Summary: Mrs X is a foster carer. She complains about the way the Council dealt with safety concerns she raised about the home of the family adopting a child in her care. We find there was some fault by the Council in the way it responded. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is a foster carer who was looking after a child. She raised safety concerns about the home of the family adopting the child. She complains that the Council:
1. failed to act on her concerns by visiting the adopters' home before the move took place; and
2. breached her confidentiality by telling the adopters she was the person who raised the concerns.
2. She says this caused her distress and meant she lost the chance of any further contact with the child.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I considered relevant law and guidance. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
7. 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

What I found

Assessment of adopters

8. Prospective adopters have to go through a two-stage process of assessment of their suitability before being approved to adopt. They are then matched with a child. Part of the process involves a visit to the prospective adopters’ home to check for any health and safety concerns, and completion of a health and safety checklist. In Dudley the assessment is carried out on behalf of the Council by a Regional Adoption Agency, ‘the Agency’.
9. Once a child has been placed for adoption, the Council should visit the child weekly until the first statutory visit after four weeks.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

10. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published ‘Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19’.
11. The ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19): guidance for children’s social care services’ was issued in early April 2020 and applied up to September 2020, with some amendments. There were then some further temporary rules. The guidance confirmed that councils’ main duties, including their safeguarding duties, remained unchanged. Councils had to continue to prioritise the needs and welfare of vulnerable children and young people. But it recognised that social workers were likely to have to work in different ways, for example in relation to visiting children and families. Councils were advised to make judgments about visits, prioritising child welfare, balancing risk to children, risk to families and risk to the workforce, while taking account of guidance on social distancing.
12. The guidance said introductory visits for children with new adopted parents could still go ahead following a risk assessment, although some may need to be postponed.
13. In January 2021 the updated guidance said while the temporary regulations allowed visits to a Looked after Child to be carried out by telephone or video link, during periods of national lockdown virtual visits should be the exception. Wherever possible, visits should take place face-to-face.

What happened

14. Mrs X is a foster carer who had a child, Child B, in her care until placed with adopters. The plan was for Child B to move to an adoption placement with Mr and Mrs Y in January 2021 when he was around one year old.
15. The process of assessing and approving Mr and Mrs Y was handled by the Agency on the Council’s behalf. The Agency Adoption Social Worker visited Mr and Mrs Y’s home in January 2020 to carry out a health and safety assessment of the accommodation. The record of the visit shows no concerns about safety or hygiene. The social worker advised Mr and Mrs Y they would need to complete a health and safety checklist if they progressed to the next stage of the assessment process.
16. In May 2020 the Agency decided that in order to minimise contact with families during the pandemic a further visit to assess the suitability of the accommodation was not necessary. Instead it asked Mr and Mrs Y to complete a health and safety checklist themselves. The Agency had no concerns about the information provided in the checklist.
17. In the week leading up to the planned move for Child B in January 2021, Mrs X took him to visit Mr and Mrs Y at their home twice as part of his introductory visits. The visits took place on the Friday and Saturday before the Monday when the placement was due to start. Mrs X had concerns about the safety of the home and about Mr Y’s attitude and behaviour during the visits.
18. The planned move was cancelled on the Monday because of the weather conditions. However the child’s social worker, ‘SW1’, was not aware of the change of plan and came to Mrs X’s home as previously arranged to support the move. Mrs X says she used the visit as an opportunity to raise her concerns with SW1 about the prospective adopters’ home environment. Mrs X has a brief record of her conversation with SW1 in her foster carer’s diary. She noted that she told SW1 about her concerns about the property and about Mr Y.
19. The Council also has a record of the visit. This notes that Mrs X shared her concerns with SW1 about her observations of Mr Y’s interactions with Child B. There is no reference to safety conditions in the home. The record says Mrs X did not think Child B would be at risk in the adopters’ home but wanted to share her concerns. Mrs X says SW1 told her she would visit the placement, but not until after the move had taken place.
20. Child B’s move was re-arranged for two days later. The adopters came to Mrs X’s home to collect Child B on that day. SW1 was present but did not go with Mr and Mrs Y to their home.
21. A few days later Child B’s health visitor telephoned Mrs X to ask for information about the move as she had not been able to make contact with SW1. Mrs X shared her concerns with the health visitor, who made a safeguarding referral to the Council.
22. Mrs X also spoke to her Supervising Social Worker and told her about her concerns. The Supervising Social Worker contacted the Looked After Children team with an email setting out Mrs X’s concerns in detail. This included observations about safety issues, which Mrs X had raised with Mr and Mrs Y, and about Mr Y’s approach. The email said Mrs X was a “very experienced carer” and although she did not feel the move was not right for Child B, she wanted professionals to be aware of her concerns so they could ensure the child’s safety. The Supervising Social Worker said she had spoken to SW1 who planned to visit that week.
23. The Adoption Social Worker visited the adopters’ home to review the suitability of the accommodation and complete an updated health and safety checklist. She raised issues with Mr and Mrs Y that had been highlighted as areas of concern and advised them about the action they needed to take.
24. Following a COVID-19 risk assessment SW1 visited Child B at the adopters’ home in early February around a week after the placement started. She discussed how the placement was going and how Child B was settling in. She made her own observations about Mr and Mrs Y’s interactions with Child B, which she found positive. Mr and Mrs Y reported on the safety issues they had been advised about and the action they had taken. SW1 spoke to Mr and Mrs Y about the safeguarding referral the Council had received and discussed the concerns raised with them. SW1 noted in the record that the concerns within the referral had been addressed and the visit provided reassurance about the care Child B was receiving.
25. There is a dispute about exactly what took place and who said what during this visit. But as a result of the visit Mr and Mrs Y became aware that it was Mrs X who had alerted the health visitor to the concerns.
26. Following the visit SW1 contacted Mrs X to feed back her observations. SW1 reported that Child B seemed happy and well settled. She also contacted the Agency and confirmed that Child B would be seen weekly.

Complaint

27. In April 2021 Mrs X made a complaint to the Council saying:
• when she raised her concerns with SW1, the social worker had not visited Mr and Mrs Y’s home until after Child B’s placement there had started;
• she had been told there were no health and safety checks by a social worker before Child B was placed with Mr and Mrs Y; and
• SW1 told her that she had disclosed to the adopters that it was Mrs X who had instigated the safeguarding referral. She said SW1 had no right to do that and it had affected the relationship between her and the adoptive parents, making it likely she would not be able to see Child B again.
28. The Council referred the data breach allegation to its Information Governance Team and then responded to the complaint in late May. It said it had looked into Mrs X’s concerns about breach of confidentiality. It said unfortunately when SW1 presented the adopters with the details of concerns raised in the safeguarding referral, they had been able to identify Mrs X as the source. It said the Information Governance Team confirmed no data breach had occurred. Regarding alleged delay in visiting Child B, the Council said visits took place as a minimum once a week as required. Child B had a visit from the Adoption Social Worker during the first week of his placement and another from SW1 after that.
29. Mrs X was not happy with the response and asked to go to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure. She said SW1 had told her she had told Mr and Mrs Y that the health visitor’s referral had come through Mrs X. She also said the Council had not addressed the point she was making that no-one visited the home to do a safety check before the placement started, despite the concerns she raised. She sent the Council copies of her diary entries.
30. In the Council’s response it explained its understanding that the adopters identified Mrs X as the source of the concerns and SW1 confirmed this was the case. It said there was no request for anonymity in the referral from the health visitor.
31. Regarding the safety check, the Council explained the usual visit by the Adoption Social Worker to complete the health and safety checklist did not take place because of COVID-19. Also it said its records did not confirm she shared her concerns with SW1 before Child B moved. It said it appeared SW1 did not receive information about her concerns until the email from Mrs X’s Supervising Social Worker, which was after the move.
32. When Mrs X then referred to her diary entries, the Council said it had reviewed the matter but it made no difference to the outcome of the complaint.
33. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman because she felt the Council was not listening to her or believing her. Also, she had understood the safeguarding referral would be anonymous. She said she wanted to know that if she raises concerns about a child again in future the Council will take it seriously.

Council’s response to the Ombudsman

34. The Council said it was the Agency that was responsible for the assessment of the prospective adopters. The child’s social worker might have visited the adopters’ home during the matching phase in normal circumstances. But this did not happen because of a COVID-19 risk assessment. This found it was not necessary to see the prospective adopters’ home as they had already been assessed and approved. Any further discussions and enquiries needed to consider their ability to meet the child’s needs could take place remotely. However once the placement started, the risk assessment changed. The guidance was to see the child in placement where possible.
35. The Agency explained that, in common with other adoption agencies, it was keeping in-person visits during adoption assessments to a minimum during the pandemic. In this case as there had already been an assessment of the home environment in January 2020, the Agency did not consider a further visit was necessary and so it asked the adopters to complete their own health and safety checklist. However the Agency confirmed there should have been a visit to review the original health and safety assessment before the child was placed. It accepted this was an oversight and said it had reminded staff of this requirement, and managers are ensuring it is happening now.
36. The Council was unable to shed any light on the apparent conflict of evidence between Mrs X and the Council over when Mrs X first told SW1 about her concerns. SW1 has left the Council and says she cannot remember exactly when the concerns were first shared and whether this was directly from Mrs X or through her Supervising Social Worker. She does recall Mrs X raising some specific concerns about safety in the home. She says it was at this point that the Agency confirmed there had not been an Agency visit to complete the health and safety checklist during the COVID-19 lockdown. The agreement then was for the Adoption Social Worker to visit to carry out the checks before SW1 made her visit.
37. Regarding disclosure of the source of the concerns, SW1 said she informed Mr and Mrs Y of the referral from the health visitor. Mr and Mrs Y came to the conclusion themselves that the concerns must have come from Mrs X. This was because they had never spoken to the health visitor and the concerns related to the introductory visits. SW1 said she did not disclose Mrs X’s name to them.

Analysis

Complaint a) – failure to act on concerns before the placement started

38. I am satisfied with the explanation the Agency has given as to why it did not visit to complete the health and safety checklist in May 2020. It had caried out a visit to assess the accommodation four months previously and it took account of guidance on the risk of COVID-19 transmission. But the Agency has accepted it was at fault in failing to carry out a further visit to review the health and safety assessment before Child B’s placement started. It has taken action to address this failing.
39. The Council says it was for the Agency’s Adoption Social Worker to carry out a second assessment visit, while SW1 carried out a statutory visit in-person once Child B had moved. My view, however, is if SW1 was aware of the concerns raised before the move took place she should have acted on them then rather than waiting until after the placement started. The Council’s initial response to Mrs X was that SW1 was not aware of the concerns until after the placement had started. It appears this was because when it responded to the complaint SW1 had left the Council and it based its response on records which were not clear.
40. From the evidence I have seen I consider it more likely than not that Mrs X told SW1 about her concerns on the Monday when the move was originally scheduled to take place. SW1 cannot remember the details clearly as the events took place a year ago and she no longer has access to the records. She does recall some of the concerns Mrs X raised, but cannot remember exactly when. Mrs X made a note of the conversation in her foster carer diary. The Council’s record of SW1’s visit to Mrs X on that day notes the concerns about Mr Y but not those about the conditions in the home. On balance it seems likely Mrs X would have told her about those issues as well, as she was very concerned about them at the time.
41. So I consider that if SW1 was not going to visit Mr and Mrs Y’s home herself before the placement started she should have alerted her supervisor or the Agency. This would have given the opportunity for a visit to take place to check the conditions in the accommodation before Child B moved in.
42. Once the Council received the safeguarding referral from the health visitor and the email from the Supervising Social Worker, there is evidence that Mrs X’s concerns were taken seriously and explored in detail. The issues were raised with Mr and Mrs Y a few days later and both the Agency and SW1 were satisfied they had addressed them. I see no evidence that the delay in dealing with the concerns caused any harm to Child B. But it caused some distress and anxiety to Mrs X. The way the Council handled her complaint about the matter added to her distress. The Council did not refer to her diary records of the conversation in its response, and did not say why it did not consider this was evidence of having alerted SW1 before the move. This left Mrs X feeling the Council did not believe her or value her views as a professional.

Complaint b) – breach of confidentiality

43. There is a conflict of evidence between Mrs X and SW1 about whether SW1 gave her name to Mr and Mrs Y. SW1 says she did not. Mrs X says SW1 told her she did. Based on the information I have so far I cannot resolve this conflict. However I do not consider I need to investigate the matter further. This is because I accept that, as the Council says, in order to explore the concerns with Mr and Mrs Y SW1 needed to provide them with the details. Whether SW1 volunteered the name herself or not it seems likely, on balance, that Mr and Mrs Y would have been able to work out who was the original source of the concerns for the reasons the Council has given. So I cannot say any subsequent difficulties in the relationship between Mrs X and Mr and Mrs Y were a result of fault by the Council.
44. If Mrs X wishes to pursue the question of whether the Council breached data protection legislation she may contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for not taking up the concerns she raised straightaway and for the faults I have identified in the way it responded to her complaint. It should recognise the distress and anxiety caused.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have found fault by the Council in the way it dealt with the concerns Mrs X raised. The Council has agreed to apologise and this is a suitable remedy. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman