A VULNERABLE homeless teenager given a tent to live in by a council is one of a litany of heartbreaking cases detailed in a report published today on the treatment of children in care.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman used real cases to show where local authorities have failed.

The report – Careless: Helping to improve council services to children in care – focuses on children going into care, being fostered or put into a care home, and eventually leaving the system. 

None of the councils in England is named, and the names of the children and foster parents have been changed.

Billy was 17 when he was thrown out of home by his father. The council offered him accommodation far from his local area. Rather than consider whether it should accommodate Billy nearer, the council then gave him a tent and later a static caravan.

His mental and physical health deteriorated, and he was sectioned for nearly a year.

The ombudsman found that the council had “seriously failed” Billy by not offering him suitable accommodation. The council had awarded Billy £2,500 for distress it caused and for placing him at risk.

Also mentioned in the watchdog’s report, Albert, 11, was denied the chance to see his dying mother while living with foster parents.

During a review meeting Albert learned that his mother had been seriously ill and on a life support machine. He was not told the machine was being switched off and he did not have the opportunity to visit her before she died. 

Albert also complained about the use of insensitive language and the way the information was shared with him, which the council upheld.

Another case tells of siblings abruptly removed from foster parents, Tim and Nikki, who wanted to adopt them. 

The council disputed the amount of money the couple requested for supporting the children, and voiced concern about the children’s progress at school.

The council decided the children should be removed from them without notice. There was no statutory meeting or evidence to support the council’s claim about the foster parents.

Social workers collected the children from school and told them that Tim and Nikki had gone on holiday.

Ombudsman Michael King said: “We found the children would have been harmed by the sudden removal from the home. 

“While, happily, they were found another foster placement which became long term, the way the council acted denied them the chance to voice their own wishes on the matter.”

One case like those in the report was one too many, Mr King said.

The report found that children in council care are more likely to have a special educational need or mental-health difficulty than children who live with their own parents.

Mr Ashley said: “Their outcomes are just as concerning. Formerly looked after children are more than three times as likely to be out of education, training or employment once they leave care.”

Cllr Judith Blake, chairwoman of the Local Government Association’s Children and Young People Board, said that councils were being “pushed to the brink” by “unprecedented demand” for care while their budgets were being slashed by the government.

Responding to the report, she said: “While councils have increased children’s social care budgets at the expense of other services, this has not been able to keep pace with demand.”

Cllr Blake called for a “long-term sustainable funding solution” to enable councils to protect children at immediate risk of harm while also supporting “early intervention to prevent problems escalating.”