Suffolk County Council (21 006 296)

Category : Children's care services > Looked after children

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 21 Apr 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr and Mrs C said the Council failed to respond adequately to their enquiries about the care of their granddaughter, X. The Council was at fault for a failure to communicate adequately during early 2021. This fault caused injustice to Mr and Mrs C who were distressed by these failures. The Council has already apologised and no further remedy is required.

The complaint

  1. The complainants, Mr and Mrs C, complained that the Council has failed to respond to their emails from February 2021 onwards.
  2. Mr and Mrs C say this caused them injustice because they felt ‘unheard’. They say they have not been given the information the courts said they are entitled to.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. 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.
  3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Mr and Mrs C. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council asking for further information. I wrote a draft decision.
  2. Mr and Mrs C and the organisation 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

What should happen

Councils’ duties

  1. Councils have a duty to provide accommodation for any child in need in their area who appears to them to need accommodation because:
  • there is no-one who has parental responsibility for the child;
  • the child is lost or abandoned; or
  • the person who has been caring for the child is prevented, whether permanently or temporarily and for whatever reason, from providing suitable accommodation or care.
  1. The council may not provide accommodation in these circumstances if the person who has parental responsibility objects. It can either provide the accommodation or arrange for accommodation to be provided. A child accommodated in this way is a ‘Looked After Child’ (LAC). (Children Act 1989, section 20)

Full care order

  1. Where a council has concerns that a child is in need of protection, if its concerns are serious, it should apply to the court for a care order.
  2. The courts aim to interfere as little as possible. Removing children from their families should be a last resort. The court should only remove a child from a family if it considers it necessary.
  3. If a council has serious concerns, it will apply for a full care order which means it will share parental responsibility for the child with their parents or guardians. The council will decide where the child should live and with whom.
  4. Councils should consult parents and guardians about important decisions but the council has the final say on all important decisions relating to the child

What happened

  1. X was born in 2009. She has various disabilities and behavioural problems. Her birth parents are unable to look after her and the Council has been involved in her care for some years. Until 2018, she lived with her grandparents, Mr and Mrs C. The Council also applied for and received a full care order for X in 2018. In 2018, X went to live at a residential care home for children with disabilities, Home 1. Home 1 had a school, School 1, on site. Both Home 1 and School 1 were for younger children up to the age of 14.
  2. Mr and Mrs C were also made X’s legal guardians in 2018.
  3. In late 2020, an annual review found that X needed to go to a school for older children but recommended that she should continue to live at Home 1 until mid-2022 to provide her with stability. The Council identified School 2, another specialist school which was 40 miles from Home 1. The Council said X would be accompanied by staff from Home 1 on the journey from Home 1 to School 2.
  4. X made it clear, throughout this period that she did not wish to see Mr and Mrs C. They visited Home 1 on one occasion, but X would not see them. Staff recorded that X was unsettled after the meeting. They asked Mr and Mrs C not to visit again though they offered to meet them to discuss X’s welfare.
  5. In spring 2020, X visited School 2 with a view to attending school there. When they learned of this possible placement. Mr and Mrs C did not approve because they worried about the travel arrangements. They provided the Council with a list of other schools they felt would be suitable. Mr and Mrs C visited School 2 and, shortly thereafter, it withdrew the offer of a place to X.
  6. Social workers stayed in contact with Mr and Mrs C throughout 2020. X continued to refuse to see them. Mr and Mrs C applied to the court for increased contact. In December 2020, the court made a child arrangement order that stated the following:
    • Mr and Mrs C could send X cards and letters no more than once a month.
    • Mr and Mrs C could send X small presents for special occasions and/or once every eight weeks.
    • If X wanted face-to-face contact with Mr and Mrs C, this would be arranged.
    • A family support coordinator would facilitate these arrangements. Mr and Mrs C would get monthly updates by email.
    • A therapist would work with Mr and Mrs C for at least 6 sessions. The Council should consider funding for that therapist to work with X’s therapist.
  7. School 2 renewed its offer of a place to X, and she began to attend there is autumn 2021. In November 2021, she moved to a different residential home, Home 2 which catered for older children. Mr and Mrs C opposed both the moves.

Complaint

  1. In June 2021, Mr and Mrs C complained to the Council saying that it had failed to communicate with them appropriately about X.
  2. A senior manager from the department responded in late June 2021, saying that the Council had sometimes failed to communicate properly. She undertook to share information with them in future and offered to speak with Mr and Mrs C and to forward their views to the Council’s Complex Case Panel.
  3. Mr and Mrs C were not satisfied with this response and renewed their complaint. In particular, they stressed their concerns about the possibility of injury to X during the journeys between Home 1 and School 2.
  4. The Council provided a stage two complaint response in July 2021. It dealt fully with the Complaint, apologised again for any failures of communication and referred Mr and Mrs C to the Ombudsman if they remained dissatisfied.

Was there fault causing injustice?

  1. The Council has accepted, in its complaint responses of June and July 2021 that it sometimes failed to communicate effectively with Mr and Mrs C. This was fault. Mr and Mrs C were distressed by this which was an injustice.
  2. The Council says this was because of pressures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman’s position is that the pandemic did not excuse failures though we made allowance for the difficulties it caused councils.
  3. The Council has apologised to Mr and Mrs C and, in my view, this is an appropriate outcome. No further remedy is required.
  4. Mr and Mrs C say that the Council continues to communicate with it poorly. However, I have seen no evidence of this and it is clear that much of their frustration is caused by the fact that the Council has not agreed with their suggestions over X’s education.
  5. While Mr and Mrs C are legal guardians of X and must be informed about X’s care, the Council is responsible for providing that care and for making decisions about where X should live and go to school.
  6. Mr and Mrs X also clearly feel frustrated by the fact that they are unable to see X. But this is X’s choice. Mr and Mrs C say they believe that social workers have influenced X’s decision but I have seen no evidence that this is the case.
  7. The terms of the order of December 2020 are clear that contact must be with X’s consent and, to date, I have seen no evidence that she is willing to provide this.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council was at fault for a failure to communicate adequately with Mr and Mrs C. It has apologised so no further remedy is required. I have closed my investigation.

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