Kent County Council (19 013 265)

Category : Children's care services > Looked after children

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 06 Jul 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained the Council restricted contact with his two children who are subject to a care order and live in foster care to six supervised visits a year. He said the Council has failed to transition the children back to his care after agreeing to do so. The Council was not at fault. It carried out regular child in care reviews, considered the outcome of parent assessments and psychological assessments and considered the children’s views and wishes. It decided it was in the children’s best interests to remain in foster care and decided not to change Mr X’s contact arrangements. The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mr X with consultation documents after it excluded him from the child in care reviews. It has already apologised for this oversight, but I have made a service recommendation to prevent recurrence of this fault.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council has restricted contact with his two children who are subject to care orders and live in foster care. Mr X said the Council has failed to transition them back to his care as agreed. Mr X said he has undergone therapy and rehabilitation as recommended by the Council, however it has still not allowed him the contact he and the children should get. Mr X wants the Council to allow him increased contact with his children.
  2. Mr X says the Council’s handling of the contact arrangements with his children is causing him distress, uncertainty and preventing him from living with and looking after his children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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). 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 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)
  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)
  4. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. We spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information he provided.
  2. I considered the Council’s response to our enquiry letter.
  3. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Care proceedings and looked after children

  1. A Looked after Child (LAC) is any child who is subject to a care order or accommodated away from their family by a local authority under section 20 of Children Act 1989. The accommodation can be voluntary or by care order. In general, looked after children live with foster parents, in a residential children’s home or in residential settings such as schools or secure units.
  2. ‘Care proceedings’ mean a council has asked the court to decide who should care for a child. If a court grants a care order, it puts the child in the care of the council. It means parental responsibility is shared between the child’s parent/s or guardian and the council. The council is required to provide accommodation for the child, maintain and safeguard them, and promote their welfare. Parents have the right to be told and consulted about decisions, usually as part of a looked after child review.
  3. The law says councils must allow the child or children subject of the care order reasonable contact with their parents. The council has a general duty to promote contact with wide family members such as grandparents or siblings. If a parent is unhappy with the level of contact the council allows, they can try to resolve the situation amicably by talking to the child or children’s social worker. If they cannot resolve the situation amicably then they can apply to the court for an order for contact with a child in care.

Looked after child reviews

  1. LAC reviews (also known as child in care reviews) oversee the child’s progress and decide any necessary changes. Every LAC must have an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO). An IRO is a qualified and experienced social worker whose role is to oversee how well the council does its job as the corporate parent. The IRO ensures the council is meeting the child or children’s needs and that the child or children’s voice is being heard.
  2. The LAC review is the child’s meeting and discussion should take place before the meeting about who the child would like to attend. It is expected that both the children and their parents are present during LAC reviews however this depends on the circumstances of each individual case. In exceptional circumstances the IRO may decide the attendance of a child or parent, if this is not in the interest of the child, is not appropriate or practicable. If parents are excluded from the review, the IRO should explain the reasons and keep this decision under review. The IRO should ensure consultation documents are provided to excluded parents for them to complete prior to reviews, so their views can be considered and recorded.

Discharging care orders

  1. A child, parent, council, or any other person with parental responsibility can make an application to discharge a care order. The applicant must demonstrate to the court that there is a significant change in circumstances since the care order was granted.

What happened

  1. Mr X has two children, Q and R. In 2017 the court found the children had suffered significant emotional harm because of a relationship breakdown between Mr X and the children’s mother, Ms Y. It appointed a Children’s Guardian to represent the children’s rights and interests. The court granted interim care orders for the children and placed them in the care of the Council. The Council placed the children into foster care.
  2. Following the interim care order the Council allowed Mr X weekly contact with the children. Mr X was also allowed telephone contact with the children.
  3. An initial child in care review in mid-2017 showed the children had settled well in foster care. Interim care plans for the children recommended they remain in foster care. The Council began legal proceedings in August 2017 for full care orders.
  4. The Council carried out parent assessments for both Mr X and Ms Y. It recommended the children should not return to Ms Y’s care. However, it proposed a transition plan to enable the children to return to Mr X’s care.
  5. At the end of 2017, the Children’s Guardian raised concerns about the Council’s plans to transfer the children back to Mr X’s care. The Guardian recommended the Council carry out a family psychological assessment. The Council commissioned a consultant to carry this out.
  6. The consultant carried out the psychological assessment at the start of 2018. It determined with regards to Mr X that he may be able to parent the children but would need to develop relationships with them first. The assessment said Mr X required significant therapeutic input before the children could safely return to his care. At this point the consultant was aware Mr X and Ms Y were due to go to prison. The consultant said Mr X should undergo at least one year’s psychotherapy upon his release from prison.
  7. In early March 2018 Mr X and Ms Y were sentenced to prison.
  8. The children’s social worker submitted a final statement to the court. They said as Mr X was now in prison, he was unlikely to receive the therapeutic support he needed to meet the children’s needs. The social worker recommended the court issue a full care order for the children to remain in foster care. The social worker said if Mr X later evidenced a significant and sustained understanding of the children’s needs, he could ask the court to discharge the care order.
  9. The court granted full care orders for the children in April 2018. The order recommended the children remain in foster care. The final care plan dated April 2018 said the children would have contact with Mr X during the school holidays and this would be reviewed in line with the children’s wishes. The care plan said Mr X’s contact with the children should remain supervised at all times. The plan said the Council would review Mr X’s wish to care for the children through the child in care review process.
  10. In June 2018 Mr X was released from prison. The Council carried out a child in care review in July 2018 and decided Mr X’s contact should remain as supervised contacts six times annually during the school holidays. The IRO said Mr X should undergo a further psychological assessment to confirm whether he had reached a point where he could care for the children. The IRO decided it was not in the best interests of the children to invite Mr X or Ms Y to the review meetings. There are no records of the Council consulting with Mr X for his views prior to the review. Records show the IRO contacted Mr X following the meetings to feedback and discuss relevant issues.
  11. In July 2018 Mr X asked the Council for weekly contact with the children and for them to return to his care. The Council said Mr X would need to undergo another parenting assessment. Therefore, it said at this point it would continue with six annual supervised contacts.
  12. In August 2018, the Council appointed an independent social worker (ISW) to complete a parenting assessment of Mr X. The Council said this was so it could consider a fully independent view.
  13. The ISW met with Mr X in September 2018 and explained he had completed 14 counselling sessions and had another six months of sessions left.
  14. Records show the parenting assessment was subject to delays because the Council needed to obtain permission from the court to share relevant information and documents with the ISW.
  15. Mr X continued with his supervised contact with the children. The Council held another child in care review in December 2018. Records show the IRO met with Mr X and the children’s social worker in early January 2019. However, again there are no records of the Council consulting with Mr X prior to the review.
  16. The ISW completed their parenting assessment of Mr X in January 2019. They recommended Mr X undergo an updated psychological assessment. The ISW said they were unable to assess Mr X in the way a psychologist could. The Council decided to commission the original consultant to carry out an updated psychological assessment.
  17. Records show the psychological assessment was subject to delays due to unavailability of the consultant. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2019 about the delays in carrying out both the parenting and the psychological assessment. Mr X said the Council had not provided him with therapy in line with the psychologist’s recommendations in their initial assessment before he went to prison.
  18. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said the delays in carrying out the parenting assessment were because of issues with the court releasing documents to the ISW. With regards to the psychological assessment the Council said it considered commissioning an alternative consultant; however, decided against it due to the original consultant’s in-depth knowledge of the case. It said it gave Mr X the option of using a different consultant to carry out the assessment. However, it had no records of Mr X deciding on this. It told Mr X it had no duty to commission therapy for him. However, it was aware of the therapy he was undergoing and said the forthcoming psychological assessment would take that into consideration.
  19. Records show Mr X continued seeing the children through supervised contacts. The Council held another child in care review in May 2019. It did not consult with Mr X for his views prior to the review and it delayed meeting with him due to Mr X’s ongoing complaints about the matter. The Council said Mr X was due to meet with officers to discuss his ongoing concerns.
  20. The psychological consultant completed their updated assessment in July 2019. They recommended the children remain with their current foster carer and concluded they should not return to either Mr X or Ms Y’s care. The assessment considered Mr X’s therapies, the views of the social worker and the views and wishes of the children. The consultant concluded their initial psychological assessment which said the children could one day return to Mr X’s care as redundant, mainly due to the time Mr X spent in prison and the impact of that on the children.
  21. The Council met with Mr X in October 2019 to discuss his ongoing complaint and then wrote to him with its final response. The Council recognised it had not provided Mr X with the opportunity to consult prior to the child in care reviews. It apologised for this oversight and said it would ensure he was given that opportunity for future reviews. The Council said Mr X’s supervised visits would increase to one and a half hours. It would keep Mr X’s contact under review, dependent on the needs and wishes of the children.
  22. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

  1. The heart of Mr X’s complaint is around the level of contact he is allowed with the children and the Council’s change in stance about the plans to transition the children back to Mr X’s care.
  2. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and cannot criticise a Council’s decision unless there was fault in the way it was made. We can only look whether the Council has acted in line with relevant law and guidance.
  3. The records show that following the interim care order in 2017 which placed the children in foster care, the Council had planned to transition them into Mr X’s care. This was supported by the initial psychological assessment with the caveat that Mr X undergo a minimum of 12 months significant therapeutic input. However, Mr X was sentenced to a period in prison and during this time the court granted full care orders. The Council considered the relevant child in care reviews along with the views of the IRO, social worker and the children. It decided it was in the best interests of the children to carry out a new parent assessment and an updated psychological assessment. There was no fault in that decision.
  4. The final care plan stated Mr X would have supervised contact during the school holidays. The Council decided at a child in care review in July 2018 following Mr X’s release from prison to keep this arrangement at six yearly contacts during the school holidays. The records show the Council considered the level of contact at each child in care review. It considered observations of Mr X, views of the social worker and views of the children and decided to keep the level of contact the same. In reviewing the level of contact the Council has followed the process we would expect and is not at fault.
  5. The new parent assessment and the updated psychological assessment were subject to some delays. However, these delays were not down to Council fault. The parent assessment was delayed due to an issue with the court releasing documentation to the ISW. The psychological assessment was delayed because of the unavailability of the consultant. Therefore, while frustrating for Mr X, I do not find the delays were because of Council fault.
  6. The records show the Council considered the outcome and conclusions of both the new parent assessment and the updated psychological assessment. It considered these alongside child in care reviews, contact observations and the thoughts and wishes of the children. It decided it was in the children’s best interests for them to remain in foster care. The Council followed the process we would expect and is not at fault.
  7. The Council carried out child in care reviews at the appropriate times and the records of these are thorough and detailed. It decided prior to Mr X’s release from prison not to invite him to these meetings. The reasons are appropriately documented in the review paperwork and this decision was regularly reviewed. There was no fault in the decision not to include Mr X at the child in care reviews. However, guidance says the IRO should ensure excluded parents are provided with consultation papers prior to reviews so any views can be considered and recorded. The Council failed to provide Mr X with consultation papers for all the child in care reviews up to October 2019. That was fault. It prevented Mr X from having his views formally recorded at each review. The Council has already apologised for this oversight which is an appropriate remedy.
  8. Ultimately, the care order granted by the court remains in place and the children remain in foster care. The Council has considered all the relevant information and remains of the view that the children should remain in foster care. The Council said it would continue to regularly review Mr X’s contact with the children and consider adjustments as necessary going forward. It is open for Mr X to apply to the court to discharge the care order if he believes his circumstances have significantly changed since it was granted.

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to review its child in care review procedures to ensure it provides all parents excluded from reviews with the relevant consultation documents.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault in how it considered Mr X’s contact with the children. It was at fault for failing to provide him with consultation documents prior to child in care reviews. However, it has already taken action to remedy any injustice this caused.

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