Council to review emergency foster care procedures

The complainant, known as Mr X, and his partner offered to house a child, known as Y, who was under the care of Herefordshire Council after a residential placement broke down in July 2017.

Mr X had worked with Y a number of times in his role as a support worker at the council but was not Y’s support worker, a report by Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) Michael King states.

In June 2017, Y’s risk management plan was updated, noting a medium risk of sexualised behaviour and measures needed to reduce the risk of harmful behaviour, including that Y must be supervised around other young people.

After Y’s placement broke down, Mr X and his partner became Y's emergency foster carers until another placement was identified.

The couple were issued with a care plan that listed specific risks regarding Y as being aggressive towards adults and peers, sexualised behaviours, self-harm and risk of allegations. Due to these risks, it was agreed Mr X would make detailed daily recordings during the placement.

• Inspections: Local authority foster care

• Decade of change: factors driving the rise in care during the 2010

It also stated that Y could spend time in their room but must only spend time with others in communal areas with adults present.

It was agreed that after Y moved to a new residential placement at the end of August 2017, Mr X and his partner would offer respite care while the council processed a request for the couple to become long-term foster carers for Y.

However, during a weekend visit Mr X left Y alone with another child for 10 minutes, the LGO report states, during which time an incident occurred between the two children.

Mr X reported this to the council immediately and was told he should have been supervising Y. 

Mr X said he knew this but had only left them alone for a few minutes, King said.

A police investigation was launched over the incident which led to Mr X losing his job at a school.

The couple also revoked their offer to become long-term foster carers for Y.

Mr X complained to the council, and later the ombudsman, saying he had not been given enough information about Y’s background. 

He said the risks related to Y were not fully explained to him at any stage, and if they had been, he would not have agreed to the placement, the report states, adding that he said he was not updated in September, before Y returned to him for respite.

Mr X claimed not to have received a temporary foster carer approval document that contained a placement-specific risk assessment plan.

Council documents show officers gave a copy of the document to Mr X’s partner in September 2017 – after the emergency placement had finished but before respite arrangements began.

King said: “The council should have provided Mr X with a copy of this document as soon as it was completed.”

However, he found that the delay did not “cause Mr X any injustice” and added that: “Mr X was aware of the risk of Y displaying sexualised behaviour, prior to Y returning to stay with him for the weekend in September.”

King concludes that the council did not contribute to Mr X losing his job but has called on Herefordshire to review its procedures to ensure that it provides emergency foster carers with a clear, comprehensive and up-to-date placement-specific risk assessment at the start of the placements.

Officers must clearly document that this information has been provided, King said.

Herefordshire Council has agreed to do this.