Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s communication with her during the time she fostered two children. She said the Council undervalued and discredited her and as a result the placement ended. The Council acknowledged it could have communicated better with Mrs Y and apologised. This is an appropriate remedy and we have not proposed any further remedial action.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s engagement with her and her husband in their capacity as agency foster carers.
2. Mrs Y says the Council has failed to respond fully to her complaint about the matter.
3. As a result of the Council’s actions Mrs Y says they have been discredited as foster carers and feel victimised and undervalued.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. During my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mrs Y and considered the information she provided.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I also consulted the relevant law and guidance which I have referred to in this statement.
9. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance relevant to the complaint

10. The National Minimum Standards say investigations into allegations against carers should be “handled fairly, quickly and consistently in a way that provides effective protection for the child, and at the same time supports the person who is subject to the investigation”. Foster carers should be told in writing about allegations against them and given information about the timescale for completing the investigation.
11. Government guidance says councils should designate a particular officer, or team of officers, “to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people who work with children.” (Working together to safeguard children, Department for Education 2018, Chapter 2, paragraphs 5 & 6). The officer is known as the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).
12. An allegation may relate to a person who works with children who has:
• behaved in a way that has or may have harmed a child;
• possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child; or
• behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children.
13. The LADO is responsible for:
• providing advice to employers;
• managing and overseeing cases;
• ensuring the child’s voice is heard and that they are safeguarded;
• ensuring there is a consistent, fair and thorough process for all adults working with children and young people against whom an allegation is made; and
• monitoring the progress of cases to ensure they are dealt with as quickly as possible.
14. National Minimum Standard 22.9 requires fostering agencies to provide independent support to carers during an investigation into an allegation.

Summary of key background events relevant to the complaint

15. In August 2017 Mrs Y and her husband, who I will call Mr Y, provided a placement for two foster children aged three and five. I will call the children F and G. Mr and Mrs Y were employed by a foster agency which is not the subject of this complaint. We are instead investigating the actions of Devon County Council.
16. Between 2017 and 2023 Mrs Y says the Council regularly praised her and Mr Y for their excellent care of F and G. This is reflected in some of the case records I have reviewed.
17. In September 2023 G’s school contacted the Council to raise concerns about the tone of an email received from Mrs Y. The school also said G sometimes presents as anxious and fearful about being shouted at when at home and G worries about getting dirty at school.
18. The Council held a Child in Care (CIC) review meeting on 29 September 2023 chaired by the Independent Review Officer (IRO). The review considered the ongoing needs of G and agreed to consult with CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services) about therapeutic support in the form of animal therapy.
19. Mrs Y says she has a severe allergy to animal hair. Mrs Y says exposure to animal hair can trigger a serious medical reaction. She raised concerns about G bringing allergens into the family home. The Council suggested that G could change clothes after therapy and before returning home.
20. On 2 October the Council and Mrs Y attended a Personal Education Plan (PEP) review for G. During the review Mrs Y raised concerns about the proposed plans for G’s animal therapy.
21. Around this time G told a social worker they are often shouted at by Mrs Y for being in “big trouble” and they are worried about going home due to the fear of being punished and sent to bed early. G also disclosed that Mr and Mrs Y said, “what happens at home stays at home” and that they should not share things with other adults.
22. Email exchanges from 5 October show F shared with staff at their school that Mr and Mrs Y do not listen, and that F feels unable to talk about their experiences. F reportedly said they “had enough and cannot take it anymore”. The school shared their concerns with the social worker.
23. On the same day Mrs Y also sent an email to a manager at the Council to raise concerns about the social worker’s conduct. However, the person who Mrs Y emailed was no longer in post and the email did not reach anyone.
24. F disclosed to the social worker that they experience shouting at home and that Mr Y sometimes grabs F’s ear when shouting and that it hurts. F said this had happened more than ten times.
25. G told the social worker they could not speak about what happens at home. G said Mrs Y called them a liar. G also said Mrs Y allowed F and G to go to the park together and alone despite requests for this not to happen. G said Mrs Y says the social worker is rude.
26. Following those discussions, the social worker relayed their concerns to a manager. The manager decided to make a LADO referral.
27. A LADO allegations management meeting went ahead on 13 October. Mr Y had acknowledged he grabbed F’s ear, but not in the way or context F had described. The meeting concluded with an agreement for the fostering agency to complete an internal investigation.
28. F said Mr and Mrs Y questioned them about what they had shared with the social worker. F expressed anger that Mr Y had denied grabbing their ear in the way F had described.
29. The records show the social worker requested CAMHS support for G on 15 October.
30. On 16 October the Council held a ‘Professionals Meeting’ to discuss the concerns raised by F and G’s respective schools. The notes of the meeting show that both schools had separately shared concerns about Mrs Y’s method of communication and that she sometimes presents as angry.
31. Later that day email exchanges show the fostering agency spoke with Mrs Y to inform her “of the overall conversations and expectations as agreed”. The agency explained the purpose of the LADO process and the outcomes. The agency also told Mrs Y that the police had decided to take no further action (NFA) following the allegation of common assault made by F regarding the ear pulling. Despite this, the agency explained it would continue with its own internal investigation.
32. The fostering agency also wrote to Mr and Mrs Y on 18 October to provide details of the investigation including the allegations being considered and the anticipated timescales for completion.
33. As Mrs Y had not received a response to her previous email sent to the Council on 5 October, she re-sent the email to another manager on 18 October.
34. On the same day the Council wrote to Mrs Y to explain the LADO process and the ongoing actions.
35. The social worker met with Mr and Mrs Y on 20 October. Two days later, Mr and Mrs Y requested a new social worker and declined any further home meetings in the meantime.
36. Both children shared that Mrs Y said the social worker was not allowed to visit them at home anymore. The children also told their birth mother during a visit that Mr and Mrs Y told them to keep secrets.
37. On 26 October the Council agreed to fund 12 sessions of horse therapy for G.
38. Mrs Y made a formal complaint on 27 October 2023. In summary this said.
• The social worker had disregarded her allergies and health conditions. She must avoid contact with animals as exposure to animal hair – either directly or indirectly – can cause significant illness.
• The Council suggested horse therapy for G without prior consultation.
• The social worker invited themselves for tea via the children, and not via Mr and Mrs Y.
• Mrs Y wants a new social worker, but the Council refused.
39. The fostering agency completed its internal investigation by 6 November. The investigation concluded with the following outcomes.
• Allegation of physical abuse – unsubstantiated.
• Allegation of shouting in the home – substantiated.
• Alleged concerns in working with professionals and the expectations placed on them – unsubstantiated.
• Challenges from the recommendation for G to attend animal therapy – unsubstantiated.
• Allegation of ‘behaviourist approach’ being implemented in the daily care of F and G – unsubstantiated.
• Alleged concerns about the use of language when communicating with F and G during daily discussions and the impact on both children – substantiated.
• Allegation that children disclosed they should not share what happens in the home with professionals – substantiated.
40. Mrs Y wrote a second complaint letter on 14 November. In the letter she explained how she felt forced to give notice on the placement due to the negative portrayal of them by the social worker.
41. Mrs Y later withdrew her notice.
42. On 16 November case records show that G went into school and told the teacher the social worker is “discriminating against [Mrs Y]”. The teacher asked G whether they understood the meaning of the word discrimination. G said they did not and became upset. The school raised a concern that Mrs Y was sharing inappropriate adult information with G.
43. In late November and early December, the Council spoke with Mrs Y about her complaint. The Council also met with F and G’s schools to discuss the concerns.
44. On 15 December the Council held a ‘Permanency Planning Meeting’ (PPM) for G and F. The Council decided that G and F needed long-term fostering but that their current placement was not meeting all their care needs. The Council agreed that G and F should move into new placements after the Christmas break.
45. The Council responded to Mrs Y’s complaint on 4 January 2024 and in summary said:
• The Council apologises for not responding to Mrs Y’s email sent on 5 October. This is because the manager who Mrs Y sent the email to no longer works for the Council. When Mrs Y forwarded the email to the new manager, they did not respond because they thought the email was just for information. Due to the ongoing LADO investigation, as well as their workload and competing demands, the manager did not respond which the Council accepts was not satisfactory.
• The fostering agency was responsible for telling Mrs Y about the investigation.
• The birth parents of F and G were provided with only the basic details of any disclosures made by the children.
• The original recommendation for animal therapy came from CAMHS.
• There is no evidence the social worker failed to consult with Mrs Y about G’s therapy. Records show that G’s need for therapy was discussed at LAC reviews and PEP meetings.
• G’s therapy remains on hold until decisions about their longer term care needs have been made.
• The social worker maintains their view that it was not appropriate for F and G to walk to the park together and alone. The Council does not accept there was any shortfall in the social worker’s practice here.
46. F and G moved to a new placement on 11 January 2024.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr and Mrs Y?

47. Our role is not to establish whether the Council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
48. It is important to note that we are investigating the actions of the Council, not the fostering agency. The National Minimum Standard 22.9 requires fostering agencies to provide independent support to carers during an investigation into allegations made against them. Therefore, it is open for Mrs Y to pursue a complaint against the agency if she feels that she was not properly supported during investigations into the concerns raised by F, G and professionals.
49. My investigation has focused on the actions of the Council and in particular around the complaint that the social work team were unprofessional and discredited Mr and Mrs Y’s good work as a long-standing foster carer.
50. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed it did not consider it was necessary to recommend that any referrals were made to professional bodies about Mr and Mrs Y or to complete a reassessment. Instead, the LADO made a recommendation for Mr and Mrs Y to complete further mandatory training.
51. The Council emphasises its view that there was no evidence to show either Mr or Mrs Y posed a risk to children or that they intended to cause harm to any child. It was however clear that the relationship between Mr and Mrs Y and the Council had broken down which in turn hindered the chances of a positive ongoing working relationship.
52. In response to our enquiries the LADO acknowledged the Council did not discuss individual concerns with Mr and Mrs Y as they arose, and instead advised them of all issues in one go. The LADO expressed their view that this made it difficult for Mr and Mrs Y to consider and address issues in a constructive way. With that said, the records show the agency kept Mr and Mrs Y appropriately informed about the allegations and the investigation. I therefore find that any injustice arising from the points raised by the LADO is not significant because Mr and Mrs Y did receive sufficient information about the investigation.
53. The Council also accepts that it failed to respond to the email sent by Mrs Y on 5 October. The Council explained the reasons for the oversight and has apologised. I consider the apology is an appropriate remedy.
54. I have also considered whether there is evidence of any fault with how the social worker communicated with Mr and Mrs Y. From the records and email exchanges I have seen, the social worker responded appropriately to the concerns raised by F, G and their schools. I am also satisfied the Council’s complaint response was sufficiently detailed and responded to the salient points raised by Mrs Y.
55. Mrs Y also complained the Council disregarded the significance of her allergies to animal fur and failed to consult her about the decision to pursue horse therapy for G. I have considered the notes from the PEP meeting held on 29 September. These show a discussion between professionals and Mrs Y about the need for G to pursue horse therapy. They also discussed the ongoing weekly dog therapy at G’s school and ways to reduce the risk to Mrs Y.
56. The records show the Council was aware that Mrs Y had allergies but decided that it was in G’s best interests to pursue the therapy they needed. This is one of the reasons why the placement did not continue beyond January 2024 because the Council felt that F and G’s needs could not be fully met within the placement. This is a matter of professional judgement which, in the absence of procedural fault, I am unable to challenge.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have completed my investigation and issued a final decision statement. There is some fault in the Council’s communication with Mrs Y which it has already apologised for. The remaining injustice is not significant enough to propose any further remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman