Summary: Mrs X complained about the standard of the Council’s safeguarding investigation under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process following an allegation from their former foster child. She said the process was not fair. We found some procedural fault in the LADO investigation process, but it did not cause Mrs X significant injustice or affect the outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the standard of the Council’s safeguarding investigation under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process following an allegation from their former foster child.
2. Mrs X said:
• No one discussed the LADO process with her or her husband (Mr X), or wrote to them about it. And the fostering agency would not tell them what the allegations were.
• She and Mr X did not see the investigation report before the LADO meeting, and they were not allowed to write statements for the meeting.
• They were not allowed to hear the recording forming the basis of the allegations, and its contents was not discussed with them during the investigation.
• The investigation report contained different allegations to the ones they were interviewed about, and the outcome of the investigation relied on points that were never put to them.
• Mrs X’s social worker, and their foster child’s social worker, were not involved in the investigation, and could have given important background information.
• She and Mr X were denied the opportunity to raise these issues for the LADO meeting, or to highlight the errors in the investigation report. The process was not fair, and the Council infringed their right to a fair hearing under the Human Rights Act 1998.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mrs X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Foster care

9. 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.
10. When children are in foster care, the foster carers will have their own fostering social worker, who is responsible for supporting and assessing their care. The children will have their own social worker. Both social workers should work closely together.
11. Organisations and agencies working with children and families should have clear policies for dealing with allegations against people who work with children (Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, Chapter 4, paragraph 223).
12. Councils should have a designated officer, known as the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people who work with children. Arrangements should be put in place to ensure any allegations about those who work with children are passed to the LADO without delay (Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, Chapter 4, paragraph 224).
13. Councils should put arrangements in place to provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations and agencies on how to deal with allegations against people who work with children. Councils should ensure there are arrangements in place to liaise with the police and other organisations and agencies to monitor the progress of cases and ensure they are dealt with as quickly as possible, consistent with a thorough and fair process (Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, Chapter 4, paragraph 225).
14. Employers and voluntary organisations should have clear policies in place setting out the process, including timescales for investigation and what support and advice will be available to individuals against whom allegations have been made. The LADO should be informed within one working day of all allegations (Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, Chapter 4, paragraph 226).
15. A council shall not allow the placement of a child with a particular person to continue if it appears to them that the placement is no longer the most suitable way of performing their duty. Where it appears to an authority that to continue a placement would be harmful to the welfare of the child concerned, the council shall remove the child forthwith.
16. It will be a matter of professional judgement for the social worker, based on their knowledge of the child and carer, that the child’s welfare is not being adequately safeguarded. Children cannot always describe unhappiness so understanding what the child’s daily life in the placement is like; routine, mealtimes and whether the foster child is treated the same way as the birth children, is key to understanding what may be having a negative impact on the child.

Child protection

17. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and determine whether protective action is required. Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse or neglect. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
18. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
19. When a council has concerns about a child, the law requires it to take action to find out more. It only has to have ‘reasonable cause to suspect’. This is a lower burden of proof than that used by the Police or the Courts who require evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

What happened

20. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
21. The Council’s children’s services team received a telephone call on 12 June 2023, alleging Mrs X threatened to kill their foster child (the child) during an argument with Mr X. The children’s services team made a referral to the LADO. It also telephoned Mr X to tell him the child would not be staying with them that night. It did not tell Mr X what the allegations were, but Mr X was not surprised the child wanted to stay elsewhere. He said he and Mrs X had argued, and the child was likely to have overheard. He mentioned the child getting a hamster without permission, and not cleaning or looking after it properly. He said Mrs X ‘did have a bit of a go’ at the child about this. Mr X said he and Mrs X did not feel supported by the Council recently.
22. The Council held a strategy discussion and first LADO meeting with partner agencies on 4 July.
23. Attendees discussed an argument between Mr and Mrs X which took place on 11 June. Mrs X was alleged to have threatened to kill the child and their sibling, and said words to the effect that Mr X only looked after the child for the money. They also discussed Mr X asking the child to delete a recording they took of the argument, or he would not return the child’s belongings.
24. The agencies agreed to start a LADO investigation, which was to be a joint investigation by the Council and the fostering agency. The investigation was to decide whether Mr and Mrs X had, or may have, emotionally harmed a child by using unprofessional and threatening language and physical intervention whilst being in a position of trust and authority.
25. The LADO asked the child’s social worker to get the recording of Mr and Mrs X’s argument.
26. Also on 4 July, the fostering agency told Mr and Mrs X about the LADO safeguarding investigation. It told them they could share their own account of events. It did this verbally.
27. The Council also gave Mr and Mrs X details of a fostering support service.
28. The investigators met with Mr and Mrs X on 23 August 2023 and spent several hours with them, discussing the foster placement, their relationship with the child, and the alleged argument.
29. Mr and Mrs X spoke about issues with the child missing school, not coming home, and having to call the police. There was also an incident with the child’s sibling, who pushed Mr and Mrs X’s child down some stairs and later moved to another placement.
30. Mrs X said she did not threaten to kill the child, or their sibling. She did not see the child on the day in question and did not know if the child was in the house during the argument with Mr X. She said the argument was not about the child, and the child did not see her body language or facial expressions. Mrs X said their own child was present but had headphones on.
31. Mr X said he took the child to school the next day. He alleged the child told him they made a recording and changed it to make it about them. Mrs X mentioned another occasion where the child recorded Mr X’s parent. Mr X said the child made the recording up.
32. The investigators sent Mr and Mrs X a copy of the meeting report. Mr and Mrs X then made amendments with their version of events.
33. The investigators sent their investigation report to the fostering agency on 14 September 2023. They confirmed they had not shared the report with Mr and Mrs X at that point.
34. The investigators then sent their investigation report to the LADO on 18 September, advising they awaited a response from the fostering agency about sharing it with Mr and Mrs X.
35. The fostering agency emailed the LADO on 18 October 2023. It confirmed Mr and Mrs X had already had a week to read the investigation report and respond, but asked for more time as their fostering representative was unavailable.
36. The LADO said it was important to give Mr and Mrs X time to respond and to ask them how long they needed. The fostering agency said Mr X confirmed a week was long enough. The LADO therefore moved the final meeting to 3 November to give Mr and Mrs X time to respond.
37. The final LADO meeting took place on 3 November 2023. The records of the meeting state the investigators advised Mr and Mrs X they had the right to respond separately and gave them the chance to give a written account of events.
38. During the meeting, the attendees discussed a recording of an argument between Mr and Mrs X where Mrs X made threats of physical violence about the child. Mr and Mrs X’s own child was present and became distressed.
39. The records state Mr and Mrs X were aware of the recording, but played it down, suggesting the child doctored it. They admitted arguing but said the foster child could not have heard as they were upstairs. They also said their own child had headphones on, so could not hear. They suggested anything said was in jest and not a threat.
40. The Chair of the meeting considered the child gave a balanced account which seemed genuine and truthful, and the investigators agreed matched the recording.
41. The attendees unanimously agreed the evidence supported that Mrs X had, or may have, emotionally harmed a child by using unprofessional and threatening language and physical intervention whilst being in a position of trust and authority.
42. Attendees did not agree the allegation against Mr X had been substantiated.
43. The fostering agency sent Mr and Mrs X a full copy of the investigation report, and confirmed the result of the investigation, following the final LADO meeting.
44. Mrs X complained to the Council on 9 November 2023. She said it did not let them hear the recording, and the child tampered with it. She also said it did not send them a copy of the investigation report before the meeting on 3 November. She did not accept the result of the investigation as the Council did not give them a fair hearing or the chance to review the evidence.
45. The Council responded on 16 November. It said the LADO rearranged the meeting to give Mr and Mrs X more time to respond, because the fostering agency had not initially shared the interview and statement with them. It also said the independent investigator and social worker listened to the recording and described it in their report. It said they followed the correct process.
46. Mrs X repeated the fostering agency did not give them a copy of the full investigation report before the final LADO meeting. She said it also did not tell them the date of the meeting, so they could not address the errors or give a statement.
47. Mrs X said investigators told them the child made four allegations. The investigation report shows a new, different allegation investigators did not put to them or discuss with them.
48. The Council responded in December 2023. It said the LADO records show the investigator told Mr and Mrs X they could provide a statement at the meeting on 23 August. The records also show the LADO checked with the fostering agency whether it gave Mr and Mrs X the investigation report before the planned meeting on 6 October. The LADO rescheduled the meeting as this had not happened yet. The LADO checked again on 18 October, and the fostering agency confirmed it provided Mr and Mrs X with the report on that day, and they had agreed to respond within one week. The LADO meeting was then set for 3 November to give Mr and Mrs X time to respond.
49. The Council said the LADO reviewed the allegations and details of events, and these remained consistent throughout.
50. Mrs X disputed the fostering agency told her she could provide a statement to the LADO meeting. She also said they did not get to read the investigation report before the LADO meeting and were not told when the meeting would take place. Mrs X said she did not get the chance to admit or deny the new allegation, or explain the context.
51. The Council responded to Mrs X in January 2024. It said the LADO gave them an extra two weeks to read the investigation report to offer representation for the final LADO meeting on 3 November. It said there is no explicit expectation within the process to give the date of the final LADO meeting, but Mr and Mrs X knew the meeting was taking place and had extra time beforehand. The LADO said the fostering agency confirmed during the meeting that it shared the report with Mr and Mrs X.
52. The Council said investigators did not add a new allegation. Mr and Mrs X knew about the recording of the argument from 23 August. Investigators shared the language that was of concern from the recording. The investigation report shared before the LADO meeting has specific quotes from the recording. And the recording gave investigators evidence to counter Mrs X’s claim not to know the child was in the house at the time of the argument. There are various displays of bad language and inappropriate threats in the recording, and no evidence Mr or Mrs X tried to de-escalate matters to prevent distress to the children.
53. The Council said only one allegation needed adjudication, and Mr and Mrs X knew about it before the investigation report. This was the allegation Mr and Mrs X had or may have emotionally harmed a child by using unprofessional and threatening language and physical intervention whilst being in a position of trust and authority.

Analysis

54. The LADO investigation process is not a trial in court, and there is no hearing as such. The Council does not have to let Mr and Mrs X see or hear evidence if it has justified concerns about doing so. But the Council should follow the correct investigation process.
55. The Ombudsman considers it is good practice for councils (or the investigating agency) to tell people about allegations, and the process, in writing. Chapter 4, paragraph 226 of the Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance states there should be clear policies on the process, timescales, and what support and advice is available to people subject to allegations. The Ombudsman considers that writing to people about the allegations and process at the outset would be in keeping with this.
56. It is appreciated the fostering agency telephoned Mr and Mrs X about the allegations. However, I have not seen details of exactly what they discussed, so I cannot verify what information was explained. Having something in writing provides a clear record of the information or advice shared. In this case, it may have avoided the element of Mrs X’s complaint about the agency not putting the allegations to them in full, and not telling them they could provide a statement as part of the process.
57. However, the fostering agency did tell Mr and Mrs X about the allegations verbally, and about their right to respond. Investigators then discussed the allegations with Mr and Mrs X in person at a meeting in August. It also gave them a copy of the August meeting notes and the chance to respond with their views. I therefore do not consider there was any significant injustice in this regard.
58. Mrs X said the fostering agency did not send them the full investigation report before the final LADO meeting. This meant they could not see all the allegations or all the information to be considered at the meeting. Mrs X said this prevented her giving a full response, and meant the process was not fair.
59. I found an email from the fostering agency to the LADO states they sent Mr and Mrs X their report before the LADO meeting. Unfortunately, the email does not include the report or its title. During my investigation, the Council told me the LADO believed the fostering agency sent Mr and Mrs X the full investigation report. However, on review it transpired they only sent Mr and Mrs X a report of their August interview and not the full investigation report.
60. The LADO delayed the final meeting so Mr and Mrs X could receive the full investigation report, and thought the fostering agency sent them a copy. While there is no specific duty to provide the report, it is clear the LADO intended the parents to see it. This was a miscommunication and a misunderstanding, but there should have been greater clarity about what information the fostering agency shared. That was fault.
61. I appreciate it was the fostering agency who failed to send the full investigation report, and not the LADO. However, the LADO is responsible for managing and overseeing the process, and something went wrong, which is why I found the Council at fault.
62. While the fostering agency failed to share the full investigation report before the final LADO meeting, I do not consider there was any procedural unfairness. And I did not find it affected the outcome. That is because there was an interview with Mr and Mrs X where they could give their account of the argument and what happened. They then received the interview notes and had the chance to respond, challenge them, and make corrections - which they did. The only information they did not see was the views of the child, and more specific detail on the wording of the allegations. However, the findings of the investigation were based on audio recording of Mr and Mrs X’s argument, which is clear and impartial evidence of what took place.
63. Mrs X states she, and Mr X, were not allowed to write statements before the final LADO meeting. I have not seen any evidence in support of this assertion. On the contrary, I saw evidence the investigators and the fostering agency told Mr and Mrs X they could give their account of events. I found they sent a response to the August interview report, including corrections. They had the chance to include any information or statement they wished at that stage.
64. Mrs X said the Council did not put an allegation to her about threatening to drag the child outside by their hair. She said she did not have the chance to admit or deny this during the investigation.
65. I have not seen evidence the investigators specifically mentioned this element of the allegations during the meeting with Mr and Mrs X. But I am satisfied they knew the Council was investigating the argument as a whole. They also knew the Council had a recording of it. Investigators discussed the argument with Mr and Mrs X and gave them both the chance to explain what happened. I note from the records that Mrs X denied the argument was about the child, and said her words were in jest and not a threat.
66. However, a female voice can be heard on the recording making a threat of physical violence about the child. The Council was satisfied the female voice in the recording was Mrs X. While this may not have been a genuine threat, and there is no evidence any physical violence occurred, this would be enough for the Council to substantiate safeguarding concerns.
67. The threshold for proving an allegation of harm towards a child is on ‘the balance of probabilities.’ That is a lower threshold than for a criminal conviction, which is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
68. The Council had independent and verifiable evidence in the form of the recording. It was not a case of one person’s word against another for the Council to weigh up and decide what happened. The recording confirms the words Mrs X used.
69. The LADO investigation was to decide whether Mr and Mrs X had, or may have, emotionally harmed the child through unprofessional and threatening language and physical intervention whilst being in a position of trust and authority.
70. It reached its decision on this by considering the independent investigators report on the allegations the child made. The report included the investigator’s views on the recording the child took, the views of the child, and the views of Mr and Mrs X.
71. The professionals at the LADO meeting were satisfied the concerns about Mrs X were backed up, based on her use of unprofessional and threatening language. They did not go into whether each individual allegation was proven.
72. Looking at the evidence, I am satisfied the Council was entitled to make the findings it reached.
73. Mr and Mrs X allege the child made a false recording of their argument, or manipulated it so it appeared it was about them. Mr X alleged the child confirmed this to him. However, aside from the statements of Mr and Mrs X, I have seen no positive evidence to question the authenticity of the recording.
74. The Council listened to the recording as part of its investigation, and was satisfied it is genuine. I also listened to the recording. A male and female can be heard arguing, and the person who took the recording can be heard moving around and reacting to what the male and female said. I did not hear anything which led me to believe the recording was falsified or altered.
75. And while the investigators report states there is no date or time on the recording, I was able to find information about the date and time the audio file was created. I found this is consistent with when Mr and Mrs X argued.
76. Mrs X stated she did not know the child was at home during the argument, and could not have heard it as they were upstairs. However, the record of children’s services telephone call with Mr X on 12 June 2023 confirms he knew the child was at home and was likely to have overheard the argument. This supports my view the recording is genuine.

Back to top

Agreed action

77. Within three months of my final decision, the Council agreed to review its LADO Allegations Management Procedures and Guidance documents and leaflets to ensure employers and agencies were clear on their responsibilities during the process.
78. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

79. I completed my investigation. I found there was evidence of some procedural fault in the LADO investigation process, but it did not cause Mrs X significant injustice or affect the outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman