Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr and Mrs X when they raised concerns about the emotional development of a child in their care. It listened to them, referred the child for developmental assessments and offered them support.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I refer to as Mr and Mrs X, were local authority foster carers. They complain about how the Council dealt with them when they raised concerns about the emotional development of a child in their care. I refer to the child as Y.
2. The Council investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaint under the formal Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. This included an independent investigation at stage 2 and a review panel at stage 3. However, they remain dissatisfied.
3. Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council:
• ignored their attempts to advocate on behalf of Y, and failed to properly support them to manage Y’s behaviour and development, which resembled, in their view, that of a child with autism; and
• suggested the problems were being caused by their care, but raised no concerns with them directly, and offered no support or guidance.
4. In their original complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr and Mrs X also complained that the Council:
• refused to reinvestigate their complaint at stage 2 of the Children Act complaints procedure, even though the stage 3 review panel had recommended it do so;
• took Y from nursery without warning them, and placed Y elsewhere without giving them the opportunity to say goodbye;
• wrote to Y’s mother’s solicitor and said it had concerns about the care they were providing; and
• placed no more children in their care.
5. Mr and Mrs X want an apology from the Council, and a financial remedy for their distress.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the complaints set out in paragraph 3 of this decision statement.
7. I have not investigated the complaints set out in paragraph 4 of this statement. This is because:
• the Council has now reinvestigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaint;
• having considered the updated investigation report, I am satisfied that there is unlikely to be fault with how the Council removed Y from Mr and Mrs X’s care;
• I have seen no evidence that the Council wrote to the child’s mother’s solicitor about Mr and Mrs X; and
• the Council had no obligation to place children with Mr and Mrs X and, although they appear dissatisfied with their deregistration as foster carers, this did not form part of their Children Act complaint and therefore I have not considered it.
8. For these reasons, it would not be proportionate to investigate these matters further.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

9. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
10. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered information from Mr and Mrs X and the Council.
12. Mr and 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

What happened

13. In late 2020 the Council held a looked-after child (LAC) review for Y. Mr and
    Mrs X attended and raised concerns about Y’s development. The Council acknowledged these concerns and accepted that Y may benefit from further assessment.
14. In January 2021 Mr and Mrs X met twice with the Council’s fostering manager. The aims of the meetings were to discuss Y’s needs and Mr and Mrs X’s relationship with Y’s social worker. Mr and Mrs X raised concerns, again, about Y’s development. They felt Y had undiagnosed needs, and said they were having difficulty communicating with Y’s social worker about this. The manager told them that Y had been referred for a developmental assessment.
15. In February the developmental assessment was completed by a specialist paediatrician, who found that Y showed symptoms of autism. Y was referred for a full autism assessment. It was estimated that it would be 13 months before this assessment could take place.
16. In March Mr and Mrs X met with the fostering manager a further time. They said they were keen to have clarity on Y’s needs. The manager said an assessment was ongoing, and respite was available to Mr and Mrs X if Y remained in their care for a prolonged period.
17. In May the Council held a further LAC review. It said it was considering referring Y for a private autism assessment, given the long waiting list on the NHS. It also said it was considering exploring whether there were reasons other than autism for Y’s developmental difficulties.
18. The Council’s record of the review says Mr and Mrs X rejected the possibility that there may be other reasons for Y’s difficulties (other than autism). They deny saying this, and say they simply did not want autism ruling out.
19. After the review Mrs X wrote to the Council, saying:

We have advocated to the best of our ability for [Y’s] needs to be met and are now confident that this will continue. We feel it is right for the service together with professionals to decide the next steps for [Y‘s] future and for us to just take a back seat now and continue focusing on our role as foster carers in just caring for [Y’s] needs.

20. In June the Council told Mr and Mrs X that it had agreed to fund a private autism assessment for Y; however, the consultant at the private clinic had said it would be against guidelines to fully assess a child as young as Y. But the Council was invited to a consultation.
21. The Council invited Mr and Mrs X to attend the consultation as well. They initially refused, saying the consultant was wrong about the guidelines. They also said they would attend their own, different appointment with Y, and accused the Council of not taking Y’s autism seriously. They said their views on Y’s needs were supported by medical professionals but had been ignored by the Council.
22. Mr and Mrs X did end up attending the consultation rather than arranging their own appointment.
23. In July Y left Mr and Mrs X’s care.

My findings

24. As Mr and Mrs X are no longer Y’s foster carers, and therefore do not have a continued interest in Y’s welfare, I am limited in what I can investigate.
25. I will not look at any injustice Y may have experienced as Mr and Mrs X are not suitable representatives to make a complaint on Y’s behalf. And I cannot disclose information about Y from the Council’s files in any detail (beyond that which Mr and Mrs X already know).
26. Nonetheless, I will set out my findings for each part of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint in turn.

Did the Council ignore Mr and Mrs X’s attempts to advocate for Y, and fail to offer them support?

27. The Council took Mr and Mrs X’s views into account, particularly at Y’s LAC review in late 2020 and in three separate meetings with them in early 2021.
28. For the most part, the Council also agreed with Mr and Mrs X’s views about Y’s development. It agreed to refer for a new developmental assessment for Y and then, separately, agreed to pay for a private autism assessment. These were things Mr and Mrs X wanted. They even said in late May 2021 that they were happy with how the Council was meeting Y’s needs.
29. Mr and Mrs X said in their complaint to the Council that it would not offer them support because it would not acknowledge anything was wrong with Y’s development. However, neither of these things were true. The Council acknowledged Y’s difficulties and offered support to Mr and Mrs X (such as additional respite).
30. Mr and Mrs X clearly disagree with how the Council ultimately approached Y’s autism assessment. But their overarching complaint is that the Council refused to listen to them. For the reasons I have given, I do not agree, and I have found no fault with the Council.

Did the Council suggest Y’s difficulties were being caused by Mr and
Mrs X’s care?

31. I have reviewed Y’s LAC review documents from the period Mr and Mrs X complain about, and there was no suggestion they were blamed for Y’s difficulties. In fact, the Council’s exploration of developmental assessments suggests the opposite.
32. As a result, I have nothing to add to this part of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

33. The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr and Mrs X when they raised concerns about Y’s emotional development.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman