The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not allowed her to have contact with her former foster child, Y. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide sufficient support for her and Y to maintain the placement and she was pushed into giving notice on the placement. Mrs X says this has caused her emotional distress and financial hardship. The Council was not at fault.
The complaint
Mrs X complained the Council will not allow her to have contact with her former foster child, Y. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to provide sufficient support for her and Y to maintain the placement and she was pushed into giving notice on the placement. Mrs X says this has caused her emotional distress and financial hardship.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Background information Children and young people may be in the care of a council either voluntarily under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, or by the family court making a Care Order and/or Placement Order. Councils should have care plans for children in their care. These should be reviewed by a multi-agency forum, at least every six months or more if required.
The fostering services regulations 2011 states the fostering service provider must promote contact between a child placed with a foster parent and the child’s parents, relatives and friends unless such contact is not reasonably practicable or consistent with the child’s welfare.
Councils have statutory duties to children in care to promote and safeguard their welfare. The ‘Care, Planning and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010’ and guidance sets out how councils should manage and arrange placements.
The Fostering Services: National Minimum Standards 2011 say that children should not normally be moved if the foster carers are willing to care for them.
Under the Assessment and Approval of Foster Carers (amendment to the Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations) a foster carer may at any point give written notice that they wish to resign, in which case their approval is automatically terminated 28 days from receipt of the notice. The fostering service may wish to advise a foster carer that, if they are considering resigning, this automatically takes effect, regardless of the foster carer wishing to withdraw this.
What happened This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
The Council removed Y from his family home in August 2017 because of concerns about his welfare. He became the subject of an interim care order and moved into foster care. Y moved to Mrs X’s home in February 2018. The placement order was granted through the courts in October 2018 for Y to remain in foster care until an adoption placement could be identified.
Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) started to work with Y in September 2019 because he was displaying some challenging behaviour.
The Council changed the placement plan for Y from looking for an adoption placement to a long-term fostering arrangement in March 2020.
The Council completed an education review meeting in June 2020, and it agreed Y would move to a new school more local to his foster placement. He started at his new school in September 2020.
The Council completed a Child Looked After (CLA) review in November 2020. The review stated Y was on a reduced timetable and Y had become aggressive to Mrs X and her family. Y had displayed challenging behaviours in school and had been excluded for three days. The review confirmed Y had been referred for an assessment for an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
In January 2021 a CAMHS network meeting confirmed Y had sensory and attachment difficulties. At a regular monitoring visit, the Council confirmed it had offered Mrs X respite support, but she had not accepted it as previous respite had not gone well. The visit notes confirmed Mrs X was committed to caring for Y, but this had been challenging as he was displaying challenging behaviours.
The fostering agency contacted the Council in late January and raised concerns about Y’s behaviours. The Council and CAMHS completed a meeting to review the placement. The professionals considered the placement was not sustainable because of behaviours Y was displaying. The Council offered Mrs X respite again during the meeting, but she declined this offer. The meeting noted Mrs X had been reluctant to engage with support offered. There were concerns Mrs X was reluctant to accept she needed help. The meeting minutes confirmed the Council and CAMHS believed Y needed a therapeutic placement to meet his needs.
Y’s behaviours significantly increased throughout February and case notes confirmed Mrs X was finding this challenging to manage. Mrs X gave notice for the placement to end in mid-February. Several days later Mrs X withdrew the notice.
The fostering agency contacted the Council and raised concerns that Y’s needs could be met in his current placement. It stated Mrs X did not engage with support until behaviours became too severe. The case note confirmed the EHCP process was due to start, and Mrs X needed to engage with the support that had been offered.
The fostering agency set out a plan of support for Mrs X and Y by offering staff to take Y out following school and at weekends. This would give Mrs X a break from her caring role.
The Council held a placement meeting in March, and stated it felt Y needed a therapeutic placement with experienced carers. The meeting confirmed the fostering agency was providing support to Mrs X.
Throughout March the case notes evidence a continued increase in Y’s challenging behaviours and his school raised more concerns about him being at risk. Case notes confirmed Mrs X wanted to change foster care agencies and felt a new agency would offer more support. The Council felt it could not wait several months for the process of Mrs X moving to a new agency. The case notes confirmed professional’s considered Y’s placement was in crisis. The Council told Mrs X and CAMHS the following day it was trying to source a new placement for Y. It was decided a therapeutic foster placement was required to best meet Y’s needs.
During April, Y’s behaviours continued to increase and in the middle of April, Mrs X again gave notice to end the placement. Five days later Mrs X asked the social worker to agree that she could continue caring for Y if she moved foster care agency. The Council identified a new placement for Y at the end of April.
The Council asked the courts to revoke Y’s placement in May. The Council acknowledged Y was happy in his placement, but it remained confident a placement move was needed and in his best interests.
Y moved placements at the start of June and subsequent reviews confirmed the move had gone well and Y was happy in his new placement.
Mrs X complained to the Council in September 2021. She stated she had been pressured into handing in notice, the CAMHS support package was too aggressive and the Council would not allow her to have contact with Y.
The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in October 2021. The Council response stated evidence from meeting notes and case records indicated Y was not settled in his placement while with Mrs X. CAMHS, the school and the Council had offered a lot of support. A multi-agency decision confirmed Y needed to move. The response explained the Council had not stopped contact and this was under constant review. Contact between Y and Mrs X was indirect and could be phone calls or Skype. The response confirmed Y’s professional network had agreed he needed time to settle into his new placement. The Council did not uphold any of Mrs X’s complaints.
Mrs X wrote to the Council the following day challenging the response to the complaint and asking for it to be escalated.
A CAMHS meeting was held for Y in November 2021. The meeting notes confirm contact was discussed but do not go into detail about the outcome of the discussion.
The Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two request in January 2022. It apologised for incorrect information being given in the stage one response which had stated Mrs X could have contact with Y. The Council confirmed it decided contact on a case-by-case basis. Y was settled in the new placement and developing well. Contact with Mrs X may have a negative impact on the relationship with his new carers and on Ys behaviours. The decision about contact had been made in conjunction with CAMHS and was regularly discussed with professionals involved in Y’s care. The response agreed Mrs X could send Y pre-recorded videos on special occasions.
Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mrs X would like the Council to let her see Y.
The Council stated it made all decisions in collaboration with other professionals. The Council confirmed it, CAMHS and the fostering agency offered support to Mrs X. The Council sent Mrs X a video of Y opening a present she had sent him which Mrs X acknowledged she had seen.
My findings
The Council has followed the relevant guidance and made decisions about Y in partnership with other professionals. It is clear from the evidence provided Y’s behaviours were a significant and increasing concern for professionals involved with this case. Professionals were concerned for both Y’s and Mrs X’s wellbeing. Mrs X gave notice for the placement to end, and the Council agreed this was in Y’s best interests. It was decided a therapeutic placement was required given the extent of Y’s needs.
The Council has made decisions regarding contact between Mrs X and Y with CAMHS. The Council has not been able to provide notes from the meetings that have taken place throughout 2022. CAMHS own and minute the meetings and its legal department has not agreed to share the documents. The Council worker who attended these meetings has however confirmed professionals discuss and review contact at every meeting. The decision that contact with Mrs X is not currently in Y’s best interests is one the Council is entitled to take provided all relevant factors have been taken into account. I appreciate this is distressing for Mrs X, but I have seen no evidence of fault.
I am satisfied that the Council offered appropriate and regular support to Mrs X to give her some respite from caring for Y. This was not always accepted. But the information provided confirms the Council was not at fault in its consideration and offer of support.
The evidence provided by the Council and the fostering agency confirms Mrs X gave notice to end the placement on two occasions. This was in a time of significant challenge due to Y’s behaviours, and I understand Mrs X quickly changed her mind and asked to withdraw the notices. I can find no evidence Mrs X was pushed or pressured into making those decisions. Although the fact Mrs X had given notice was a factor in the concerns about the stability of the placement, the evidence indicates the decision to move Y to a specialist placement was made in his best interests. We cannot question a decision which has been made appropriately.
I recognise the situation has been distressing for Mrs X and that she will be disappointed with the Councils decisions. I cannot question a decision the Council made if it followed the right procedure. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mrs X’s and Y’s wellbeing and made decisions with other professionals in a multi-agency way. There is no evidence of fault in the actions taken by the Council.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman