Summary: The complainant is concerned about the Council’s actions before and when her grandchildren were in care and about the lack of appropriate support to her and the grandchildren under her Special Guardianship Order. The Ombudsman finds some fault on the first complaint, causing an injustice. The Council has agreed the recommended action. On the second complaint, the Ombudsman considers the Council has provided a fair explanation for its actions. The Ombudsman has therefore completed his investigation and is closing the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Ms X, has two complaints.
2. The first complaint is on behalf of her two grandchildren, Child C and Child D, concerning a period in 2016 when the children were known to the Council and were subsequently placed in the Council’s care. Subsequently, Ms X obtained a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) for the two grandchildren.
3. Ms X complains specifically:

• about how her grandchildren were treated when they were put into care;
• that they were put into an unsuitable placement and passed around about 5 times in 6 or 7 months;
• that they had multiple bruises;
• the complainant had the children for eight weeks, but she did not receive a family fostering allowance;
• the Court, making the SGO, was critical of the Council’s approach which Mrs X considers supports her complaints about the way the Council had looked after her grandchildren.

4. The Council has investigated this complaint but has found no fault.
5. Ms X ‘s second complaint is about the inadequacies of the Council’s SGO support plan, which means that Ms X has been, and is, struggling to care for the grandchildren and her two older children, who I refer to as Child A and Child B.
6. The Ombudsman had previously investigated this second complaint and we recommended the Council took certain action to remedy the fault found. However, we were not fully satisfied that this had happened and therefore we have reopened this complaint in conjunction with the first complaint.
7. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman joining these two complaints into a single investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

8. 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)
9. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended). This means that the Ombudsman cannot comment on the reports provided to the court by a council’s social workers or council decisions made within the Court arena.
10. 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

11. I have spoken to Ms X on the telephone. The Council has provided written information, including the social workers’ case notes from 2015. Ms X has also provided written information, including a copy of the Court Judgment of November 2016, when the Court made the SGO Orders. Ms X has the permission of the Court to disclose the Judgment to the Ombudsman.
12. I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to look at complaint (1) even though it dates back to 2015 and Ms X did not make her specific complaints within the required 12 months.
13. In view of the restriction on the Ombudsman, whereby he cannot investigate a council’s actions, which are part of legal proceedings, I have limited the investigation to looking at events from the end of 2015 to the time the Council filed its Care Order application in the Family Court on 17 February 2016. However, I have noted the Judge’s comments in the Judgment.
14. I issued a draft decision statement to both the Council and to the complainant and I have taken into account their further comments.
15. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government 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

Children in need

16. Part III, Section 17(1) of Children Act (CA) 1989 imposes a duty on councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
17. Any service provided by a council in the exercise of their Section 17 functions may be provided for the family of a particular child in need, or for any member of their family who lives with them, if it is provided with a view to safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare (s.17(3)).
18. Section 17(10) CA 1989 defines a child as a child in need if:

He/she is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him/her of services by a local authority;

His/her health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him/her of such services;

He/she is disabled.

Child protection

19. Working Together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children’ (March 2015, updated in 2018) provides guidance about child protection investigations for all agencies. Local authority social workers have a statutory duty to lead assessments which should be holistic in approach. Where concerns are considered valid, a multi-agency conference will decide if a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and whether a child protection or a child in need plan is required.
20. Social workers and their managers should gather information systematically about the child and family’s history. Assessments should be transparent and open to challenge.

Care planning for looked after children

21. A council can accommodate a child, under 16, with the formal consent of the parents. Once the council accommodates a child, that child is considered a ‘looked after child’ (LAC).
22. A council should have an individual care plan for the child, and a process to review those plans. The planning about the child should be with the aim of safeguarding and promoting the child’s welfare, preventing drift and ensuring the work needed is carried out. Where a child is in the care of the council, it must appoint an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) to oversee the care planning and ascertain the children’s wishes.
23. In some cases, a council may consider the child is suffering significant harm because of inadequate parenting. The council will need to take care proceedings in a Family Court to obtain a Care Order so that it can share the parental responsibility for the child with the parents. If the council considers the child should be placed for adoption, a council should seek a Placement Order as well.
24. Before doing this, the council should follow the pre proceedings guidelines to try to avoid the need for care proceedings.
25. Councils have a duty to seek out family members to care for the children where the parents are unable to do so. Family members can apply for a SGO where it is agreed or decided that the parents cannot offer long term reliable care.

Relevant case law

26. The courts have considered the question of whether arrangements for a child to live with a relative or friend are a private arrangement. In a key case, the Court said that, where a council has taken a major role in making arrangements for the child to be cared for by the friend or relative, it is likely to have been acting under its duties, under the Children Act, to provide the child with accommodation.
27. If the council is just facilitating a private law arrangement, the Court said councils must make clear to all parties that those holding parental responsibility for the child would continue to be responsible for the financial arrangements to care for the child (London Borough of Southwark v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182)
28. The Court said that, in order for the council to be able to side-step its duty, the carer must have been able to give ‘informed consent’ to accepting a child under a private fostering arrangement. To do this they must have known, because of what the council told them, that the child’s parent would continue to be financially responsible.

Special Guardianship Orders

29. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 came into force in December 2005. It provided a new legal status, SGOs, for non-parents who wished to care for children in a long term, secure placement.
30. A SGO, granted by a Court, gives the special guardian parental responsibility for a child who is not their own. It does not entirely remove the parental responsibility of the birth parent but limits it.
31. The SGO Regulations and Guidance sets out the possible support services including counselling, advice, information and financial support, which a council should provide. The then Department of Education and Skills (DfES) produced a suggested model means test for adoption and SGO financial support payments.
32. As well as regular financial support, financial assistance can be given for legal costs and to meet the child’s therapeutic needs. Councils can also give assistance for the purpose of ensuring the continuance of the relationship between the child and the special guardian including training, mediation and respite.
33. Councils have discretion to make other payments which they consider are necessary.

The SGO Regulations

34. I have considered the following SGO Regulations:
35. Regulation 3 says the Council must provide special guardianship support services. It defines these as:

• financial support;
• services to enable groups of special guardians or children to meet;
• assistance to support contact between the child and their parents or relatives;
• therapeutic services for the child;
• help for the continuance of the relationship between the child and special guardian; to include training for the special guardian to meet any special needs of the child and respite care;
• counselling, advice and information.

36. Guidance accompanying Regulation 3 says that local authorities can consider giving a person help in cash where it considers it appropriate. It gives as examples “giving a special guardian cash to pay a babysitter so they can have a break for an evening or money for petrol when a contact visit has been arranged”.
37. Regulation 6 covers financial support. The Council can pay this in circumstances including where:

• It is necessary to ensure the special guardian can look after the child;
• Where the child “needs special care which requires a greater expenditure of resources than would otherwise be the case because of illness, disability, emotional or behavioural difficulties or the consequences of past abuse or neglect”.

38. Guidance accompanying this says that: “payment of financial support is intended where the child’s condition is serious and long-term. For example, where a child needs a special diet or items such as shoes, clothing and bedding need to be replaced at a higher rate than would normally be the case with a child of similar age who was unaffected by the particular condition”.
39. The Regulation also says that payments can be made where the council considers it appropriate to make a contribution to the expenditure necessary for the purpose of accommodating and maintaining the child, including the provision of furniture and domestic equipment, alterations to and adaptations of the home, provision of means of transport, and provision of clothing, toys and other items necessary for the purpose of looking after the child.
40. Regulation 13 requires the Council to ensure that payments made to special guardians do not “duplicate any other payment available to the special guardian”. The guidance says that before paying any allowance the Council must therefore consider:

• The special guardian’s financial resources including any tax credit or benefit available because the child lives with them.
• The amount required by the special guardian in respect of their reasonable outgoings and commitments.
• The financial needs that relate to the child (for example, because of special diet or need for replacement bedding) and the resources of the child (for example a trust fund).

41. Any payments must also take account of any comparable fostering allowance. The Government has issued rates for the national minimum fostering allowance since 2008.
42. Regulation 14 requires local authorities to draw up a plan setting out what services it will provide and covering matters such as objectives for the child; how it will evaluate those and how it will monitor/review the plan. Councils must consider what services can be provided in the area the special guardians live. There must be a named person to monitor the provision of services. After deciding to provide support services, councils must give notice of that decision to the special guardian, including reasons for it.

The 2016 Regulations

43. In January 2017, the Regulations were updated and stated that, when disregarding the special guardian’s financial means, the council has discretion to disregard these when:

“any special care […] which requires a greater expenditure of resources than would otherwise be the case because of illness, disability, emotional or behavioural difficulties or the consequences of past abuse or neglect in relation to a child who has been previously looked after by the authority”.

44. Children, who were looked after immediately before the making of the SGO, may qualify for therapeutic help under the Adoption Support Fund. This is a national fund available to adopted children and those under a SGO, who are struggling, normally because of previous trauma.

The Council’s policy on Special Guardianship Allowances

45. The Council’s policy was updated in June 2019 to take account the Children and Social Work Act 2017.
46. The Council says that its allowances are aligned to its fostering allowances. It allows an enhancement to the weekly allowance in exceptional cases where the Council considers this is required by the individual’s circumstances. Examples are where an additional allowance may be paid where universal services cannot be accessed.
47. The Council does not means-test when the special guardian is on benefits.
48. The Council gives special guardians 28 days to make representations in response to a draft support package.

Key facts

49. In mid-2015, the Council had concerns about Ms X’s daughter and her partner’s care of Child C and were concerned about the added pressure on them when Child D was born. The Council placed Child C and Child D on a child protection plan in November 2015 on grounds that the parents were causing the children significant harm through emotional abuse.
50. On 8 December 2015, a Council social worker recorded that she had spoken to the children’s mother and that there was to be a family group conference with a view to identifying a family member who could care for the children. The note referred to ‘’kinship care”.
51. On 9 December, the children’s mother telephoned to say that she wanted the children placed in foster care.
52. On 10 December 2015, the children’s mother told the Council that her mother, Ms X, agreed to having Child C to stay and that Child D would go to her sister’s. Ms X lives in a different area, a seaside resort, Area Z.
53. On 14 December, a social worker visited Ms X, by which stage both Child C and Child D were with her. The social worker reported no concerns.
54. The Council started the pre-proceedings legal procedures, a pre-requisite before taking care proceedings. Both the mother and father were invited to attend a meeting with their solicitor to discuss the Council’s child protection concerns. They did not attend.
55. On 16 December, the Council held a meeting to discuss the forthcoming family group conference. The Council’s note of this meeting states that the Council needed to find out who else might put themselves forward to care permanently for Child C and Child D.
56. Ms X came over to stay in the Council’s area to sort out the arrangements for her grandchildren. On 5 January 2016, the Council recorded that there was an ongoing viability assessment of Ms X during ‘this temporary holding position’. Ms X says that the Council insisted she stayed in the Council’s area for two weeks while it carried out some checks on her suitability as a carer.
57. Ms X says that the Council told her that it was planning to remove Child C and Child D from her daughter’s care and that they would be placed in care. This was why she offered to care for them.
58. The Council says that Child C and Child D’s stay with Ms X was considered, at this stage, a private arrangement. Ms X disputes this because the Council had already indicated it would be starting care proceedings. Ms X says that the Council ‘placed’ the grandchildren in her care for their protection and therefore the Council should have regarded her as a family foster carer.
59. There was a review of the pre-proceedings process. The plan was to proceed to file an application at the Family Court for Care Orders on both Child C and Child D. Ms X contacted the Council regularly, after this, to see when the Council was due to start the care proceedings.
60. In early 2016, Ms X said that she was fearful that her daughter may seek to remove the children. On 5 February, the Council had completed its viability assessment of Ms X which was very positive.
61. On 17 February 2016, the Council filed its application in Court for Care Orders. That was the beginning of the legal proceedings.
62. On 20 February 2016, Ms X’s daughter removed Child C and Child D from Ms X’s care. Ms X could not keep the grandchildren because she had no legal basis to do so. It would appear that Ms X’s daughter was concerned about the implications of the children, not being in her care, now that the care proceedings had begun.
63. The Council had a first Court hearing for the care proceedings in March 2016 whereupon it asked for an interim Care Order, with a view to placing both children in foster care. The Court refused the application and an agreement was reached with Ms X’s daughter and the children remained in her care.
64. At this stage, Ms X was unsure whether she should put herself forward as a permanent family carer in case Child C and Child D were unable to remain with her daughter.
65. On 8 June 2016, the Court made interim Care Orders as Ms X’s daughter and her partner had not fully complied with the earlier agreement. The children were placed with a foster carer which the Court subsequently stated was entirely unsuitable. Ms X says that the Council should have placed the grandchildren with her, and the Court also stated this, subsequently, in its Judgment.
66. The Council had considered that the first foster placement was not suitable as the carer had a young person and their child in her care. On 15 June 2016, the Council placed the children with alternative foster carers.
67. Ms X and her daughter alleged that Child D had bruises; it was decided that he had hit himself with a toy. This allegation was thoroughly investigated, and no concerns were expressed about the foster carer.
68. Ms X put herself forward to be Child C and Child D’s carer and the Council completed a viability assessment, which was positive and supported the making of a SGO to her.
69. Subsequently the Council decided that the viability assessment did not have all the necessary information and the Council changed its mind and sought Care and Placements Orders. These Orders would have enabled the Council to place Child C and Child D for adoption.
70. Ms X asked to be a party to the Court proceedings so that she could challenge the Council’s care plan for the children. The Court granted this. The Council continued to oppose the making of a SGO. But the Guardian, appointed by the Court to consider the children’s best interests, recommended the Order be made. The Guardian also stated that, at this time, 2016, the children did not have any identified special needs.
71. The Court accepted that recommendation, expressing concern in the Court Judgement at the way the Council had handled the assessment of Ms X. It said also that the SGO support plan needed to be considered by the Council promptly.
72. As part of the Order, the Judge had asked the Council to respond to his criticisms within four weeks of his Judgment. The Council failed to do so and recently the Court has requested a response from the Head of Legal Services.

Events of 2016-2017

73. In December 2016, Ms X complained to the Council about the lack of support she was receiving as a special guardian. Ms X told the Council that Child C and Child D had emotional and behavioural problems and needed specialist therapy. Ms X felt she needed more financial assistance to be able to manage them, including funding for nursery fees in the holidays. She had also asked for money towards a cleaner, because her caring responsibilities and her considerable health problems, for which she receives disability benefits, meant that maintaining the home was difficult for her.
74. The Council considered Ms X’s complaint at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints’ procedure and sent her a final response in late January 2017. The Council said that, as the support plan did not include payments for a cleaner or nursery, or any other funding, it was not responsible for providing this. However, it offered to arrange a reassessment of Ms X’s support needs, which would include consideration of further funding.
75. Soon after this response, a social worker from the Council met Ms X to try to finalise the SGO support plan and discuss her support needs. She advised Ms X to speak to her General Practitioner (GP) about the children’s behaviour and ask for a referral to the local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) for an assessment. The social worker told Ms X she could use her financial allowance for nursery fees.
76. The social worker visited Ms X and the children again in March 2017 to discuss how she was managing and whether she needed more support. She gave her information about resources for children and families in Area Z and suggested she could approach a local children’s centre for help from a family support worker. She again advised Ms X to visit her GP to share her concerns about the children’s health and behaviour, which Ms X did. The social worker observed that Ms X was managing to keep her home tidy without a cleaner.
77. The Council did not offer any more financial support or any other assistance.
78. The Council says it had not identified any other areas of support that Ms X and the children needed. It said that there were services available in Area Z and the SGO allowance was sufficient. The Council agreed to monitor the situation until November 2019 and stated that Ms X could ask for a new support assessment if she thought this would be helpful.

Events of 2018-2019

79. Ms X submitted a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman in early 2018, stating that she was continuing to struggle with the children’s complex needs, which she did not feel were adequately acknowledged or addressed by the Council’s new support plan.
80. Ms X refused to sign the revised support plan accompanying the Council’s assessment. Ms X’s solicitor considered taking legal action, but legal aid was not granted and therefore Ms X could not pursue a legal remedy.
81. There was a referral to Ms X’s Children Services in Area Z. This resulted in an assessment from Area Z and it was initially agreed that Child C and Child D were children in need. But Area Z subsequently changed its mind and it stated that they should not be regarded as children in need. This now is the subject of a complaint from Ms X to Area Z.
82. Ms X says also that Area Z’s Occupational Therapist visited her and looked at the property and has confirmed that it is not suitable for the family and that the driveway is unsafe. Ms X has applied for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). This has been refused by Area Z. Ms X is appealing this decision and this matter should be finally decided in January 2020.
83. In July 2018, the Council’s advanced practitioner visited Ms X at her home. In view of the forthcoming long summer holidays, and the additional stress this would cause Ms X in looking after four children during this period, the Council agreed to help pay towards nursery fees for Child C and Child D during the summer break. The Council made it clear that this was a one-off exceptional payment in accordance with its policy.
84. The Council also agreed to recommend that Child C and Child D were assessed by a psychologist or therapist to identify therapeutic support needs that they may have. This report has now been produced and provided valuable input as to what is required for Child C and Child D and what services might assist.
85. The Council has applied for financial assistance for therapy from the Post Adoption Fund. The Adoption Support Fund has raised further questions so providing therapy for the grandchildren remains outstanding.

The Ombudsman’s decision of February 2019

86. The Ombudsman closed Ms X’s complaint on the basis that the Council agreed to “issue a new financial assessment setting out clearly Ms X’s financial resources and outgoings and what consideration the Council had given to Regulation 6, requiring it to consider whether it should make a contribution to additional expenditure for the purposes of maintaining the placement”.
87. The Council has reviewed Ms X’s SGO support plan and updated this in May 2019 to run for the year. The Council has not means-tested the SGO allowance as Ms X is in receipt of benefits. The current support plan contains the following support:

• Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy has been recommended for Child C. The Council planned to make an application to the Adoption Support Fund and has done so. The Adoption Support Fund has raised further questions so providing therapy for the grandchildren remains outstanding. I understand that this therapy has not started, as yet. The Council says that it has been difficult to find a therapist but an application to the Adoption Support Fund has been made;
• The Council agreed to contact the family General Practitioner (GP) for an autism assessment for Child D. This assessment has been completed and Child D has a preliminary diagnosis of ASD;
• The Council understood that Area Z would consider assessing both Child C and Child D to determine whether they require an assessment of their special educational needs. Area Z has considered this and has refused a statutory assessment for both children. Ms X knows that she can appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal;
• The Council has noted that Ms X’ s current property is ‘overcrowded’. It asked Area Z to expedite improvements to Ms X’s house, and it supported improving the safety of Ms X’s driveway. The Council wrote supporting letters to Area Z about Ms X’s need for a larger property. It has agreed to consider a discretionary payment, if required, in the event Area Z approve the DFG;
• The Council pays its foster carers currently a maintenance allowance of £217.69 per child between the ages of 0-11. It does have an enhanced rate where the level of care for the child is over and above that which is normally required. But it does not consider that Child C and Child D have met that criteria. At present the Council pays Ms X £435.38 per week. The Council has agreed an additional one-off payment for one week at Easter and two weeks in the summer holidays;

88. The Council had agreed petrol costs previously for the purposes of taking the grandchildren to nursery during the holidays. But this has not been agreed for 2019.
89. Ms X says that the Council pays all special guardians on benefit the highest SGO allowance rate. She considers that, as Child C and Child D receive Disability Living Allowance, this should be seen as evidence that they have additional needs and the Council should pay the enhanced rate.
90. The SGO has now been in existence for three years. The support plan will be passed to Area Z although the Council remains responsible for the financial support and annual financial assessment.

Analysis-complaint 1

91. The Ombudsman has to consider the basis for Child C and Child D’s stay with Ms X at the end of 2015 to February 2016.
92. The Council had concerns about the parents’ care of Child C and Child D in late 2015. They were subject to child protection plans. The Council had also started the pre-proceedings process for care proceedings and, on 8 December 2015, there is a record stating it was seeking kinship carers. So, it seems the Council had plans that the children needed to be accommodated.
93. Child C and Child D’s mother then asked for the children to go into care. Ms X was aware of this request and, to prevent the grandchildren being taken into care, she offered to look after them. As far as I can see, the Council did not explain to Ms X at this time that this would be seen as a private arrangement.
94. The Council considered it needed to carry out some assessment of Ms X and did so between December 2015 to February 2016. At the time the Council filed its Care Order application on 17 February 2016, Ms X still had the care of the grandchildren. However, she could not prevent her daughter from taking them on 20 February 2016.
95. In the context of the above facts, I think that there is enough evidence to say the Council was looking for a kinship placement for the grandchildren because of its child protection concerns and the Council had started the process of removing the children from the parents’ care, subject to the Court’s approval. Ms X only offered to look after the grandchildren because of these facts. Moreover, at the time the Council filed its interim Care Order application, the grandchildren were living with Ms X.
96. My view, therefore, is that the Council had an active involvement in the arrangements for the grandchildren to be with Ms X and it should have regarded her as a family foster carer and paid Ms X accordingly.
97. I cannot comment on the placement arrangements for the grandchildren once the care proceedings had begun. This is because of the restriction on the Ombudsman in respect of legal proceedings.
98. I note Ms X’s concerns about the second foster placement. But the Council looked into these concerns, at the time, and considered the foster carer had not acted inappropriately. I am satisfied that there is no fault here.
99. The failures in the Council’s SGO assessments of Ms X are matters which occurred within the legal proceedings. The Court was critical of the Council’s actions here. But the Ombudsman cannot comment or provide a remedy for this, besides noting the Court’s criticisms, because these actions occurred within the legal proceedings.

Complaint 2

100. Ms X has had concerns for some time about the lack of support to her and to the grandchildren under the SGO plan. As agreed, the Council reviewed this in May 2019, as requested.
101. It seems from the latest support plan that the Council recognises that Ms X’s accommodation is unsuitable, and it has supported her DFG application and indicated a willingness to consider a discretionary payment, once Area Z has reached a final decision. The Council could do no more at this stage.
102. However, Area Z has now refused the DFG and Ms X will approach the Council directly about this. Any further concerns, which she might have would be seen as a fresh complaint.
103. In respect of holiday periods, the Council has previously helped with nursery fees. It has now agreed that it will help with these fees for three weeks. In view of the fact that Ms X is on the highest SGO allowance, I consider that this is a decision for the Council to make and not one which the Ombudsman can question.
104. So, I do not find fault on these aspects of the support plan.
105. In respect of respite care, I am conscious that Ms X says that she cancelled the operation her son was due to have because she had no one to care for the other children. I cannot determine this one way or another. But the issue of respite care will be something, which will need to be considered if, and when, there is an alternative date for her son’s operation. However, as the SGO support plan has now be passed to Area Z, the Council says that Ms X should liaise with the social worker from Area Z about this.
106. In respect of therapy for Child D, the Council has applied to the Adoption Support Fund and there was agreement for particular therapy to be provided. But there have been difficulties in finding a suitable therapist in Area Z’s area. So, this remains outstanding and the Council will need to update Ms X on progress on this matter.
107. In respect of the enhanced rate, the Council says that Child C and Child D are not considered to have additional ‘over and above needs’ requiring financial support. The SGO guidance says that, where a child requires ‘special care’ requiring a greater expenditure of resources, because of emotional or behavioural difficulties or the consequences of past abuse and neglect, then an enhanced payment may be required.
108. Ms X says that both grandchildren receive Disability Living Allowance, which would indicate they have particular behavioural problems requiring additional resources, and this too is supported by the recent assessments of them, making them eligible for support from the Adoption Support Fund. In addition, Child D now has a diagnosis of autism although this is information has only recently been made available.
109. The Council says that it is good that Ms X has arranged this additional support. But the Council considers the Disability Living allowance, along with the SGO allowance, represents an appropriate amount for someone in Ms X’s situation to receive.
110. I appreciate the strain on Ms X in caring for four children while also managing her own ill health and other difficulties. But the SGO Regulations allows councils some discretion on these matters. While Ms X may not agree with the Council’s decisions, I consider that the Council has provided a fair explanation and it does have discretion about how much additional financial support the Council provides.

Agreed action

111. Within two months of the final date of the final statement, the Council will:

pay Ms X the family fostering rate for the time she looked after the children between December 2015 and February 2016 and apologise for not doing so at the time.

Back to top

Final decision

112. I consider that the Council has been at fault in complaint (1) in the way described and this has caused an injustice to Ms X and the grandchildren. The Council has agreed the recommended remedy.
113. In respect of complaint 2, the Council has reviewed the support plan and provided an explanation for the decisions it has made. The Council has discretion on how much additional financial support, which it provides, and I do not consider the Ombudsman has grounds to pursue this further.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

114. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters which were determined within the court proceedings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman