Summary: Mrs P complains the Council did not offer suitable support to her during a foster care placement. She also says the Council treated her unfairly and was responsible for sharing inaccurate information with her foster care agency. We found the Council failed to provide suitable support to Mrs P during the foster placement. The Council failed to share information and concerns with Mrs P and provide her with the means to support the young person staying with her and to make decisions in the young person’s best interests. Also, the Council failed to properly record key incidents about the foster placement with Mrs P and was responsible for reporting inaccurate information to her agency. These faults caused Mrs P to feel excluded and not part of the parental team responsible for the young person. We have therefore recommended a number of remedies.

The complaint

1. Mrs P was a foster carer for an independent fostering agency. Independent fostering agencies are contracted by local authorities to provide foster care placements for children in the local authorities care. Independent fostering agencies provide care for children from a number of local authorities.
2. This means Mrs P’s role was to care for a child or children placed with her by that independent fostering agency in accordance with the fostering regulations. The child is always the responsibility of the local authority who took the decision that the child should become ‘looked after’ (Children Act 1989).
3. In summary, Mrs P complains about how the Council dealt with her concerns about the placement and her resulting formal complaints on the matter. Specifically, Mrs P alleges the following:
1. The Council was responsible for sharing information about Mrs P which breached data protection legislation.
2. She was excluded from the parental team responsible for the YP and was not provided with feedback relating to any concerns held.
3. She was not provided with key documents and information, such as written delegated authority for the YP and suitable medical consents.
4. The Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) was authoritarian in approach and falsely reported the circumstances relating to how Mrs P gave notice when giving notice that she wanted the placement to end.
5. The IRO and YP’s social worker declined to attend a conference call for a scheduled Placement Disruption Meeting. This is typically organised when a placement ends so to gain an insight into the disruption of the placement.
6. The Council failed to provide sufficient support to Mrs P as a foster carer and give her suitable information regarding the roles of professionals.
7. The IRO and YP’s social worker sent two emails to Mrs P’s foster care agency outlining concerns which were untrue. She says the concerns were not contextualised and neither professionals had evidence to substantiate them.
8. The Council failed to exercise due diligence and cross reference known and shared information relating to the YP.
9. The YP’s placement referral should have been more comprehensive, and the Council did not arrange a placement planning meeting.
10. The Council failed to support a planned placement ending for the YP when she left Mrs P’s home.
11. The Council’s social worker introduced a birth family member to the YP and failed to deliver meaning the YP was let down.
4. Mrs P has described the situation as being subjected to corporate bullying. She said her overall wellbeing was negatively impacted. As a desired outcome, she wants a review of the complaint process and that the Council be investigated for serious failings in respect of breaching data protection legislation.

Back to top

What I have investigated

5. Both looked after children and foster carers are entitled to complain under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
6. The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) require local authorities to have a formal procedure for complaints about children. Specifically, councils must have procedures in place for children and their representatives who wish to make a representation or complaint about its relevant child services team. This includes a three-stage complaint process (local resolution, investigation and review panel). It also specifies the involvement of an independent investigator at the investigation stage with oversight by an independent person.
7. Once a complaint has been through the full statutory procedure, unless the complainant points to faults or omissions in the Council’s consideration, it should not require re-investigating. The Regulations specify that the Council-appointed investigator should be independent. They may be an employee of the Council but should have had no involvement with the subject matter of the complaint. The process should be overseen by an independent person (who is neither an elected member nor an employee). Therefore, their findings should be relied upon, unless there are flaws in the process or it has clearly not been robust enough.
8. I have investigated all parts of Mrs P’s complaint with consideration to the fact these have been through the full statutory complaints procedure. I have not however investigated Mrs P’s concerns relating to data protection legislation. I explain at the end of this statement why I will not, as a matter of law, investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

9. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
10. 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).
11. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I have reviewed Mrs P’s complaints to the Council and Ombudsman. I have also had regard to the responses of the Council, particularly its stage two investigation report by an independent investigation officer. I have also considered the Council’s supporting documents and applicable law and statutory guidance.
13. I invited both Mrs P and the Council to comment on a draft of my decision. Each of their comments were fully considered before a final decision was made.

Back to top

My findings

Background and legislative framework

The Children Act 1989

14. Children who are looked after by a council may be placed in foster care. A looked after child may be voluntarily accommodated under s20 of the Children Act 1989. They may also be the subject of a legal order such as a care order under s31 of the Children Act. Foster care arrangements may be short or long term. Carers may also foster on an emergency basis or provide respite care.
15. Councils have their own foster carers and may also use foster carers from an independent fostering agency. They may only place children with approved foster carers. Where councils use their own foster carers, they assess and use a specialist fostering panel to approve carers.
16. Councils must ensure that a social worker regularly visits children it looks after including those in foster placements. All children in foster care must have a care plan which is reviewed regularly in meetings chaired by an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO). The care plan must include information about the child’s health, care and educational needs.
17. Children placed in foster care have a right for their views to be taken into account. The appointed IRO must talk to the child individually about their placement before reviews to ensure the child’s view is listened to and to protect their best interests.

Independent fostering agencies

18. The Fostering Services Regulations 2011 (the Regulations) and National Minimum Standards as amended provide a clear framework for Fostering Service Providers, Foster Carers and associated staff with regard to how fostering services should be delivered, how foster carers should be assessed and what foster carers can expect to receive by way of support. The Regulations and Standards are used by Ofsted when inspecting fostering service providers.
19. Mrs P was a foster carer for an independent fostering agency. As such, her assessment, training, support, provision of information, supervision, and registration is the responsibility of that agency. This is set out in statutory guidance and Regulations (Regulation 17).
20. Fostering Agencies are governed by a specific regulatory framework. This framework includes a number of additional/specific requirements of independent fostering agencies in respect of how they must assess, train, supervise and support their registered carers and secure the welfare of children being cared for by them (Regulation 11). It also sets out how the independent fostering agency must ensure a child’s health needs are met (Regulation 15).
21. The Council is responsible for the child and, whilst the child is in the care of that foster carer and agency, the professionals must work together to support the care of the child. The Council is not responsible for the carer.
22. For the duration of a child’s placement with a carer who’s registered to an independent fostering agency, the local authority holds a contractual relationship with that agency and that agency for the care of the child. In commissioning such provision, local authorities must undertake due diligence with the aim of ensuring that they are placing a child with a suitably qualified and safe agency and carer. The way in which most local authorities undertake this is to award a framework contract to independent fostering agencies which meet the quality and cost requirements it sets out and to ‘call off’ from that framework carers who are put forward by the agency as a suitable match to a child for whom the local authority is seeking a home and carer for.
23. Integral to this due diligence is the registration status and inspection judgement on the agency. The agency must be registered with Ofsted and inspected as at least satisfactory in their operation as an independent fostering agency, meaning the agency undertakes its work in line with the requirements of the Children Act 1989 Fostering Regulations and Minimum Standards.

The role of the independent reviewing officer

24. The IRO’s primary focus is to quality assure the care planning and review process for each child and to ensure that his/her current wishes and feelings are given full consideration. The two core functions of the IRO include chairing the child’s review and monitoring the child’s case on an ongoing basis.
25. Every IRO should feel confident in his/her role and personal authority and understand his/her responsibilities to monitor and review the child’s case and, where necessary, challenge poor practice. This guidance recognises that it is not the responsibility of the IRO to manage the child’s case, supervise the social worker or devise the care plan. Although it is important for the IRO to develop a consistent relationship with the child, this should not undermine or replace the relationship between the social worker and the child.
26. The statutory duties of an IRO can be found in s25B(1) of the Children Act 1989. These include:
1. monitor the performance by the local authority of their functions in relation to the child’s case;
2. participate in any review of the child’s case;
3. ensure that any ascertained wishes and feelings of the child concerning the case are given due consideration by the suitable authority; and
4. perform any other function which is prescribed in regulations.
27. The IRO Handbook is statutory guidance which independent reviewing officers and local authorities must consider with respect to their functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children.

The role of the supervising social worker (SSW)

28. The foster care agency is responsible for ensuring that foster carers are supported by providing advice and guidance to ensure the best outcome for the child or young person in care. This is the role of the qualified SSW, who is a foster carer’s main point of contact. They have a broad range of knowledge and experience supporting you on your fostering journey.
29. The support a SSW offers includes keeping regular contact with the foster carer, through monthly supervisions, phone calls or face to face visits. They should also identify and address foster parent training needs to support continued professional development. Further, they provide support in keeping a record of the child or young person’s journey with the foster carer through the foster agency’s care system. In this particular case, the SSW is employed by the independent fostering agency and not the Council.

The role of the YP’s social worker

30. All children in foster care also have their own social worker, usually from the local authority or health trust. This dedicated social worker keeps in regular contact with the child or young person, carrying out visits and making planning decisions.

Chronology of events

In July 2019, Mrs P was approved as a foster carer with an independent

31. fostering agency (the Agency) for children and young people.
32. In September 2019, the YP went to visit Mrs P with her social worker, having been matched with the child by her Agency and the Council.
33. In October 2019, the YP was placed with Mrs P. Some weeks after the YP commenced the placement with Mrs P, a Placement Planning Meeting took place. This was designed to provide Mrs P with information relating to the YP and ensure she was provided with support to in turn be able to care for the YP.
34. In late October 2019, Mrs P travelled to attend her first ‘Child in Care’ (CiC) review with the YP’s IRO to monitor progress. However, Mrs P was told on the day this would not be going ahead and the Council accept she was not made aware of this previously.
35. In November 2019, Mrs P had a CiC review which involved her new SSW from the Agency. At this point, concerns relating to the placement started to become known and the Council sought to arrange a Placement Stability Meeting, though this was not taken forward.
36. In January 2020, the IRO and YP’s social worker exchanged emails with respect to concerns about Mrs P. These were to the effect that Mrs P had been in contact expressing criticism of the YP in her care.
37. In early February 2020, the IRO and Council emailed the Agency which Mrs P was registered with. They expressed concerns relating to Mrs P which are detailed in this statement (below).
38. Some days after, Mrs P gave notice to the Agency that she wanted the placement to end. At this point, Mrs P received a delegated authority form for the YP which should have been provided at the beginning of the placement. However, Mrs P says the form was not signed.
39. In mid-February 2020, a further CiC review meeting took place and it was agreed notice had been accepted for the placement to end and for the YP to transition into a new foster home.
40. In early March 2020, a Placement Disruption Meeting was arranged between Mrs P and the Agency. However, Mrs P expressed concern that this was not attended by the IRO or YP’s social worker. During this meeting, the Agency referred to concerns made by the Council which had not previously been raised with Mrs P.
41. In mid-March 2020, the YP went to stay with new foster carers for a temporary visit, though remained there given the Covid-19 pandemic and rules concerning national lockdown restrictions.
42. In April 2020, the Agency sent Mrs P two emails it had received from the IRO and YP’s social worker which expressed concerns relating to Mrs P. In short, these related to Mrs P not displaying emotional warmth towards the YP and the YP not wanting the placement with Mrs P to continue.
43. In June 2020, Mrs P resigned as a foster carer with the Agency.

My assessment

Actions of the foster care agency

44. Importantly, Mrs P’s complaint also concerns the actions of the Agency she was registered with. This particularly focuses on the sharing of information and communication of concerns raised by the Council to the Agency. The Ombudsman does have jurisdiction to investigate a complaint from an agency foster carer about the fostering agency because it is performing an administrative function of the Council. It is therefore a matter for the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. Further, as the Agency is performing a function of the Council with respect to the placement, the Ombudsman will treat the Council as being responsible for the actions of the Agency.
45. However, for the reasons cited in Paragraphs five to eight, I will rely on the findings of the Council’s independent investigating officer, unless there are evident faults and/or omissions in the investigation process, or Mrs P provides clear evidence which demonstrates it is unsafe to rely upon those findings.

Placement planning and referral

46. In Mrs P’s view, the Council failed to hold a Placement Planning Meeting to provide her with information on the YP. The Council has a written policy relating to new placements and planning to ensure foster carers receive suitable information before a placement begins. This states:

“The first Placement Planning Meeting in relation to a placement should be held before the placement. Where this is not possible because of the urgency of the situation, it should be held in order that the Placement Plan is prepared within 5 working days of the start of the placement”.

47. Importantly, neither the IRO nor the YP’s social worker were aware whether the Placement Planning Meeting took place. It is also agreed by the YP’s social worker that this would have been very helpful for Mrs P as a new foster carer. The evidence demonstrates a Placement Planning Meeting took place in mid-October 2019. Further, Mrs P provided feedback on the Placement Plan some days later by email. I understand Mrs P feels this meeting did not take place, but this is not supported by the evidence provided.
48. That said, the Council has rightly identified that it does not believe neither it nor the Agency properly explained the Placement Planning Meeting to Mrs P. The Council also acknowledge it did not have a record of this on its systems for the YP and that it was not completed in the correct timeframe.
49. In my view, these admissions by the Council supports Mrs P’s perception that no such meeting took place. Therefore, while there is evidence to suggest the meeting occurred, I cannot make a determination that it was properly undertaken. The Council accept there were several findings of fault relating to the Placement Planning Meeting, though made a decision to not uphold this part of Mrs P’s complaint. In my view, the Council cannot identify fault and yet not uphold the complaint. This is not a properly made decision and I consider the Council was at fault in that it did not properly undertake a reliable Placement Planning Meeting.

Delegated authority

50. Delegated authority is important to foster carers as it details what they can and cannot agree to with respect to the looked after child. This is normally detailed in a written form and discussed and agreed at the initial Placement Planning Meeting. As found by the Council, there is no evidence that Mrs P was provided with a delegated authority form or medical consent form. Not only does this support my finding that the Placement Planning Meeting was not properly undertaken, but it also shows a lack of support being offered to Mrs P from the commencement of the placement. The Council upheld this part of Mrs P’s complaint and so from the perspective of fault, I cannot add anything further.
51. Closely linked to this matter however is a concern made by the Council relating to Mrs P not being supportive of the YP taking contraception. In summary, the YP’s social worker had reported that Mrs P did not want to be responsible for the YP taking contraception and that she felt this was important as it would have kept the YP safe. Mrs P said this issue was never discussed with the YP’s social worker and, in any event, she was not provided with delegated authority or medical consent to support the YP in this matter. Importantly, there is no evidence of this issue being discussed with Mrs P or noted in the YP’s care records. That these notes, as well as a record of the Placement Planning Meeting, were not logged on the YP’s care records demonstrates poor administrative practice. I therefore find the Council was at fault for not maintaining an accurate record of key events.
52. In addition, it is my view the Council did not provide suitable support by way of the necessary consents and delegated authority. These would have enabled Mrs P to in turn support the YP. I do not therefore consider the Council was justified in reporting that Mrs P was neither supportive nor wanted to be responsible for this issue. The evidence shows a lack of support being offered to Mrs P and so I find the Council was at fault in this respect.

Emails sent to the foster care agency

53. When the YP’s placement with Mrs P ended, the Agency convened a Placement Disruption Meeting with her in March 2020. The purpose of the meeting was to give Mrs P the opportunity to reflect, with support from the Agency, on how and why the YP’s placement ended and to consider any learning opportunities for her as a foster carer going forward. Mrs P says the IRO did not attend this meeting. Instead, Mrs P says the IRO and YP’s social worker sent two emails which were allegedly untrue and designed to cause Mrs P upset. The contents of these two emails can be briefly summarised as follows:
1. The YP’s social worker forwarded an email from a member of staff at the YP’s school to Mrs P’s SSW at the Agency. This said the YP was unhappy living with Mrs P and that she wanted to leave. Further, the school staff member reflected on her own meeting with Mrs P and said she found Mrs P “very cold emotionally”. It also read that the YP felt she could not discuss issues with Mrs P because she raises her voice to her.
2. The IRO sent an email to Mrs P’s SSW at the Agency. This said the IRO found Mrs P to be “officious” towards the YP, that she did not display emotional warmth and gave the impression that she did not like the YP very much. It also reported that the YP was very distressed and spoke about Mrs P putting her down and not liking her. Further, the IRO said she was concerned that Mrs P had not responded well to the YP sending indecent images of herself to a male on social media. This went on to openly imply that Mrs P was responsible for blaming and shaming the YP for her actions.
54. In brief, Mrs P says the contents of these emails are untrue, lack context and cannot be substantiated by evidence. However, I would not expect either the YP’s social worker or the IRO to provide formal evidence supporting their concerns. In my view, both were offering their professional perception of the YP’s placement with Mrs P and, importantly, relaying the feelings of the YP, as is their role. Both professionals were entitled to share their perceptions openly and there is no evidence to suggest either were at fault in doing so.
55. That said, I do consider it was inappropriate and unhelpful for the YP’s social worker to forward an email with concerns from the YP’s school. This information should have come directly from the YP’s social worker so that a conversation with Mrs P’s SSW could have taken place around the concerns identified. The Council accept this should have happened and so I do find it was at fault.

The Placement Disruption Meeting

56. In addition, Mrs P complains the IRO and YP’s social worker declined to attend the Placement Disruption Meeting so to address the concerns held about her (see Paragraph 53(a) and (b)). This meeting was held in March 2020, but the two emails referred to above were forwarded to Mrs P by the Agency in April 2020. In response, the Council said neither the IRO nor the YP’s social worker thought they were invited to the Placement Disruption Meeting and so did not attend. Further, it said that both professionals thought the concerns would be raised with Mrs P in a supportive way and it is acknowledged that Mrs P receiving the two emails in the way she did would have been unpleasant and upsetting for her.
57. The Council said it would have been good practice for the IRO and YP’s social worker to have attended the Placement Disruption Meeting. Further, it acknowledges that a Placement Stability Meeting should have been arranged in November 2019 between all the professionals involved in the placement, including Mrs P. This should have taken place to ensure concerns were addressed and to talk about support. From the perspective of fault, there is little I can add by way of my investigation. The Council acknowledge the IRO and YP’s social worker did not attend two meetings against the principles of good practice.
58. The Council and Agency are under a duty to cooperate and I consider this failure denied Mrs P the opportunity of support and to feel part of the parental team.

Exclusion from the YP’s parental team

59. There were a number of concerns held by the IRO and Council social worker relating to Mrs P’s engagement with the YP. Mrs P described these as concerns that she did not display emotional warmth. It is Mrs P’s position that concerns were not raised with her during the course of the placement and she was, in effect, isolated and unable address these and provide her perspective. Further, Mrs P felt important decisions were made regarding the YP’s curfew times absent her input which caused disruption to the placement.
60. In response, the Council said communication worked as it should have in that the YP’s social worker, the IRO and Mrs P’s SSW talked together to ensure the right support was provided. Further, the Council said feedback would be discussed at CiC reviews which Mrs P was part of. In addition, the Council said the YP’s social worker would have telephone calls and exchange emails with Mrs P on key issues. However, the YP’s social worker emphasised that her role was to advocate for the YP and the SSW’s role was to advocate for Mrs P. The Council said that Mrs P’s SSW changed at points and the YP’s social worker talked through issues with Mrs P in their absence.
61. The Council say it believes a primary cause for Mrs P’s feeling of isolation was that it and the Agency failed to properly inform her about the varying roles of the professionals involved in the placement. This leads me to believe there was a failure of cooperation between the Council and Agency with respect to properly explaining the structure and line of communication which was in place to support Mrs P. The Council was ultimately responsible for the YP’s placement with Mrs P through the Agency and so I consider it was at fault for the lack of cooperation.
62. As identified, a primary method of allowing Mrs P to receive feedback and express her perceptions on the placement was by way of CiC reviews. However, as the Council has identified, Mrs P’s first experience of the CiC review process was not positive. Mrs P had travelled to the meeting to be informed it had been cancelled and no reasoning was provided to her. The Council say this should not have happened and would have contributed to Mrs P’s feeling that she was not being treated as a professional.
63. In relation to the alleged imposed curfew by the IRO, the Council has said there was a discussion about what time the IRO believed the YP should be home in the evenings. The evidence provided by Council professionals varied and it said Mrs P was unaware the time was for guidance and not a strict requirement. In any event, that Mrs P was unaware of this issue demonstrates the Council did not seek Mrs P’s engagement on the subject. The Council said it should have allowed for more time to discuss this matter between all the relevant professionals. This did not happen and so I find the Council was at fault.
64. In February 2020, the IRO and YP’s social worker shared concerns with the Agency relating to Mrs P’s character. These concerns are set out in Paragraph 53(a) and (b) and so I will not repeat them here. In principle, the Council should share concerns with the Agency so that feedback can be provided to Mrs P by her SSW. However, the evidence suggests concerns were longstanding over a period of time and they were not relayed to the Agency and Mrs P within a reasonable timeframe. This was fault on the part of the Council and Mrs P had no opportunity at the time to be able take the feedback, review her approach or provide context to the issues in play. I believe this damaged Mrs P’s trust in the process. Further, had the concerns been raised earlier, there may also have been an opportunity to resolve some of the key issues in the placement.
65. In my view, a parental team involving Mrs P was put in place. I believe the foundations were present for information to be shared between the Council and Agency and Mrs P was invited to meetings and conversations with the different professionals responsible for supporting both her and the YP. However, the evidence shows this support structure did not work well in practice for several reasons. Information was not shared in time and Mrs P was not informed about key issues, including decisions relating to curfew guidance. For those reasons, I believe Mrs P’s feeling of being excluded from the parental team were justified and this was due to a lack of cooperation between the Agency and Council.

Failure to cross reference known information

66. Mrs P says the IRO and YP’s social worker failed to consult known information by accessing the Agency’s care records relating to the YP’s placement with her. Further, Mrs P explains her observations relating to the YP were often captured by way of carer reports logged on the Agency care systems. Mrs P says that by failing to consult and share these, the Council did not take her views and experience with the YP into account. In response, the Council say it is not the IRO’s role to consult the day to day recordings completed by a foster carer. It also says it does not have access to the care records held by the Agency. Instead, the Council’s position is that the IRO and YP’s social worker would consult with Mrs P’s SSW at the Agency to gain information.
67. As identified, I believe there was an acceptable reporting system between the Council and Agency whereby information could be shared and recorded. The evidence demonstrates there were regular discussions between the YP’s social worker and Mrs P’s SSW to ensure that significant events and the progress of the placement were shared. In making this finding, I have had regard to the independent investigating officer’s report. This shows there was contact between the Council and SSW on key issues, including, but not limited to, information relating to the YP’s contraception, the sharing of indecent images and the YP’s birth family. I have also commented elsewhere in this statement that concerns the YP had expressed to the IRO and to her social worker were also relayed to Mrs P’s SSW. There is no evidence to challenge these findings and so I do not uphold this part of Mrs P’s complaint.
68. That said, a common theme across all parts of the complaint is a strong perception by Mrs P that she was not offered suitable support during the YP’s placement with her. In my view, the Council has correctly identified that it was the role of the Agency’s SSW to support Mrs P and that its role was to feedback issues and concerns so these could be discussed. However, the Council was ultimately responsible for the placement and I believe there are admissions by the Council that the support structure did not work as it should.
69. As identified in this statement, key meetings either did not take place or were not explained properly to Mrs P. Further, the roles of the varying professionals involved in the placement were not explained and concerns were not raised with Mrs P within a reasonable timeframe. Mrs P was also not provided with key information to support her decision-making such as delegated authority or medical consents. Importantly, the Council also acknowledge that it appeared that Mrs P did not always receive the right level of support at the right time.
70. For these reasons, I do not consider Mrs P received the suitable amount of support she should have and so I find the Council at fault. I also believes this justifies Mrs P’s perception that she did not feel part of the parental team.

IRO authoritarian in approach

71. In Mrs P’s view, the IRO was dictatorial in dealing with her and that she neither felt listened to nor respected by the IRO. Mrs P also references an occasion where the IRO entered her property waiving a form for her to fill out and was disrespectful. In response, the Council said the IRO was supportive, professional and inclusive and that the evidence did not support Mrs P’s perception.
72. I respect that Mrs P has her perception about how she was treated. However, I can only make a determination on the evidence presented to me. The Council’s independent investigating officer examined this issue closely by interviewing the varying professionals involved with Mrs P and the IRO. The interviews concluded that there was no evidence to support a finding that the IRO was authoritarian in her approach with Mrs P. There is no evidence of fault in how that investigation was conducted in relation to this part of the complaint. Further, Mrs P has not provided me with any evidence to rebut the findings of the independent investigating officer. I see no reason to therefore depart from the findings of that investigation and so I do not uphold this part of the complaint.
73. That said, the Council did not examine Mrs P’s concern that the IRO misreported the circumstances of the placement ending. In early February 2020, Mrs P said she wished for the placement with the YP to end. This is because Mrs P did not feel part of the parental team and therefore felt she was unable to keep the YP safe. The YP was meant to transition from Mrs P’s care in mid-March 2020, though this changed to the end of March 2020 which Mrs P agreed to.
74. In short, Mrs P is unhappy that the IRO allegedly misreported the circumstances to the Agency relating to how she gave notice. She says the IRO had emailed the Agency to the effect that she and the YP’s social worker decided to look immediately for other placements for the YP due to concerns about Mrs P’s engagement with the YP. In response, the Council say there is no evidence the IRO misreported the circumstances of the placement ending. Importantly, the contract for the placement is between the Council and Agency. While Mrs P can state that she wishes for the placement to end, this does not constitute formal notice. There is therefore no fault in the manner in which the Council reported that it was searching for another viable placement for the YP.

Placement not ending in a planned way

75. The YP transitioned fully into her new placement with new foster carers in mid-March 2020. This included a number of temporary stays with the new foster carers so to facilitate a smooth transition. Mrs P says that the transition of the YP’s care was managed well, though lacked a meeting whereby both Mrs P and the YP could have closure and say goodbye to one another. In response, the Council said Mrs P and the YP both knew when the placement was ending and efforts were made to facilitate a goodbye meeting. Further, the Covid-19 pandemic impacted on the transition which meant a temporary stay for the YP became permanent on short notice. In the end, Mrs P and the YP exchanged text messages and planned a meal for after the Covid-19 pandemic to say goodbye.
76. Importantly, both Mrs P and the Council agree the transition was managed well from the perspective of the YP. I will not therefore examine the transition process. However, I understand Mrs P’s concern was about the Council not facilitating a meeting between her and the YP to leave on good terms.
77. In every part of the complaint, I must assess whether any fault has caused an injustice. This means I must decide whether Mrs P was caused serious harm, loss or distress by reason of fault. In my view, it would have been ideal had both Mrs P and the YP been able to have closure and say goodbye properly. However, this is not to say this will not happen in the future. I also do not consider these circumstances to be indicative of fault by the Council. In any event, I do not believe these circumstances caused Mrs P serious harm, loss or distress and on that basis I will not investigate this part of the complaint further.

Introduction of birth family members to the YP

78. During the YP’s placement with Mrs P, the Council made efforts to put the YP in contact with members of her birth family. In Mrs P’s view, this created high expectations for the YP which were not always followed through. She says this meant the YP presented challenging behaviour which impacted adversely on her as the responsible foster carer. In response, the Council explained that it did give consideration to facilitating contact between the YP and her birth family and there were instances of this taking place. However, it says there were occasions when overnight stays were not possible due to household members not having the suitable vetting certification. The Council also referenced contact from the YP’s father as not always being what it had hoped for.
79. The IRO’s Handbook provides (5.1 to 5.4) the following:

“There are a number of significant transitions for all children during their childhood

and the local authority should, like any good parent, prepare the child for these in

a manner that will support the child to manage the transitions and to reach his/her

potential. The pathway plan (care plan if the child is under 16) should be a comprehensive document that identifies the actions and services required to meet the needs and outcomes of the young person during his/her transition into adulthood and independence. The pathway plan (or care plan) must address:

• “contact with the young person’s parents, wider family and friends and the capacity of this network to encourage the young person and enable them to make a positive transition to adulthood.”

80. Importantly, the Council must have due regard to making contact with the YP’s birth family so to facilitate a positive transition to adulthood. In my view, contact with family members was important to the YP and the Council properly considered this issue. There is no evidence of fault in how it gave effect to its responsibility in this regard. I recognise Mrs P’s point that when matters did not always go to plan this had an adverse impact on her. However, this is not indicative of fault by the Council. In my view, the Council has given clear and legitimate reasons as to why contact was not always possible and these were outside of its control. As there is no evidence of fault in relation to this matter, I cannot uphold this part of the complaint, regardless of any injustice to Mrs P.

Summary of fault

81. I have identified a number of failings by the Council, as follows:
1. The Council failed to complete a Placement Planning Meeting in accordance with its own written policies relating to timeframes. Further, it failed to undertake the meeting in a dependable way.
2. The Council failed to properly a record a delegated authority form, the Placement Planning Meeting and discussions relating to the YP’s contraception on its systems.
3. The Council failed to ensure Mrs P was provided with key documents, including a delegated authority form and medical consent form.
4. Though feedback was provided to Mrs P, the Council’s IRO and social worker did not attend Mrs P’s Placement Disruption Meeting against good practice.
5. The Council’s IRO and social worker did not arrange a Placement Stability Meeting to address concerns and offer suitable and needed support.
6. There was generally a lack of cooperation between the Council and Agency which meant Mrs P’s input was not sought. Further, important discussions relating to curfews did not seek Mrs P’s input as they should have.
7. The Council’s social worker unhelpfully shared an email from the YP’s school relating to concerns about Mrs P. It would have been good practice for this information to have come directly from the Council’s social worker at the Placement Disruption Meeting held in March 2020 (see Paragraph 55).
8. The Council failed to relay longstanding concerns it had with Mrs P within a reasonable timeframe.

Injustice to the complainant

82. In light of the identified fault, I believe Mrs P has suffered serious distress during the time the YP was in care. There was a lack of support by the Council and Agency from the commencement of placement and up to the point it ended. Concerns were not raised with Mrs P in a suitable way and within a reasonable timeframe. Further, as information was not shared with Mrs P, this meant she felt that she could not make decisions in the best interests of the YP. In my view, the faults identified as a collective led Mrs P to justifiably feel excluded during the placement and that she was not properly able to look after the YP. For these reasons, I am recommending a number of remedies.

Back to top

Agreed action

83. To remedy the faults and injustice identified in this statement, the Council will, within one month of this final decision, perform the following actions:
1. Provide Mrs P with a written apology which acknowledges the fault and injustice identified. The Council should also share this statement with Mrs P’s Agency to acknowledge the faults identified and the impact this had on her.
2. The Council should pay Mrs P £1,500 to acknowledge the serious distress she suffered by reason of the faults, as well as for her time and trouble.
84. In addition, the Council will, within three months of a final decision, undertake a review process of Mrs P’s case. This review should focus on each individual element of fault identified in this statement. The purpose of the review is to consider and implement service improvements for service users in the future. The Council should provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has undertaken the review, as well as what service improvements it has identified and implemented.
85. The Council should also write to Mrs P to give a detailed account of the review process and the service improvements it has implemented.

Back to top

Final decision

86. There was a general lack of cooperation by the Council with the Agency which meant Mrs P was not supported during the YP’s placement with her. The Council failed to share information and concerns with Mrs P and provide her with the means to support the YP and make decisions in the YP’s best interests. In addition, the Council failed to properly record key incidents about the YP’s placement with Mrs P and was responsible for reporting inaccurate information to her Agency. These faults caused Mrs P an injustice and so I have recommended a number of remedies.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

87. I have not investigated any matter concerning a breach of data protection legislation. In summary, Mrs P has raised concerns that the Council was responsible for sharing information which breached data protection legislation.
88. The law says we normally expect a complainant to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about data protection concerns, unless it would be unreasonable for them to do so. Mrs P has already complained to the ICO and so the restriction I describe at Paragraph 11 generally applies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman