The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council refused to approve her as a temporary foster carer for B, a Looked After Child, who lived with her for several months. We did not find the Council at fault.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Mrs X, was caring for a young person, B, who is a Looked After Child, for several months. Mrs X complains the Council: failed to approve Mrs X as a temporary foster carer under Regulation 24 (The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010). She said the Council has failed to pay her fostering allowance. However, she says the Council visited her home to check the accommodation and confirmed the Regulation 24 placement; and made allegations about the nature of Mrs X and B’s relationship.
Mrs X says, at the direction of the Council, she has spent money putting up a wall so B had his own separate room. She says she provided B with furniture and clothed and fed him while she was on a low income. She says the lack of support from the Council meant she had to rely on food banks as she did not have enough money. Mrs X says this caused her stress and humiliation. She says the situation has caused her and her family significant stress and distress.
Mrs X says B was caused significant distress too as he was aware of the family’s financial difficulties and he felt like he was putting unnecessary strain on family. She says B was a vulnerable child and the Council’s actions put him at a disadvantage as it had failed to provide sufficient funds to allow Mrs X to support B fully.
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 cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke with Mrs X about her complaint. I considered all information sent to me by Mrs X and the Council.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
What I found
What should have happened Fostering Family Courts can make Care Orders which place children in the care of a council because of concerns about the adequacy of the parents’ care causing significant harm to the child.
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.
In relation to the termination of foster placements, the above guidance advises councils to carry out a statutory review of the child’s case and ensure the views of all the people concerned have been heard, unless there is an immediate risk of significant harm, requiring immediate removal.
The ‘Fostering Minimum Standards’ say that children should not normally be moved if the foster carers are willing to care for them.
Temporary approval of connected person Regulation 24 of the Care Planning, Placement and Care Review (England) Regulations (2010) sets out arrangements for the temporary approval of a connected person as a foster carer in emergency or exceptional circumstances. The approval can last for up to 16 weeks, which allows for the immediate placement of the child and enough time for the connected person to complete the council’s foster carer approval process.
The council must visit the connected person’s home as part of the assessment to determine their suitability as a foster carer.
A connected person approved under these regulations will be entitled to the same support and services as other council foster carers.
What happened In late 2021, B began living at Mrs X’s home. B is a Looked After Child who Mrs X knew through one of her children.
A month later, Mrs X complained to the Council. She said: the Council had refused to pay her fostering allowance. She said B’s social worker had said the arrangement was one that fell within Regulation 24 of the Care Planning, Placement and Care Review (England) Regulations (referred to as Regulation 24 from this point onwards). She said she should be temporarily approved as a connected person; she had paid to put up a wall in one of the rooms in her home so that B had his own bedroom and she had furnished the bedroom. She asked the Council to reimburse her for all these costs; and B’s social worker had said the Council no longer supported the placement.
The same day, Mrs X complained that the manager of B’s social worker had called to confirm the Council would not pay her fostering allowance. Mrs X said the reasons for this were: the manager suggested Mrs X was “harbouring” B and said Mrs X was not acting in B’s best interests. She asked the Council to confirm its decision in writing so she could start judicial review proceedings to challenge the Council’s decision.
A week later, the Council sent Mrs X its stage one complaint response. It said: the Council had not approved Mrs X as a suitable temporary carer. This was because it was not satisfied a placement with Mrs X was suitable; it confirmed this meant the Council did not intend to carry out a full assessment of Mrs X’s suitability to be a foster parent and would not reimburse Mrs X for any costs incurred; B’s social worker had carried out the visits to Mrs X’s home to check B’s living arrangements and where he was sleeping. The Council explained that, as B was a Looked After Child, his social worker had a duty to promote and safeguard B’s welfare, which included making sure B had his own bed while he remained at Mrs X’s home; and, B had an approved foster carer and the Council encouraged Mrs X to support B to return to their care.
Two weeks later, Mrs X asked for her complaint to be escalated.
Two days later, the Council sent Mrs X its final complaint response. It said: When B first refused to return to his approved placement, B’s social worker agreed to meet with Mrs X and discuss the possible option of B residing with Mrs X under a Regulation 24 temporary fostering arrangement. The Council stressed that at this point a Regulation 24 placement was only being considered. However, it decided a placement with Mrs X was not suitable for B; B’s social worker had provided Mrs X with certain information about Regulation 24 placements, including the requirement that any approved temporary foster carer register a child or young person with a GP and dentist. However, it said this information was given to Mrs X soon after B moved into her home and when it was exploring options for B as he was refusing to return to his approved placement. It said a decision on suitability of placement had not been made and it had not confirmed to Mrs X that she would be approved; and, B’s approved placement remained open to him and Mrs X should encourage B to return there.
At the end of 2021, B moved out of Mrs X’s home.
Mrs X then complained to the Ombudsman.
Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?
Mrs X complains the Council failed to approve her as a temporary foster carer under Regulation 24 and made allegations about the nature of Mrs X and B’s relationship.
Regulation 24 states that, before making a placement, the council must: assess the suitability of the connected person. This should include the suitability of the proposed accommodation, and consider whether the proposed arrangements will safeguard and promote the child or young person’s welfare and meet their needs set out in the care plan.
The Council’s complaint responses to Mrs X clearly explained the reasons why it did not consider a placement with Mrs X would be suitable. It decided Mrs X was not a suitable connected person. In reaching this decision, it considered the serious concerns it had about the alleged nature of Mrs X and B’s relationship. In response to questions I asked, it said, early on, it had significant concerns that the care Mrs X would provide to B did not meet the standards required. Shortly after B moved in with Mrs X, there was an incident where B took Mrs X’s car without permission. However, the Council said Mrs X did not report this to the police or the Council, which it said raised concerns that Mrs X was not at that point providing an arrangement that would safeguard and promote B’s welfare.
I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, the Council was entitled to consider these matters when assessing Mrs X’s suitability and deciding the proposed arrangements would not safeguard and promote B’s welfare and meet his needs. The Council’s decision is in line with what is expected of it under Regulation 24. I do not find the Council at fault (parts a and b of the complaint). Without evidence of fault in how it reached this decision, I cannot question its content.
Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council acted without undue delay in reaching this decision. As explained above, the Council carried out a visit to Mrs X’s home as part of the assessment to determine her suitability as a foster carer. I have not seen any evidence to suggest prior to the Council’s refusal that it said a Regulation 24 placement had been approved. Rather, I have seen evidence that in the weeks after B moved in with Mrs X and during a visit to her home by a social worker, the Council clearly communicated that it was assessing the suitability of the placement in line with Regulation 24, but that it did not support the placement at that time. The Council consistently encouraged Mrs X to support B’s return to his approved placement. I do not find the Council at fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation.
I have decided not to uphold Mrs X’s complaint. This is because I have not seen any evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman