Summary: There was no fault the Council was intending to close down the support it was providing to Mr X’s family. There was fault that it closed it prematurely because of its poor communication. There was also fault the Council did not share the updated assessments on the support it was providing with Mr X. The Council accepted these faults and have offered Mr X a sufficient personal remedy for this injustice. It has also agreed to take additional steps to improve how it communicates with service users to prevent a reoccurrence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider its decision to remove post-adoption support for his children, and this included taking his views into account.
2. He says it also failed to communicate what the support plan was and disputes the fact the Council re engaged it, after he complained about its decision. Mr X also says the Council did not act on his request for a carers assessment.
3. Mr X said this put him to avoidable inconvenience in chasing up what the Council were doing and placed his children at danger because it withdrew support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. I considered the documents the Council provided.
8. I considered the relevant guidance on adoption and the Council’s policy on post adoption support.
9. Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Adoption support

10. The Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005 (ASR) sets out guidance focusing on the needs of adoptive children and their families. ASR 16 requires the Council to prepare a plan for those who it provides support to. It also says this plan must be shared with those people it provides support to.
11. The Council has published a policy statement on its website titled ‘Adoption and Permanence Support Statement of Purpose’. The document highlights the fact that all adopters have an allocated social worker. It says adopted children will be supported in line with assessed needs and this support can include accessing therapeutic services.

What happened

Background

12. The Council have restricted how Mr X can get in touch with it, through its unreasonable behaviour policy. This means he can only contact it through a dedicated email inbox.
13. In June 2021, a social worker from the Permanence Support Team (PST) visited Mr X and carried out a 12 monthly review meeting. The evidence shows they discussed the progress of both of Mr X’s children in their education. They also discussed the therapeutic support, that it previously considered, may be available to both children in time.
14. In January 2022, a social worker carried out another 12 monthly review meeting. The evidence shows the social worker obtained an update on the progress of both children and gave Mr X advice. The review notes say the social worker and Mr X discussed family-based therapy, which could be given by a national children’s charity. The notes reflect the proposed support plan included;
• a referral for family therapy;
• direct work to be carried out by a family support practitioner;
• support to feed into school transition meetings when requested.
15. Mr X told me the Council were in regular contact with his family through a named social worker and he said he found this support positive. In late 2022, after a change of social worker, Mr X said he was unhappy with the support the Council provided.
16. In August 2022, social workers from the PST visited Mr X. The notes reflect the meeting was to complete a six-month review and to introduce a new social worker. The notes reflect there was a discussion about the progress of both children. The notes also say the PST discussed ending their work with the family after the family therapy. Finally, the notes say the proposed support plan at that point said;
• family therapy work to start in September;
• a support worker to finalise direct work visits;
• attend education transition meetings as agreed.
17. In early October, the Council contacted the charity, who would be carrying out the family therapy. After an incident at Mr X’s home in mid-October, the charity withdrew providing face to face therapy.
18. The Council told Mr X the charity was only willing to provide online therapy after this incident and the evidence shows he declined this.
19. The Council said they drafted a message to contact Mr X about proposing a further meeting with the charity but sent it to his dedicated email inbox by mistake. This meant Mr X would not be able to see it. The Council said they then sent further emails asking whether Mr X wanted to carry on with online therapy, but also sent these to the wrong email address and Mr X would not have seen them.
20. The Council followed this up with a letter, which it sent to Mr X in late December in the post. It told him because he had not responded to their earlier messages, it was closing his case. It said this was the only remaining part of the support plan. It also said if he needed further support, he could re contact the PST.
21. In early January, Mr X made a complaint saying he was not told the case would be closed. The Council apologised to Mr X for its earlier miscommunication. The PST then contacted the charity to let them know it had re opened the family’s case.
22. The Council then had further discussions between the charity and Mr X to re-introduce family therapy.
23. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two saying he was concerned about support the Council were providing. Following an investigation at stage two, it wrote back to Mr X in March.
24. In the Council’s response, it accepted it had not shared the three review summaries completed in June 2021, January, and October 2022. It re-iterated its earlier apology for its communication errors and offered Mr X a payment of £150 to recognise the time and trouble for having to complain. It also said in its letter it had enclosed a copy of the review summaries for his information.
25. The Council also explained that while there may be a decision to close a family case at any point, Mr X can make a new referral to ask for additional support.
26. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it had not sent Mr X the review summaries in line with the stage two investigation recommended actions. It said this was an error.

Carers assessment

27. As part of this stage two complaint, Mr X said the Council had not given him an update on his earlier request for a carer’s assessment. In his complaint to us he said the Council had not acted on a request for a carers assessment.
28. The Council stage two investigation identified Mr X had said, in an email to the Council in early November, that he asked for a carers assessment.
29. In the Council’s stage two complaint reply, it said it was aware a home-schooling tutor had made a referral to the Council about Mr X in December. It also said the Council had told Mr X about this referral in January.
30. The Council provided me with a copy of a referral made about Mr X in mid-December to the ‘early initial help’ team within the Council. The referral identified work that was ongoing with Mr X’s family including support being considered by the children’s charity.

My findings

Post adoption support

31. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider its decision to remove post-adoption support including considering his views. The Council completed three reviews of its support plan relating to Mr X’s children. These show it decided it was withdrawing the support plan after it initiated family therapy. The evidence shows Mr X was part of these discussions and the notes reflect he contributed to the discussions.
32. There was no fault in the Council at that point, in deciding to withdraw this support. These are professional decisions made by trained practitioners and in the absence of obvious flaws, I would not find fault in those decisions.
33. However, the Council did not share the outline plan including the written review summaries with Mr X at the time or shortly after it completed them. This would have ensured the Council could show it had shared its plan and had a confirmed written account of his views on both progress and the closure of his case. This was a fault in how it communicated with Mr X, and it caused an injustice because it later left Mr X with avoidable uncertainty of the support the Council had provided over a longer period.
34. Additionally, there was a fault in communication and the Council closed the case after it said Mr X was no longer engaging with the outstanding family therapy. The Council have already apologised for this fault. The evidence shows when it was aware of its error it contacted the charity to facilitate therapy within a short time. This did not cause a substantial delay in any support to Mr X’s family.
35. The fault in communication caused Mr X an injustice because it caused unnecessary inconvenience in Mr X having to make a complaint. The Council have already apologised and offered a financial remedy, which I believe is an appropriate remedy for his injustice here. The Council told me Mr X had declined this offer of a remedy.
36. I do not believe there was any further injustice to Mr X after the Council did not send him the review summaries following the stage two reply. Mr X did not follow this up at the time to query why the Council had not included them where it said it had.

Carers assessment

37. Mr X said the Council did not act on his request for a carers assessment. It did not respond to his request made in early November. However, the evidence shows it considered a referral made in December and identified it was already engaged with Mr X’s family, and was trying to arrange support, through work ongoing with the children’s charity.
38. I find this was a fault in communication, because it did not fully respond to Mr X and explain another team was providing his family support and it had discharged the referral on that basis. There is no evidence of an injustice to Mr X by the Council not considering support in November. The evidence shows it considered support for Mr X in December and identified it was already providing support. I find on balance it would likely have made the same decision in November.
39. In terms of poor communication more broadly, the Council have already apologised to Mr X for its poor communication around his case and acknowledged this was partly caused by contact across different teams. Because of this apology and acknowledgement, there is no outstanding injustice requiring a remedy for the Council not acknowledging to Mr X it was discharging the referral at the later date.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the date of my decision, the Council should;
• send Mr X a copy of the three review summaries it earlier failed to send Mr X;
• remind all staff of the importance of sharing assessments to ensure it obtains adoptive parent’s views on support;
• make a further offer of a payment to Mr X for his time and trouble in line with its earlier offer highlighted at paragraph 24.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. There was fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman