Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council handled care and contact arrangements for her grandchildren. We have not investigated all aspects of the complaint because some matters have been considered by the court. The Council took longer than expected to arrange therapy for Mrs B as recommended by the court. It cannot show that it considered the timing of the therapy during this delay, nor that it explained to Mrs B why it was taking so long. This caused Mrs B significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of the delay.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains that the Council failed to:
• support her while she had care of her grandchildren, leading to their unwarranted removal from her care;
• make appropriate care arrangements for the children following the care order; and
• make proper arrangements for her contact with the children.
2. Mrs B says that the Council’s failures have had a huge and tragic impact on the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

Complaints about the care arrangements for the children

5. The law sets out who may make a complaint to the Ombudsman.
6. The court ordered that the children be placed in the care of the Council. It is then for the Council to decide a suitable setting for the children, such as foster care. I have considered whether Mrs B can bring a complaint on behalf of the children. Mrs B no longer has parental responsibility for the children.
7. Following the court order, the Council shared parental responsibility with the parents. We would consider a person who has parental responsibility to be a suitable person to bring a complaint on behalf of a child. However, as Mrs B does not have parental responsibility, I have decided that I cannot investigate her complaint that the Council failed to make suitable care arrangements for the children.

Matters considered in court

8. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
9. As part of the care proceedings, the court decided that the children should be in foster care. It also decided on how the Council should support contact between Mrs B and the children. This means I have not investigated the contact arrangements themselves. Although I have looked at how the Council kept to these arrangements.

The timeframe of my investigation

10. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
11. The court granted a final care order in September 2022. This included how the Council should arrange contact between Mrs B and the children and that it should provide Mrs B with therapy to support her relationship with the children.
12. Mrs B complained to the Council in July 2023 and it completed its complaints process in January 2024. Mrs B did not complain to us until July 2024. This means that we would normally only investigate the Council’s actions from July 2023. I have considered Mrs B’s circumstances and that she has had a very distressing time, she was part of time-consuming court processes and there was significant change in her family’s circumstances. I have also taken into account that understandably, Mrs B might allow the Council time to put the court’s recommendations into place and resolve any initial problems. However, I can see that Mrs B was in contact with the Council and so I would have expected her to start the complaints process sooner and complain to the Ombudsman sooner. I have decided that I can investigate matters from July 2023 to July 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
15. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

16. Mrs B’s grandchildren had been living with her for some time. The family situation was very difficult and in 2021, the children left Mrs B’s care. Later, the Council started care proceedings. In September 2022, the court granted a final care order. This placed the children in the Council’s care. The care proceedings involved various assessments. As part of the proceedings, the Council agreed to fund therapy for Mrs B to support her relationship with the children, and it set out a proposal for contact arrangements between Mrs B and the children.

Family time and contact between Mrs B and the children

17. I have not considered whether the care plans allowed sufficient contact arrangements. This was considered by the court both at the time of the final order, and sometimes when the Council returned to court as individual situations arose. I have read the information provided by Mrs B and discussed the issues with her. I have also considered the case notes of the children (from July 2023).
18. In line with the law, the Council has regularly visited the children to review how the arrangements are working. The Council has also completed the formal reviews of the care plan. The file records show that the Council kept the contact arrangements under review and took into account the individual needs of each child.
19. The Council has supported contact in accordance with the care plans for two of the children. This has not always run smoothly and the Council had to review the arrangements, in terms of frequency and at times, how and where contact should take place. However, it is clear from the files that this was in accordance with the Council’s proper consideration of the children’s needs and wishes.
20. Contact has not happened in accordance with the care plans with one of the children. The case notes and formal reviews show that the Council has ensured the child is supported to participate in contact. Again, there is no fault by the Council here.

Therapy for Mrs B

21. As part of the court proceedings culminating in September 2022, the Council agreed to fund therapy for Mrs B to support her relationship with the children so that they might be returned to her care. The court proceedings included various assessments of Mrs B and the children and the psychiatrist recommended a type of therapy. The final care plans for each of the children as presented to the court say that Mrs B should first complete individual therapy. The court did not set a timescale for when the Council should provide this.
22. The Council consulted a therapy provider in July 2023. It apologised to Mrs B for the delay. The Council wanted to make sure this type of therapy was appropriate and so in August and September it attempted to contact the psychiatrist that had advised on the court proceedings. The Council could not reach the psychiatrist and so it started sessions with the therapy provider in October 2023.
23. The Council has explained that the therapy took longer than normal to commission because it recognised the care proceedings had been very difficult for Mrs B and the dynamics of the family were unusually complex. It says it first needed some specialist assessments, the plan for therapy was complex with specific recommendations and so it was hard to make sure the therapist was appropriate; and the Council had to make sure that the children’s needs were prioritised. The Council has also explained that although the therapy started later than expected, there was significant social work intervention with the family and it needed to make sure that therapy came at the right time to benefit the children.
24. I appreciate that the Council had to take extra care to provide the most appropriate therapy and that timing was also an important consideration. However, for Mrs B the therapy was a key part of moving forward with her wish to have the children back in her care. Any delay here would have been incredibly distressing for Mrs B and I can see from the case notes that she regularly asked about progress on this. The need for therapy was identified during the 2022 care proceedings and the therapy did not start for a year. The Council may have good reason for this delay but there is no evidence on the file that it considered when to start therapy or that it explained this to Mrs B. This was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Action

25. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mrs B. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay to Mrs B a symbolic amount of £300 in recognition of the distress caused to her by the delay in providing therapy to her.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman