stage two complaint and arranging a stage three complaint review. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B and her family.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I have called Mrs B, complains the Council has failed to provide sufficient support to her family when they started to care for two children, Child X and Child Y. Child X has complex needs and the Council has failed to provide appropriate support or respite to Mrs B and her family. Mrs B says the Council has also failed to deal with her complaints appropriately and has not acted upon the recommendations made at stage two of the statutory children’s complaints process. Mrs B has suffered a mini stroke because of the stress caused by this situation. The lack of support from the Council has also had a significant negative and distressing impact of the rest of the family.

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 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)
  2. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, 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 have spoken to Mrs B and considered the information she has provided in support of her complaints.
  2. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to our enquiries.
  3. 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.
  4. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

Child protection and Looked after Children

  1. The Children Act 1989 says if a council receives a report of concern about a child, it must decide what response is required. This includes determining whether:
  • the child requires immediate protection, or
  • the child is in need (a CIN) and should be assessed under section 17 of the Act, or
  • there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm where the council decide whether to initiate safeguarding enquiries under section 47 of the Act, which could lead to the Council obtaining a Care Order.
  1. Under section 17, councils undertake assessments of the needs of children to determine which services to provide and what action to take. Where the outcome of the assessment is continued children’s social care involvement, the social worker should agree a plan of action with other professionals. This is called a Child in Need plan

Family and friends’ carers and Special Guardianships

  1. Where parents cannot look after their children, some family and friends carers may decide to go to court (sometimes with the help of the council) to gain a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) or Child Arrangements Order. An SGO gives the person with the order some, but not all, parental responsibility for the child. It allows special guardians to decide such things as the child’s health matters and schooling, which foster carers cannot do. Special guardianships are intended to give a firm footing on which to build lifelong relationships between the children and their carers. Overall, an SGO is more secure and can lead to more support from councils than a Child Arrangement Order.
  2. Special Guardians can ask councils for support. This may include a Special Guardianship Allowance (SGA). Any support, including financial, should be reviewed at least annually, and could be removed. The starting point for calculating SGA is the council’s fostering allowance rate minus child benefit and child tax credit. These are deducted because the Guardian can claim these benefits when foster carers cannot. The SGA is also means tested.
  3. In 2018, we published a focus report, ‘Firm Foundations: complaints about council support and advice for special guardians’. The report highlights the importance of councils following the right steps when working with special guardians to ensure they receive the right advice and support. This built upon the guidance we provided in an earlier related focus report published in 2013.

Children Social Care Complaints

  1. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP). The IP is responsible for overseeing the investigation. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a Review Panel at stage 3. If a council has investigated complaints under this procedure, we would not normally re-investigate unless we considered the original investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered its findings and recommendations
  2. The timescales in working days for the procedure are:
  • 10 days at stage 1 (with a further 10 days for more complex complaints or additional time if an advocate is required);
  • 25 days at stage 2 (with maximum extension to 65 days);
  • 20 days for the complainant to request a Review Panel;
  • 30 days to meet and hold the Review Panel at stage 3;

What happened

  1. This chronology provides details of key events leading up to Mrs B’s complaint to us, it does not cover everything that happened.
  2. The Council placed Child X and Child Y on Child in Need plans in 2008, while they were still in the care of their parents. In September 2013, the Council took the children into care following Child Protection enquiries.
  3. Mrs B’s husband is related to the children’s father. Mrs B and her husband approached the Council shortly after the children were placed into foster care to ask if they could care for them. The Council undertook an assessment of Mrs B and her husband in January 2014.
  4. At the end of March 2014, the court granted Special Guardianship Orders (SGO) for Child X and Child Y to Mrs B and her husband. As part of the court hearing, the Council prepared SGO support plans for both the children, which set out the help Mrs B and her husband would receive to look after them. This plan noted that it would need to be reviewed and updated annually.
  5. In 2017, Child X started to show signs of trauma from their past experiences while in their parents’ care, who had since both died. In May 2018, a nurse working with Child X made a Child in Need referral to the Council following a diagnosis of Attachment Issues/Disorder. Child X was struggling with their emotions and displaying challenging behaviour. The nurse said Child X needed significant support to understand their past trauma and come to terms with both their parents passing away. The nurse recommended Child X’s case be presented to the Council’s Emotional Wellbeing Panel with a request for Mrs B to receive specific training and long-term intervention and for support for Child X from the children’s charity Barnardo’s.
  6. On 16 April 2019, Mrs B made a complaint to the Council about its lack of support since she and her husband became Special Guardians for Child X and Child Y. Mrs B said she had been asking for help for a number of years and the family was reaching crisis point because of Child X’s challenging behaviour.
  7. The Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint under stage one of the statutory complaint process on 22 May 2019. It upheld her complaint about a lack of support and said it would prioritise a review of the SGO support plans for Child X and Child Y. The Council wrote to Mrs B again on 5 June 2019 to tell her the Manager reviewing the SGO support plans was working with the SGO Social Worker to source support for both the children. The Council completed the SGO support plan reviews on 1 July 2019.
  8. On 16 July 2019, Mrs B escalated her complaint to stage two. She remained unhappy with the lack of support she and the children were receiving from the Council. On 8 August 2019, the Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) to undertake the stage two complaint investigation.
  9. The IO and IP met with Mrs B to obtain her statement of complaint, which was confirmed on 3 September 2019. Her complaints were:
  • Child X’s SGO support plan did not reflect their actual needs.
  • The financial allowance Mrs B received for the children reflected what was agreed in court but was not in line with the minimum guarantee for foster carers and did not it take into account Child X’s complex emotional needs.
  • Despite the stage one complaint being upheld, nothing had been put in place regarding extra support and counselling for the children.
  1. The IO completed their stage two complaint report on 25 November 2019. The IO upheld the first two complaints and partially upheld the last complaint. Overall, the IO found the Council had significantly delayed providing support to Mrs B, her family and, most importantly, the children.
  2. In particular, the IO noted that due to procedural and casework errors, SGO support plans had not been annually reviewed by the Council since at least 2014. It appeared the Council had identified this issue through a case audit in 2019. The Council undertook to complete SGO support plan reviews for all the cases it had missed in these five years, including Mrs B’s. The IO found the recent review of the SGO support plan in Mrs B’s case still failed to take account of significant recommendations made in the nurse’s CiN referral in May 2018.
  3. The IO made the following recommendations:
      1. While therapeutic Life Story work had started with Child X, the Council should consider offering something similar to Child Y. Careful consideration needed to be given to further therapeutic work with both children in line with their changing needs as they get older.
      2. Both children might benefit from speaking to and/or being supported by a children/young person’s advocate.
      3. Mrs B and her husband should make themselves available to attend training to help support the children, though it was very disappointing the Council had failed to invite them to recent attachment disorder training.
      4. Mrs B and her family should receive the minimum guarantee of £250 per week each for the care of Child X and Child Y. This should be backdated to 1 January 2019, when the Council implemented its minimum guarantee for foster carers.
      5. While respite for Child X with another foster carer was not appropriate given their attachment issues, Child X needed extensive one to one support and to be made to feel special.
      6. The family should receive a written apology from the Council for the lack of contact, support and guidance between 2014 and 2018, in particular the lack of acknowledgement and action following the deaths of Child X and Child Ys’ parents.
      7. The training and awareness issues among staff about the correct policies and procedures needed to be addressed to ensure all staff knew what action to take.
      8. The lack of communication between staff in relation to this case, particularly the failure to invite Mrs B and her husband to essential attachment disorder training needed to be addressed.
  4. The Adjudicating Officer (AO) for the Council sent the IO and IP’s reports to Mrs B on 13 January 2020. The AO agreed with the outcomes reached by the IO and IP for the first and last complaints, and partially upheld the second complaint. The AO considered the Council had correctly applied guidance for Special Guardianship Allowance (SGA) but had not applied this against the minimum guarantee amount. The AO noted the Council had agreed to disregard eligible benefits (child benefit and tax credits) that would usually be deducted from the SGA for Mrs B. The AO said the disregard would continue given the lack of clarity when the Council first agreed to this in March 2016.
  5. The AO agreed to the recommendations in points (a) to (f) listed in paragraph 27. The AO also explained how the Council had addressed point (g) by establishing a dedicated team to complete annual reviews of SGOs and support plans and had held a series of briefings to ensure staff understood the relevant policies and procedures. The AO apologised for the failure in communication that led to Mrs B and her husband not being invited to the attachment disorder training. The AO’s response included a separate letter from the relevant Team Manager which apologised for the lack of contact, support and guidance the family received between 2014 and 2018.
  6. Mrs B acknowledged receipt of the AO’s response and asked the Council to make the backdated payment of SGA in seven days. When the Council explained it may take up to six weeks to process the backdated payment, Mrs B asked to escalate her complaint to stage three.
  7. The Council initially sought to arrange the stage three Review Panel on 2 March 2020 but a senior Council Officer could not attend. The Council tried to rearrange for 2 April but was then unable to proceed with this date because of lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Council says it tried again to arrange the review in August but the selected Panel Chair and the IO were then permanently unavailable to attend.
  8. Mrs B brought her complaint to us in early March 2020 because the Council had still not arranged the stage three Review Panel.

My findings

Lack of support

  1. The Council’s failure to complete reviews of SGO support plans for several years is fault. This had a significant impact on Child X, Child Y, Mrs B and the rest of her family. They received no support or increase in SGA payments for both children for at least five years. The Council failed to take appropriate action to support the children when their birth parents died and left Mrs B and her family to tackle this alone.
  2. The Council’s failure in reviewing SGO plans extended to all families with Special Guardianships at that time. This is extremely concerning even though the Council has now taken steps to complete reviews for all outstanding cases. In response to further enquiries, the Council has provided a breakdown detailing the reviews it has completed for other Special Guardians similarly affected and the other steps it has taken to ensure annual reviews of support plans and allowances are not overlooked in future.
  3. Based on the information the Council has now provided, I am satisfied it has taken appropriate action to address the fault identified in this case for similarly affected families. As a result, I have removed recommended actions previously detailed in my draft decision statement, which asked the Council to address this issue.
  4. Since the stage two complaint response, the Council has paid Mrs B the backdated SGA it owed. While this addresses part of the fault, Mrs B is still not getting the support she feels she needs to help with Child X’s challenging behaviour and complex needs. The Council has also not considered the impact of Child X’s behaviour on the other three children in the household, especially Child Y who bears the brunt of Child X’s aggressive outbursts.
  5. Mrs B has told us she and her husband have only just started to receive access to training to help them with caring for and supporting Child X and Child Y. This means it has taken the Council over a year since the stage two complaint response to arrange training Mrs B and her husband have desperately needed for years. This delay is further fault by the Council given the already significant delays in providing any kind of support to the family. The lack of training for Mr and Mrs B as special guardians also impacts directly on all the children in the household.
  6. Mrs B feels the Council has dismissed her requests for some form of respite for Child X because of their Attachment Disorder diagnosis. While I accept this diagnosis makes it harder to identify appropriate support, I am not satisfied the Council has done enough to explore other options for respite with Mrs B or indeed Child X themselves.
  7. The Council has told us it has conducted recent Children and Families Assessments and found the threshold was not met for the children to be placed on Child in Need Plans. While I do not question the merits of the Council’s professional opinion, the situation does appear to have changed since its last assessment in May 2020.
  8. In October 2020 when the Council responded to our enquiries, it told us it was undertaking a further Child in Need assessment for Child X as they were now at risk of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE). The Council completed its assessment at the end of November 2020 and has put in place a Child in Need Plan to help manage the risks presented by Child X and to provide them and Mrs B (and her family) with support.
  9. In early January 2021, Mrs B says Child X received further diagnoses for Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and Alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder. The Council completed a review of the Child in Need Plan at the end of March 2021, however this did not include details of Child X’s diagnoses or whether the Council needed to provide any additional support to the family because of this.

Failure to action stage two complaint recommendations

  1. Based on the evidence seen, I find the Council failed to action the following recommendations from the IO’s stage two report, despite accepting these:
  • Arranged for either child to speak to or been supported by an advocate (recommendation b).
  • Taken limited steps to arrange training for Mrs B and her husband. The Covid-19 pandemic notwithstanding, it is unclear why it has taken the Council more than a year to start providing Mrs B and her husband with access to the training they need (recommendation c).
  • Failed to offer or provide any other forms of one-to-one support for Child X while respite was not an option in the year since the stage two complaint response (recommendation f). Mrs B says the Council has only just started providing respite for Child X.

Stage three complaint handling

  1. The Council is at fault for failing to arrange the stage three review within the statutory timescales. While guidance has been amended to provide councils with some flexibility during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Council’s lack of action to progress arrangements for this to be conducted remotely is fault.
  2. The Council is at further fault for failing to keep Mrs B informed while it tried to arrange this, which has caused Mrs B understandable frustration and she has been put to avoidable time and trouble by having to bring her complaint to us.

Mrs B’s health and impact on the rest of the family

  1. Mrs B has suffered two mini strokes since she and her husband started caring for Child X and Child Y. She says her doctor told her these were brought on by the stress of her situation. Mrs B has also told us about the impact of Child X’s challenging behaviour on her two biological children. She says the family does not feel like it has had a break from the stress of this situation and the prolonged lack of support from the Council has exacerbated this. My recommendations below take account of the significant impact on Mrs B’s health and the rest of the family caused by the Council’s faults.

Agreed action

  1. Within one month from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
  • apologise to Mrs B for the faults identified in this statement;
  • make a payment of £1,500 to Mrs B for the significant distress caused by the Council’s faults and the avoidable time and trouble caused in making her complaints;
  • make a payment of £1,000 each to Child X and Child Y for the impact of the Council’s fault in failing to provide access to support and guidance for their special guardians for five years, which has caused them considerable distress;
  • make payments of £250 to each of Mrs B and her husband’s two biological children for the impact of Council’s fault in failing to provide services to Child X and Child Y and the family for five years, which has caused them significant and avoidable distress;
  • provide an action plan setting out how and when it will complete the outstanding stage two complaint recommendations set out in paragraph 42.
  • review, and if appropriate amend, Child X’s current Child in Need Plan based on their recent diagnoses;
  • work with Mrs B (and her husband) to review the SGO support plan and allowance to ensure this includes details of therapeutic work and support it will provide for Child X and Child Y;
  • provide a plan of the training Mrs B and her husband will have access to as a priority over the next six months or longer if appropriate – this should include training on managing the risks of Child Sexual Exploitation; and,
  • place a copy of this decision statement in Child X and Child Y’s records.
  1. The Council should provide us with evidence as it completes each of the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs B’s complaint. Mrs B and her family have been caused injustice by actions of the Council and it has agreed to remedy that 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