Summary: Miss B and Ms C complain the Council has failed to support their contact with Miss B’s child, D (Ms C’s grandchild) who is looked after in long-term foster care. They say the Council has not allowed them input to any decisions relating to D or taken their views into account. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to apologise, make payments and change its procedures, particularly with Child in Care meetings going forward.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall call Miss B and Ms C. complain the Council has failed to arrange and support contact with Miss B’s son (Ms C’s grandchild) D. They say it has communicated poorly with them and has failed to address their complaints.
2. Miss B and Ms C say they made more complaints, which were ‘withheld’ from investigation by the IO. I am not investigating those complaints. In order for the complaints to be investigated, Miss B and Ms C would have had to sign a statement of complaint, which would set down the scope of the investigation. Issues that were not included within that statement would not be investigated.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Miss B and Ms C’s complaints. However, some of the complaints they made to me relate to things that they say happened in court or are court matters more generally. I explain this further at the end of the statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
8. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, such as the court or if we believe the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
9. 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.
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 considered the information submitted by Miss B and Ms C with their complaint and spoke to them both on the telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and assessed its response. I have also referred to relevant law and guidance that I have then cited in this statement. I sent Miss B, Ms C and the Council a copy of my draft decision and took comments they made into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

12. The Council held a full Care Order for D from March 2016 when D was 6 years old. The Child Law Advice website says; ‘Where a child is made subject to a Care Order, the Local Authority is given Parental Responsibility and will share it with current Parental Responsibility holders, for example, the child’s parents. However, the Local Authority can exercise their Parental Responsibility above that of current Parental Responsibility holders insofar as necessary to safeguard the welfare of a child’.
13. Under section 34 of the Children Act 1989, there is a duty on the local authority to provide parents, and other people with an interest, ‘a reasonable amount of contact’ (according to Coram Law, which is a law firm specialising in children’s matters). The level of contact can be set out by the court but is often left to a Council’s discretion. The Council has a great deal of flexibility to decide how much contact is ‘reasonable’ on a case by case basis. The way a parent, or anyone with an interest, can challenge this is through the courts.
14. D’s care is reviewed and managed through regular Child in Care (CiC) meetings.
15. Miss B and Ms C made nine complaints about the care given to D, which were considered through the statutory (children’s) complaints procedure as set out in the relevant statutory guidance ‘Getting the best from complaints’, 2006. The second stage of that complaints procedure is for an investigation to be carried out by an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP). The third, and final, stage is for a panel to be convened to review the complaint.

What happened

16. The IO’s report was dated August 2017 although the adjudication letter was not sent until October 2017. The IO upheld three complaints, did not uphold three complaints and partially upheld three complaints. Although the IP disagreed, the adjudication officer agreed with the IO. Miss B and Ms C remained unhappy and submitted comprehensive comments in November 2017 although a Stage Three panel was not convened until July 2018.
17. I set out each of Miss B’s and Ms C’s complaints in turn, below, and identify the findings made at Stages Two and Three of the statutory process.
18. Since my investigation began, Miss B and Ms C have begun court action. They informed me the judge wished to see the complaints they had submitted to the Council. They also informed me they were discussing contact also with a view to having D returned to the care of Miss B. This puts some of their complaints outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The Council failed to make adequate arrangements to facilitate contact on specific occasions.

19. This complaint centred on contact being rearranged or cancelled up to April 2017. These complaints were upheld. Miss B said that on occasions she had bought perishable food for D that she could not then give D because contact was cancelled.
20. One of the occasions where Miss B felt the Council should have made adequate arrangements was D’s birthday in 2017.
21. The Stage Three panel did not consider this complaint because it had been upheld at Stage Two.

In June and July 2016, the social worker failed to arrange a meeting we had requested to address our concerns about contact.

22. The IO upheld this complaint about arrangements for a meeting on contact matters although this meeting did go ahead late.
23. The Stage Three panel did not consider this complaint because it had been upheld at Stage Two.

(A named officer) made statements about us which are not true. This was confirmed by (another named officer).

24. This complaint, which was not upheld at Stage Two, stemmed from a conversation Ms C had with D at a contact session about comments D had made to a social worker through care proceedings. This resulted in D saying D ‘had made up the comments…and Ms C then praised D for admitting (this)’. As a result, Miss B and Ms C said the social worker had said things in court about them, which D had disproved although the allegation was not disproved at the time of the court hearings.
25. The IO said that although Ms C ‘felt it was appropriate to discuss this in detail with D because D had brought it up, (an officer) was concerned that D had to explain (this) during a contact session, which was meant to be a happy, pleasurable experience for D’. The IO also suggested that, sometimes, children tell adults what they think they might want to hear, which, he felt, could be the case here.

Despite the judge having ordered that contact should be outside of the contact centre, the Council delayed implementing this decision.

26. The IO partially upheld the complaint on the grounds contact should be reviewed through the CiC meetings but had not been.
27. The Council accepted contact in the community should have been arranged sooner for Miss B and that it had been delayed by approximately a year. Although the Child in Care Review Meetings (CiC) could have discussed contact, and what was in D’s best interests, it did not do so.
28. The Stage Three panel decided the complaint should not be upheld because this was a matter for the Council and not the judge. Although the judge might express an opinion; it was for the Council to decide.

The Council failed to provide us with minutes of the Child in Care (CiC) meetings

29. This was partly upheld as some minutes had not been circulated even though they were available. The IO said the Council should send minutes out to all invitees whether they attended or not (in line with the IP’s view) otherwise they risked not knowing the date of the following meeting. The Stage Three panel agreed with this.

Communication with us has been consistently poor.

30. The IO said that he did not find the Council’s communication ‘has been consistently poor’ so did not uphold the complaint. He did, however, recommend the Council apologise ‘for the shortcomings in its communications identified’. One aspect of the complaint made by Miss B and Ms C was that during the CiC meeting on 15 May 2017, Miss B requested she be allowed to attend parents evenings and sports day, to take D to swimming lessons and to be informed of any trips taken.
31. The Stage Three panel partially upheld this complaint given there were examples of poor communication.

The Council has failed to take reasonable steps to resolve our complaint

32. This was upheld with the IO giving several examples of where the Council had not responded to complaints or delayed doing so. The Stage Three panel did not consider this complaint because it had been upheld at Stage Two

The Council failed to implement what was agreed.

33. The Council accepted this was fault, particularly in relation to a meeting held on 28 July 2016 where two out of four actions were still outstanding in August. The issues, which were not followed up, were for the social worker to speak to the foster carer about D overhearing conversations and to speak to D about why D was in care.
34. At the Stage Three panel, Ms C said this complaint should be fully upheld as what had been agreed had not been implemented. The Council also discussed contact and said it had been cancelled due to reasons such as staff and venues and that the reasons ‘need to be better communicated’ to Miss B and Ms C.

The authority tried to prevent mediation and complaints been (sic) escalated.

35. This refers to a mediation meeting, which was scheduled for 16 March 2017. This complaint was not upheld. The IO commented on ‘some inconsistency’ in the Council’s approach as part of the reason for not holding the meeting was that Ms C wanted it to cover new complaints the Council had not had an opportunity to respond to. There was no evidence that mediation hadn’t taken place because of the Council trying to ‘prevent’ it. This was also agreed by the Stage Three panel.

Fault and injustice

The Council failed to make adequate arrangements to facilitate contact on specific occasions.

36. Miss B has now asked the court to consider contact issues, which puts this outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Although Ms C says the Council has failed to disclose records and information, this would be a matter for the court to address.

In June and July 2016, the social worker failed to arrange a meeting we had requested to address our concerns about contact.

37. The court is considering contact issues and has asked for historical matters to be included, which puts this outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

(A named officer) made statements about us which are not true. This was confirmed by (another named officer).

38. If allegations made in court are fabricated Miss B and Ms C needed to take this back to court. As Miss B and Ms C are now in court, I consider this is something that could be raised there.

Despite the judge having ordered that contact should be outside of the contact centre, the Council delayed implementing this decision.

39. Although the IO did not have a copy of the court order when he considered this at Stage Two, it was agreed unlikely a judge could or would be so specific about contact arrangements. Ms C says the judge had asked for a contact assessment to take place so the matter could be moved forward but it did not take place.
40. Miss B and Ms C have asked the judge to look at contact. This places the matter outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The Council failed to provide us with minutes of the Child in Care (CiC) meetings

41. The Council has noted that a CiC meeting was held on 28 February 2019 but minutes were not sent to Ms C on the grounds she did not have parental responsibility. Given Ms C has been receiving minutes (and attending separate meetings) I consider this is fault causing distress to Ms C and the Council should apologise for not sending minutes yet not telling her why it has reconsidered its decision to involve her in these meetings. It should tell her why now.
42. The Council should ask Miss B how she wishes to receive the minutes.
43. There is no fault in the Council holding split CiC meetings. However, the Council could only find a note of one meeting the Council officer had with Miss B. There is nothing in the CiC minutes to suggest either Miss B or Ms C’s views had been taken into account or even conveyed to the main meeting. This is fault and it has caused Miss B and Ms C understandable distress. The Council should make a payment of £200 (£100 each) to reflect this. A senior officer is now going to speak with all relevant officers to ensure that where a parent, child or any other party has a separate meeting to the main CiC Review, it is clearly documented within the review record.

Communication with us has been consistently poor.

44. Given there were elements of the communication that were ‘poor’ even if not ‘consistently’ – the Stage Three panel was right to agree this complaint was partly upheld. There is no evidence the Council has addressed Miss B’s requests in relation to school and activities for D which is fault that has caused Miss B time and trouble in trying to get answers. The Council should apologise and put this on the agenda for the next CiC meeting.
45. Miss B also complains she was not told D was only attending school part time. This is something she should have been made aware of as soon as possible. This is fault causing her distress. The Council should apologise. It should take steps to update her with these matters in the CiC meetings through placing standing items on the agenda if it does not do so already.

The Council has failed to take reasonable steps to resolve our complaint

46. The delay in addressing Miss B and Ms C’s complaints is fault and it caused them time and trouble getting answers. The Council should make a payment of £200 (£100 each) to address this fault.
47. With the Council’s complaints handling following this, I can see the Council produced the Stage Two report in good time and tried to hold the Stage Three panel promptly after receiving evidence from Miss B and Ms C. There was some delay in this, and some delay in issuing the findings of the panel, but I consider an apology is appropriate.

The Council failed to implement what was agreed.

48. Miss B and Ms C have asked the court to consider the Council’s actions. This places the matter outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The authority tried to prevent mediation and complaints been (sic) escalated.

49. The IO and Stage Three panel could find no evidence that mediation was cancelled because of the Council trying to ‘prevent’ it. Miss B and Ms C have complained about the Council’s actions in court, which puts this matter outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Other issues

50. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the Council and Miss B and Ms C as to D’s wellbeing and happiness with his foster carer. Although I can see a number of professionals are involved with D, the Council should ask D whether an advocate or independent visitor would be appropriate. This would ensure D’s voice would be heard clearly in proceedings that affect D even if D was not present. The Council has now appointed an advocate for D.
51. The Council has told Miss B, and us, that D is not given energy drinks before contact. Although Miss B tells me D has said D regularly consumes energy drinks at placement, even though it may not be possible for an under-18 to buy them; it is not illegal for an under-18 to drink them. The Council tells me D has a healthy eating plan, which is appropriate given Miss B is concerned about his weight. If there was no improvement, this might prompt the Council to re-check. The Council is correct that everyone involved with D should be supporting D with healthy eating. Ms C says there are notes of a meeting in February 2019 suggesting D was consuming too many energy drinks but this is after she came to us with her complaint. I am not considering this matter further as the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
52. Miss B says her solicitor was advised by the Council she could meet with Children’s Services staff to discuss ongoing concerns. She says this meeting has never gone ahead. This is something she should discuss with her solicitor and the court can also consider it.
53. The Council says Ms C holds D’s passport although I have seen evidence she returned it to the Passport Office. The Council wants D to have a new passport but before it reports it as lost, it should check whether the Passport Office received D’s previous passport. Although I can see Miss B is concerned about D’s safety travelling abroad without her, the Council needs to ensure D is able to benefit from a range of experiences (including travelling abroad) as a responsible corporate parent.
54. Ms C complained the foster carer had lost or destroyed items that belonged to G and failed to return them. She complained to the Council. I have seen evidence she was given information about claiming for these on 19 July 2016. This fits with the outcome she wanted from her complaint made on 12 July 2016. I am not investigating this matter further.

Agreed action

55. For the Council to apologise to Miss B and Ms C for the fault identified in this statement unless it is clear it has done so already. It should also make a payment to them of £200 each for the time, trouble and distress its actions have caused.
56. In relation to CiC meetings:
1. For the Council to explain to Ms C why it has now decided not to involve her in CiC meetings if this is the case, given she has previously held parental responsibility for D.
2. For the Council to review contact through CiC meetings going forward as a standing agenda item. The social worker should also consider Miss B’s requests to be more involved with D through taking D swimming and attending school meetings and this should be noted at the CiC meeting.
3. For a senior officer to speak with all relevant officers to ensure that where a parent, child or any other party has a separate meeting to the main CiC Review, it is clearly documented within the review record. There should be evidence of information flows within and between both meetings. The Council should conduct periodic file reviews (in supervision with officers) to check this is being done.
4. For the Council to ask Miss B how she wishes to receive minutes if she does not have a secure email address.
57. For the Council to consider addressing any outstanding issues raised by Miss B and Ms C in relation to D’s care if it has not yet done so. This will be after the court case has concluded, involve matters not considered by the court and will not include matters I have considered here.
58. For the Council to approach D to ask if D wants an advocate or Independent Visitor (this action is now complete)
59. For the Council to obtain a new passport for D as soon as possible.
60. The Council is expected to commence carrying out these actions, including amending its procedures, within four months of the date of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

61. I have reached a decision of fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

62. I did not investigate the parts of Miss B and Ms C’s complaint that they say happened in court or relate to court matters. This is because such matters can only be addressed by the court and not by the Ombudsman. The law does not allow us to look at complaints about things that happened in court and we cannot make decisions that are for the court to make such as where children should live or about contact.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman