Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly claims she is caring for her grandchildren as a private arrangement and has failed to provide appropriate support. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the investigation under the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has accepted and acted on the investigations findings and recommendations and we cannot add anything significant to the investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X complains the Council wrongly claims she is caring for her grandchildren as a private arrangement and has failed to provide appropriate support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mrs X; and
• Mrs X 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

Friends and family carers

5. Councils need to distinguish between private arrangements made between parents and carers, and arrangements in which the child is accommodated under the Children Act 1989 and so is a looked after child.
6. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 says councils shall provide accommodation to any child in need within their area who needs it, because:

• there is nobody with parental responsibility to care for them;
• they have been lost or abandoned; or
• the person who has been caring for them being prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care.

7. Councils cannot accommodate a child under section 20 if a person holding parental responsibility objects and is willing and able to care for the child or arrange care for the child.
8. When a child needs to be accommodated, the law says councils should consider placing them with family or friends first. Kinship foster carers can receive a fostering allowance and other practical support from the council.
9. The courts have considered whether arrangements for a child to live with a relative or friend are truly a private arrangement. In a key case (London Borough of Southwark v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182), the Court said where a council has taken a major role in arranging for the friend or relative to care for the child, it is likely to have been acting under its duties to provide the child with accommodation.

Child protection

10. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
11. Section 47 of the Children Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make "such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area".
12. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a 'child in need' (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.

Statutory complaints procedure

13. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
14. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
15. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
16. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
17. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
18. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
19. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened here

20. Mrs X’s grandchildren C and D lived with their mother, Mrs Y. In late March 2023 C called an ambulance for their mother and who was taken to hospital. C says a social worker shouted at them and said if they could not find a relative to stay with, C and D would have to go into foster care.
21. C and D’s aunt, Ms Z collected the children and took then to the home she shares with Mr and Mrs X. A duty social worker visited the children at Mrs X’s home later that evening. The Council then allocated a social worker who visited the children the following day. The records say the children were happy staying with their aunt and that Ms Z said she was happy for the children to remain there until their mother was better.
22. Mr and Mrs X were on holiday at the time and returned home in early April 2023.
23. The Council held a strategy meeting and decided to make s47 enquiries. The outcome of these enquiries was that the children were at ongoing risk of significant emotional harm. A Child and Family assessment was also completed. This noted the children did not feel safe at home or want to return home until their mother had stopped drinking alcohol. The assessment recommended the Council hold an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) to ensure the children were safeguarded.
24. The Council arranged an ICPC where it was agreed the children would remain where they were until their mother was doing better. They would also remain subject to a child protection plan.
25. C and D remained in Mr and Mrs X’s care.

In October 2023 Mrs X made a formal complaint about the lack of support and contradictory information they had received. She progressed her complaint through all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure.

26. The stage two investigation agreed the following ten heads of complaint:
1. Mrs X was unhappy that their already traumatised grandchild, was shouted at by a Duty social worker, after paramedics were called for their mother, on 30 March 2023. The social worker shouted at C to stop crying and said if she could not find a family member to take them and their sibling, immediately, they would have to go into foster care that night. Mrs X felt the social worker should be held accountable for the way they had spoken to C that night.
2. Mrs X said no assessment of their physical, emotional, mental, or financial ability to care for their grandchildren had been carried out.
3. Mrs X would like to know why the children residing with them had been labelled a “family arrangement” without this being discussed with them, and why all the implications of this arrangement have not been clearly set out by Children’s Services. Mrs X was of the view that this has now gone past being a family arrangement and that Children’s Services had engineered the children’s ongoing placement with them, which they could not continue without having emotional and financial support in place.
4. Mrs X is unhappy she has not seen any of the assessments referred to by the Council and has no knowledge of what those assessments entailed. Additionally, they have only received minutes of two Child Protection meetings, but none from any of the Core Group meetings attended by Mrs X or her family members.
5. Mrs X was unhappy the family was not given any information on what to expect from Children’s Services, or on what support was available to them, until the Family Group Conference in October 2023. Had they been given full information they would have been able to make an informed decision on whether you were able to provide the care needed by the children.
6. Mrs X would like to know why the children residing with them has slowed the provision of support, as neither a referral to a support organisation nor a Family Group Conference were offered until October 2023. Mrs X was also concerned that the referral for support was only for one of the children, not both.
7. Mrs X was not made aware immediately the social worker discovered that D had begun self-harming on 19 October 2023.
8. Mrs X would like to understand why a senior officer did not make any attempt to resolve their concerns at a local level after they raised them directly with her, without the need for you to make a formal complaint.
9. Mrs X wants an explanation for why a social worker stated that both children had consented to visits in school, when C was clear that she did not want this.
10. Mrs X would like to know who the current allocated social worker is.
27. The investigation partially upheld complaint 1. The Council did not have a recording of the call between C and a social worker. However there was a note of a social worker’s conversation with a paramedic who had made the referral to the Council 30 March 2023. The investigating officer also spoke to the paramedic who confirmed Ms Z had collected the children before they spoke with the social worker.
28. The stage two investigation also considered the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) assessment document. This noted a duty manager had allocated the case to a social worker to make contact with the paramedics to discuss any potential family or friends the children could stay with.
29. The assessment notes the referrer was concerned there were no contact details available for any relatives and that there had been a discussion with C who was distressed. C had said they had no contact with their dad and their gran was away on holiday. C was not able to provide any details for Mrs Y’s friends or family in the area.
30. The stage two investigator concluded that while a social worker had been allocated to speak with the paramedics a conversation had already taken place with C. The investigation was satisfied someone had spoken to C but was unable to verify who this was. For this reason this head of complaint was partially upheld.
31. The stage two investigation also partially upheld complaints 4, 6 and 7. It found no fault that the Child and Family assessment was not shared with Mrs X as this related to the children’s experience at home and Mrs Y’s ability to care for them. If Mrs Y chose to share this with Mrs X she could do so. Mrs Y would also have needed to give permission for the core group minutes to be shared with the family members who attended. However the investigation noted the minutes were of poor quality and not sent out in a timely manner.
32. It found the length of time between agreeing to hold a Family Group Conference and one taking place was too long. But was satisfied family members were privy to discussions around the children’s emotional issues and that the children were receiving emotional support in the intervening period.
33. The investigation also noted Mrs X was aware of D’s previous incidents of self-harm and accepted the social worker assumed she was also aware of the more recent incident. However it considered the social worker could have discussed this with Mrs X before leaving the family home.
34. The stage two investigation did not uphold the remaining complaints.
35. The investigation was satisfied the children were voluntarily taken by Ms Z to Mrs X’s home without any social work interventions and that C phoned Ms Z before the paramedic contacted the Council.
36. The children were not placed with Mrs X by the local authority and as Mrs Y had parental responsibility for the children she was financially responsible for them. As such the investigation concluded there was no reason the Council should become responsible for the financial expense of the children residing with Mrs X. The plan remained for C and D to return to their mother’s care, and support was provided to help repair the relationship.
37. However, the investigation noted there was no evidence the Council had explained to Mrs X what a family arrangement meant, the implications of such an arrangement or that financial support for C and D should be sought from their mother.
38. The stage two investigation made a number of recommendations which the Council accepted.
39. The stage three review took place on 20 June 2024. The panel was satisfied the stage two investigation was thorough and took account of all available information. It did not alter any of the findings but made further recommendations.
40. As Mrs X remans dissatisfied with the outcome, she has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns. She maintains this was not a private family arrangement and that they have not received the appropriate support they should have as Kinship carers

Analysis

41. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with an independent response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
42. We may decide to look at whether there were any significant flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.
43. There is no indication of fault in the way Mrs X’s complaint was considered. Mrs X disagrees with the findings of the investigation, but they are reasonable and defensible.
44. There is no evidence the Council placed C and D with Mrs X or her family on 30 March 2023. The documentation shows Ms Z had taken the children home with her prior to the Council’s involvement. This was therefore a private family arrangement and the children could have returned to their mother’s care at any time. As such the Council was not liable to pay any form of fostering payments or provide support.
45. The investigation partially upheld elements of Mrs X’s complaint and made appropriate recommendations. The Council has accepted the findings and recommendations in full. That being the case, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.
46. Mrs X is concerned that the Council has not implement the stage three panel’s recommendations. In particular C had not received a letter of apology and acknowledgement that she was upset by the events of 30 March 2023.
47. The Council’s letter of 18 July 2024 confirmed this recommendation had been passed to the manager of the Emergency Duty Team who would respond. If this recommendation has not yet been completed, the Council should ensure a letter of apology is sent to C without further delay.
48. The other stage three recommendations relate to service improvements regarding record keeping and information sharing. The Council has explained to Mrs X what is meant by a private family arrangement and where further information and advice can be found. It has also reminded social workers of the importance of clear case notes for any services offered and advice given.

Back to top

Final decision

49. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the investigation under the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has accepted and acted on the investigations findings and recommendations and we cannot add anything significant to that investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman