17 Friday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
These are the latest forced adoption stories that should be right on your radar:
15 Wednesday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
These are the latest child welfare items that should be on your radar:
14 Tuesday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
09 Thursday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has published the latest round of complaints submitted by parents and carers to the body, and its decisions about those complaints. They touch on children’s social care, local authority handling of child protection cases and the provision of education and educational support.
There seem to be more family court related cases this time round, but the restrictions on the ombudsman mean they can do almost nothing to help parents who have experienced unfair hearings.
Here is what the ombudsman says about what its powers look like in one of the complaints published this week:
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’.
We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’.
We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).
We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)).
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended).
This week’s published complaints and their outcomes are added below – and there are a lot of complaints.
Children and Education
Please note: decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available.
Reading Borough Council (22 011 829)
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s response to her concerns about the welfare of her grandchildren. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to Mrs B.
Derbyshire County Council (22 012 053)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to concerns about its role in child protection procedures. This is because we are unlikely to add anything significant to the investigation already carried out.
Hampshire County Council (22 013 411)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council taking court action to remove Mr X’s children. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We cannot investigate matters once someone has started court action about them.
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 000 780)
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council reviewed his Education, Health and Care (EHC Plan) and that it failed to deliver the special education provision in his Plan or provide him with an education. We have not found fault by the Council regarding the provision of education or the special education provision. We have found fault by the Council in failing to share information and consider support for Mr X during, and its delay in, the review of his EHC Plan, causing him injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Mr X, making a payment to reflect the upset this caused, and service improvements.
Suffolk County Council (22 002 900)
Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council has dealt with her concerns about her child’s (Child Y) education. The Council was at fault for not acting sooner to secure an alternative placement for Child Y for over two years and for not ensuring Child Y received the provision set out in their Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Child Y and Mrs X for the missed education provision and poor handling of Mrs X’s complaint.
Birmingham City Council (22 003 564)
Summary: The remedy offered by the Council to make up for the failure to provide speech and language therapy is a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused. There was no failure to provide education for a term, as Mr X refused the tuition that was offered to his son.
Leicestershire County Council (22 004 496)
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son, F with education or provision in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan when he stopped attending school in March 2021 for health reasons. The Council was at fault. It failed to put in place alternative provision and delayed issuing F’s amended EHC plan following an annual review in March 2021. This meant F went without suitable education until September 2022. The Council agreed to pay Ms X £6375 to acknowledge the impact this had on F’s education and social development. It also agreed to pay Ms X £500 to recognise the distress caused to her. Finally, it should review complaints it has received about alternative provision and consider, bearing in mind this decision, whether it has remedied any injustice the complainants experienced properly.
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (22 007 910)
Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to address the special educational needs of his son following the breakdown of his placement in April 2021. He also says the Council delayed issuing his son’s Education, Health and Care plan after an emergency annual review and it failed to provide him with any appropriate educational support. We find the Council was at fault for its delays during the annual review process and for failing to provide Mr F’s son with the education and specialist provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. The Council apologised to Mr F and his son, offered a payment for the distress caused and the lost provision, and confirmed it had learnt lessons and would implement service improvements moving forward. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.
Kent County Council (22 009 075)
Summary: We found no fault by the Council on Mrs M’s complaint about it wrongly refusing her daughter travel assistance. The Council correctly assessed her application, and the appeal panel correctly considered all the evidence submitted before deciding to refuse it.
Devon County Council (22 012 882)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about special educational needs provision for the complainant’s daughter. This is because the complainant has used his right of appeal to a tribunal. This means the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.
Suffolk County Council (22 012 952)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to accept a complaint about its actions in relation to the complainants’ grandchildren. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant does not have authority to complain on behalf of her grandchildren.
West Sussex County Council (22 012 971)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s role in a Police arrest. We cannot investigate the Police’s actions and the Information Commissioner’s Office are better placed to consider his complaint about the passing of information.
Kent County Council (22 003 116)
Summary: Ms B says the Council delayed completing a review for an education, health and care plan, failed to provide education to her son from September 2021, failed to put in place provision in his education, health and care plan from the same date and refused to obtain an up to date occupational therapy report. The Council delayed completing an annual review, gave Ms B wrong information, failed to provide education for most of the time Ms B’s son could not attend school, failed to put in place provision in his education, health and care plan and failed to consider whether an updated occupational therapy report was required. An apology and payment to Ms B, alongside procedural remedies already agreed following other Ombudsman investigations is satisfactory remedy.
London Borough of Newham (22 004 573)
Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed, or caused delays, in providing Miss X’s assessed special educational needs provision and social care support. We found the Council failed to follow up on his rehousing application as agreed. It also failed to adhere to its complaint policy timescales. It should apologise, and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused Mr C and Miss X. There was no fault on other parts of Mr C’s complaint.
Durham County Council (22 006 410)
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council in respect of her son C’s special educational needs, failed to provide adequate full-time education when he was unable to attend school, delayed in carrying out an adequate social care assessment or provide social support to enable a successful transition to college, and failed to communicate properly with her throughout this period. We found fault with the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to increase its payment to Mrs B and C and improve its monitoring of alternative education provision.
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (22 006 843)
Summary: We have upheld part of Ms X’s complaint. There was fault in the failure to consider statutory guidance between March and June 2021 which caused a loss of suitable education for Mr Y. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr Y to reflect missed education. There was no delay in issuing Mr Y’s final Education Health and Care plan following the Tribunal. The Council’s offer of alternative provision from April 2022 until the final amended plan was issued was in line with statutory guidance.
Royal Borough of Greenwich (22 007 749)
Summary: Miss C complained that the Council had failed to provide her daughter, F with a suitable education since she started secondary school in 2018. We have investigated events from October 2020. We found the Council delayed in accepting a request for an EHC needs assessment and delayed in finding an alternative education provider who could meet F’s needs. We found F was left with an unsuitable education provider for a year. The Council has agreed to pay Miss C £1800 for the benefit of F’s education and £300 for her time and trouble.
Coventry City Council (22 011 965)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a child was not receiving all the provision detailed in their Education Health and Care plan. This is because the Council accepted that the provision was not in place and has arranged the required provision. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Isle of Wight Council (22 012 312)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what provision the Council included in a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because the matter carries a right of appeal to a tribunal and it is reasonable to expect complainant to have used that right.
London Borough of Redbridge (22 012 852)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Children and Families assessment and the impact it had on Mr X’s contact with his child. It is reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns as part of private court proceedings. The Council has agreed that Mr X can add an addendum to its assessment with his comments. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
London Borough of Bromley (22 013 413)
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. This is because the complaint is out of our jurisdiction.
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (22 007 653)
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response the Council has provided explaining the ongoing family court proceedings need to conclude before it can consider his complaint via its complaints procedure.
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (22 012 938)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged fault in the course of child protection action. This is because we can achieve nothing significant by doing so.
Oxfordshire County Council (22 013 243)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Mr X’s grandchildren. The matters complained of are not separable from the decisions of a court regarding their contact and residence. As only a court could vary those arrangements, it would be reasonable for Mr X to return to court.
London Borough of Hounslow (21 011 408)
Summary: the Council accepts there were faults in the way it managed Mr F’s son B’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It ended B’s Plan without holding a review. The Council did not review B’s Plan when ordered to continue to maintain it by the Tribunal. The Council has put processes in place to address the problem and offered a symbolic payment to Mr F for B’s benefit.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 018 935)
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the provision in her child, B’s Education Health, and Care Plan. Mrs X said the Council also failed to adequately fund B’s nursery placements and investigate her concerns about B’s safety. It also failed to provide her with information, communicate properly and provide a satisfactory response to her concerns. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide some provision, adhere to the timeframes to conduct a review, for failure to keep consistent records and for poor communication with Mrs X. This caused B to miss provision and caused Mrs X frustration, confusion, and put her to the time and trouble of complaining. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
Derby City Council (22 000 726)
Summary: Ms Y complains the Council took too long to amend and issue an EHC Plan for her grandson, B, following an annual review. She also says the Council did not put alternative education provision in place for B when he was unable to attend the school named in his EHC Plan. We have found the Council at fault. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (22 008 030)
Summary: the Council delayed completing an education, health and care plan needs assessment, delayed telling Miss B the outcome of that assessment, delayed issuing a final education, health and care plan and failed to provide education to Miss B’s son between June and November 2022. An apology, payment to Miss B and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.
Gloucestershire County Council (22 007 338)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in the course of child protection action relating to Mr B’s family. There is insufficient evidence that the Council’s actions have caused Mr B significant injustice, and part of the complaint concerns matters which have been considered in court.
Norfolk County Council (22 012 528)
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of social workers. The matters complained of are not separable from matters subject to court action.
London Borough of Newham (22 012 802)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of social workers. These matters are not separable from matters that were or could have been raised during court action.
Cambridgeshire County Council (22 012 836)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Miss X and her child, Y. This is because the Ombudsman would be unable to provide a worthwhile outcome for Miss X.
Wiltshire Council (21 018 758)
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess her application for transport to college. The Council was at fault when it failed to properly assess whether it was necessary to provide transport for Miss Y to attend college. The fault was acknowledged by the Council’s Education Transport Appeal Panel who assessed Miss Y’s application properly by recognising its duty to make necessary arrangements. The faults caused Miss Y and her family frustration and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
Cheshire East Council (22 003 623)
Summary: Mrs X complained about delays and poor communication after she asked the Council for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her child Y. The Council was at fault for delay in issuing the EHC Plan, and for poor communication. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £300 to acknowledge the frustration caused. It has already recruited more staff to improve its communication. It has also agreed to review how it communicates the timescales involved to parents and carers to help manage expectations.
Telford & Wrekin Council (22 007 457)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a school admissions matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Devon County Council (22 012 822)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to name a suitable placement in Miss X’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Miss X has a right of appeal to the SEND tribunal.
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (22 012 931)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the provision of alternative educational provision for the complainant’s daughter. This is because it is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Lancashire County Council (22 013 392)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because the Council has offered a fresh appeal. This is a suitable remedy for the fault identified.
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (22 003 334)
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to adequately remedy a complaint that it delayed in carrying out a social care needs assessment for her daughter and a parent-carer assessment, and that it failed to secure social care provision recommended by a tribunal. We upheld the complaint and found that proposals to remedy the resulting injustice caused to Mrs B and her daughter had been insufficient. The Council accepted this finding and agreed action set out at the end of this statement to put this right.
London Borough of Lewisham (22 012 343)
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her experiences in the care of the Council in the 1960’s. Ms X complains late and outside the legally ‘permitted period’ of 12 months. There is insufficient reason to exercise discretion to investigate because Ms X could have complained sooner.
Devon County Council (22 013 079)
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to follow correct procedures in reaching a decision that allegedly led to advice to his ex-partner not to return their children to him or allow him contact with them. The matters complained of are not separable from matters subject to court action.
Hampshire County Council (21 011 563)
Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council has delayed in issuing an amended final Education, Health and Care Plan, failed to ensure that her son received the special educational needs provision required and delayed in responding to her requests for a personal budget. We find that there have been some delays amounting to fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed the recommended remedy and therefore we are closing the complaint.
Oxfordshire County Council (22 000 090)
Summary: Ms X complained about delays in the annual review process for her daughter, Y, that the Council was not providing Y with suitable education and about poor complaint handling. The Council is at fault. It has not provided Y with suitable education between April and December 2022, delayed finalising Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and handled Ms X’s complaint poorly. It will now finalise Y’s EHC Plan and pay Ms X £1800 in recognition of Y’s lost educational provision and £500 for distress caused to her. It should also act to improve its services.
Blackpool Borough Council (22 001 583)
Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider or meet Mrs B’s daughter’s special educational needs over a three-year period. It was also at fault for failing to deliver suitable education to her while she was out of school for five months. It has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to recognise her injustice.
Leeds City Council (22 003 715)
Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing the Education, Health and Care Plan review from September 2020. There were delays in issuing a final EHCP following the Council agreeing changes were required. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the frustration caused to C and his family and take action to prevent the fault reoccurring.
Worcestershire County Council (22 011 069)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council failing to amend an Education Health and Care Plan following an annual review. The Tribunal is considering what the child’s Education Health and Care Plan should say.
Bristol City Council (21 014 834)
Mr X complained the Council delayed carrying out an EHCP (education, health and care plan) assessment for his daughter Y. He complains this caused distress and delayed his appeal rights. The Council is at fault for failing to keep to statutory deadlines and delaying the completion of Y’s EHC Plan assessment. This caused an injustice to Mr X and Y. The Council has agreed to provide Mr X with an apology and a £800 financial award to be used for Y’s educational benefit.
08 Wednesday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
These are the latest family items that should be right on your radar:
07 Tuesday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
06 Monday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
Welcome to another week.
The House of Commons library offers regular briefing papers and reports about issues which affect people in England and Wales.
Their latest set of reports include two briefings which explain how you can complain about judges’ behaviour and what you can complaint about to formal complaints bodies.
Researching Reform has written about this in the past, because while legal professionals working inside the system can complain about a wide range of misconduct by other fellow legal practitioners, families and children who have experienced poor treatment have much fewer options available to them.
The first Commons briefing is titled, “Complaining about courts, judges and legal professionals” and explains that you can write to your local MP to raise a complaint of this kind, as well as offering tips on how to do this. Researching Reform often advises parents to approach the opposition MP in their area – they tend to be less busy, and looking for opportunities to criticise the way the current government is handling its business.
The second paper is titled, “Complaining about personal conduct of judicial office-holders,” and offers a breakdown of which bodies will review complaints, who can complain and what kinds of complaints they can look at.
03 Friday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
The government said in a report published today that it would not apologise for forced adoptions which took place in England and Wales during the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s, after being asked to do so by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The committee, which recently published its report into the practice, called on the Government to issue a formal apology to unmarried mothers who had their babies taken for adoption over a period spanning 40 years.
The committee found that the Government had “ultimate responsibility for the pain and suffering caused by public institutions and state employees that railroaded mothers into unwanted adoptions.” It also urged the Government to do more to to support people dealing with the life-long consequences of those adoptions.
Responding to the committee’s report, the Government said, “Whilst we do not think it is appropriate for a formal Government apology to be given, since the state did not actively support these practices, we do wish to say we are sorry on behalf of society to all those affected.”
The response has been met with disapproval and outrage by adult adoptee movements in the UK trying to hold the government to account for state-approved policies enabling forced adoption.
A brief statement issued this morning by the Adult Adoptee Movement (AAM) criticised the Government for failing to bring about meaningful change to its adoption policies.
“We will continue to campaign for real change. We will stand united with birth mothers. Younger adoptees will face the same challenges post 18, unless our voices are heard and change is made. Shame on the adoption industry!”
Tweeting with Researching Reform this morning, the movement said it would issue a full statement in the coming days.
The Scottish Adult Adoptee Movement also expressed their dismay in an email shared with Researching Reform, and which included a link to the Government’s response and the Adult Adoptee Movement’s reaction to the decision.
The Government’s refusal to apologise stems from its fear that to do so would create a wider debate around the current use of forced adoption in England and Wales. Research tells us that forced adoptions make up an estimated 90% of all adoption cases today, and that many of those adoptions are likely to be based on illegal and unjust grounds, and directly linked to historic Government reasoning for removing children from mothers living below the poverty line.
We are adding the AAM’s short statement in full below, as it deserves to be read as a whole:
“There is nothing new in the government’s response and even less of value. The only change they are proposing is one they are already consulting on. To say we have had the opportunity to have our voices and experiences heard and to then do precisely nothing to listen to our needs is a repetition of exactly what has happened to us in the past. Many of us were told that adoption was done to us for our own good and felt that we could not express our own feelings or have our needs met. This is not good enough. We have waited patiently but are no longer prepared to be quiet or to accept the gaslighting nonsense of this or any government.
One reason the government is too cowardly to offer an apology for state involvement in adoption—in their response they give many examples while simultaneously denying it happened—is that it would shine a light on today’s adoption practices, which still trample over the rights of parents and children.
We will continue to campaign for real change and we stand with birth mothers who have, after all their emotional labour, been insulted by this pathetic response.”
02 Thursday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
01 Wednesday Mar 2023
Posted in Researching Reform
This month’s image has very kindly been provided by Researching Reform’s Artist In Residence, Paul Brian Tovey.
Paul is an adult adoptee whose adoptive parents abused him in childhood. His work reflects the impact this abuse has had on his mental health, as a child and as an adult.
Paul now campaigns for adoptees to have the legal right to revert back to their birth identities.
This painting is titled, “Going home in the bedroom of the wall dog.”
Speaking to Researching Reform, Paul said:
“[The painting touches upon] The Art Of Facing Everything:
In 2023, the closer I get to talking to others in legal circles about the possibility of Revoking my Adoption on grounds of Human Rights and serious offence to my identity – the closer the destiny life fitted me for in exposing truth of child abuses inside Adoption arises. It arises in my art as deformed areas of my own childhood experience. I live my art organically. Fearlessly and often painfully. Grief matters to me to take care of. So does justice and exposure of truth. I am principle and fire made from pain.
There are no choices for some like me who are child abused and dream of monstrous hands in the dark grabbing genitals often even as an adult. I am still working through that trauma layer. It is very hard. Other layers are solved. Adoption was that type of trauma for me early on as a boy of 3 – 6 and onwards. The female Adopter did that to me, genital invasion. I wore a White Screaming Terror Crown. Mommy had gone. The spider with one eye was feared. He came in the dark for my willy. And fed.
My tears were given back only later as an emotionally anachronistic adult, safe, but very wrecked and broken. Never mind, Bucket in the picture you see will help me with tears and carrying them.
This time we see the dirty bedroom where so much happened was faced in Art. The Gnarled Carving in the corner is my friend. Is the face of the mouth of ugly howling I am still integrating in grief over years. Love him/her/they poor Corner Carving. I help corners to have voices. Years of trauma means many years of therapy to reduce emotional pain stored in the body and emotional organic self.
Too fast too quick in facing it, means insanity wanders into life. The pictures become the screams without sense to anchor sanity.
You are looking at my “Adoptee” brain/mind in that picture. Self rescue is ON. Always. The boy is gagged and blindfolded by dissociation but the artist and him are linked. We link therefore we are. Linkito Ergo Sum!! We are becoming joined at last. We need friends and the Dog in the Wall is there as witness and split off howlings we will become.
The scene is set to relive and feel components of more self integration that will emerge in other pictures . “HELD ON” ? What does it mean? You know what it means, and it plays on the fact too I was an Adoptee in Sheldon Birmingham UK. Broken senses. Broken Words. I heard them. I herd them too. Mending to the ending. That’s me. Painspeare.”
Our ongoing thanks to Paul for allowing us to share his powerful work, and his insight into childhoods which have been abused.
Researching Reform 