Summary: Miss C complained about the Council’s involvement with her after it started child protection proceedings against her. We find the Council was at fault for not inviting Miss C to a meeting. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss C for the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Miss C complained about the Council’s involvement with her after it started child protection proceedings against her. She says the social worker was aggressive towards her and her mother on several occasions. She also says the social worker made false claims about her in a core group meeting, the social worker did not share documents and she was not invited to meetings.
2. Miss C also says the social worker falsely complained she was a prostitute, the social worker shared photographs of her son without her permission, the social worker ignored instructions from the judge about how to deal with her family and the social worker repeatedly made false statements about her in court.
3. Miss C says the Council has caused immeasurable upset and damage to her and her family.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the complaints listed in paragraph one above from January 2019 onwards.
5. I have not investigated the complaints listed in paragraph two and any issues before January 2019 for the reasons explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. 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)
10. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
11. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
12. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered information Miss C submitted with her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
14. Miss C 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

Relevant law and guidance

15. The Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
16. Where a council has reasonable cause to suspect a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to hold a strategy discussion and make further enquiries. These are to decide whether it needs to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. A section 47 enquiry may be triggered if there are allegations about neglect or the abuse of a child.
17. If concerns of significant harm are substantiated following section 47 enquiries, an initial child protection conference (ICPC) should be arranged within 15 working days of the original strategy discussion. This is a multi-disciplinary meeting whose attendees decide what action is needed to safeguard the child. The ICPC may decide to make the child the subject of a child protection plan which details what action is necessary to reduce the risk of harm.
18. After the ICPC, if the decision is to place a child under a child protection plan, there will be core group meetings with the professionals and family to assess progress. There should also be review child protection conferences (RCPC). These consider the progress taken to safeguard the child and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
19. If a council fears a child is imminent danger, they can apply to court for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). EPO’s are only used in exceptionally serious situations and give the person who receives the order the right to remove the child from their current location.

What happened

20. This section sets out the key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
21. The Council has been involved with Miss C and her family for several years. The Council put Miss C’s daughter (D) and her unborn son (E) on child protection plans in September 2018 under the category of emotional harm.
22. E was born in October.
23. After an incident took place between Miss C and D in December 2018, the Council applied to court for an EPO to remove D and E from Miss C’s care.
24. The court made D and E subject to interim supervision orders. An interim supervision order places a child temporarily under the supervision of a council until the court makes the final decision about what is best for the child. The order is made when the court has reasonable grounds for believing the threshold criteria of harm has been met.
25. The Council wrote to Miss C on 8 January 2019 and invited her to attend the RCPC on 11 February. It also enclosed the minutes, plans and reports from the previous meeting.
26. Miss C attended the meeting on 11 February. She said the Council was not considering D and she did not want strangers in her home. The chair of the meeting noted there had continued to be incidents of concern and that D remained at risk. There was also a concern that Miss C was verbally abusive in front of D and E. All participants agreed the threshold was met for D and E to remain on child protection plans.
27. Miss C attended a core group meeting on 26 February. The minutes of the meeting show she became unhappy during the meeting, and she left early.
28. The Council emailed Miss C on 1 March, attached the minutes of the meeting on 11 February and provided copies of reports from other professionals. It told her the next meeting would take place on 25 June.
29. A further core group meeting took place on 3 April. Miss C rang before the meeting to say she was not aware of it going ahead and she could not attend. She also said she did not agree to the meeting going ahead in her absence.
30. All professionals discussed in the meeting they were concerned Miss C was going to take D and E out of the country without a safety plan in place.
31. The social worker visited Miss C on 10 April to see D and E and to give her a copy of the minutes from the core group meeting on 3 April. The social worker asked Miss C if she wanted a copy of the minutes, but she remained silent. It is not clear whether Miss C accepted a copy of the minutes.
32. The Council applied to court for a prohibited steps order to stop Miss C leaving the country. The court granted the order.
33. Miss C did not attend the core group meeting on 2 May. The Council’s minutes say Miss C knew about the meeting as the social worker sent her a copy of the minutes from the previous meeting.
34. Miss C also did not attend the RCPC on 25 June. The social worker stated the Council had emailed Miss C’s solicitor copies of all the minutes, and these had dates of the next meetings on them.
35. The professionals agreed in the meeting that D and E should remain on child protection plans because there was evidence they continued to suffer significant emotional harm.
36. The Council called Miss C on 11 December to let her know about the RCPC the following week. Miss C said she did not want to attend.
37. The meeting took place on 18 December. The chair called Miss C to see if she would be attending, but she declined. The social worker agreed the Council would send the minutes to Miss C’s solicitor.
38. Professionals in the meeting raised concerns that Miss C was not willing to engage, and she only allowed the social worker to see D and E once a week. They also discussed that Miss C was pregnant with her third child.
39. Further core group meetings took place in January and February 2020. Miss C’s midwife raised concerns in January that Miss C did not know about the meeting. The social worker explained she sent the minutes to the Council’s legal department, who then shared them with Miss C’s solicitor.
40. Miss C sent a text message to the social worker before the meeting in February to say she was not attending and she wanted a formal invitation through the post.
41. Miss C complained to the Council on 15 February 2020. She said the social worker had failed to follow protocol and was writing untruthful statements in the child protection plans. She also said the social worker was refusing to share statements to justify the court proceedings.
42. The Council responded on 20 February and said it could not respond to the complaint until court proceedings had finished.
43. Miss C did not attend core group meetings in March and April. The notes of the meeting in March say Miss C’s health visitor had a conversation with her about the meeting, and so she would have been aware of it. The notes also state the Council sent the minutes to her solicitor.
44. As the relationship between Miss C and the social worker had broken down, the court appointed two independent social workers to carry out a parenting assessment on Miss C.
45. The chair of the RCPC contacted Miss C two days before it was scheduled to take place. She could not get through and there was no voicemail option.
46. The chair contacted Miss C again on 21 May before the meeting. Miss C said she could not take part as her children were at home. She also said the Council had not listened to her during the child protection process and it had not sent her documents from previous meetings.
47. The chair recognised the child protection plans were no longer effective and it was causing further distress. All professionals agreed that it would review matters further once the independent social worker had completed her parenting assessment and court proceedings had finished.
48. The final court hearing took place and the judge recommended for the child protection plans to end.
49. The final meeting took place on 15 July. All participants agreed the threshold was not met for Miss C’s children to remain on child protection plans.
50. Miss C complained to the Council in December about its involvement with her family from 2018 onwards. She said the social worker was rude towards her and her mother and the social worker did not invite her to meetings or share paperwork with her. She also said the social worker accused her of keeping D at home during the COVID-19 lockdown.
51. The Council wrote to Miss C in March 2021 and confirmed its summary of her complaint. It said it would not look at matters from 2018 because they were historical, and it had already addressed them in a previous response in October 2018. It agreed to look at matters from 2019 onwards.
52. The Council issued its response to Miss C’s complaint on 21 April 2021. It said many of her concerns had been addressed in court. It said it had spoken to the social worker and she had confirmed she was not aggressive and disrespectful. It however apologised if Miss C had that impression. It also said it provided her with the minutes of meetings until 11 February 2019. After that, Miss C asked for it to send the minutes to her solicitor. Finally, it said the chair of the meetings contacted Miss C after 11 February and asked if she wanted to attend, but she declined to do so.
53. Miss C remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint and referred it to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

54. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to do so. A late complaint is when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. Miss C referred her complaint to us in April 2021, but she became aware of the Council’s actions from 2018 onwards. I have decided to exercise discretion and look at the Council’s actions from January 2019 onwards. This is because when she attempted to complain in February 2020, the Council said it could not respond while proceedings were ongoing. Miss C complained again to the Council after the court proceedings had ended. I will not look at the Council’s actions before January 2019 for the reasons explained in paragraph 71 of this statement.
55. Miss C says the social worker was aggressive towards her and her mother. This is in relation to two incidents at a contact centre and a further incident of when the social worker visited Miss C at her house. She has provided me with her mother’s statements of these incidents.
56. The Council has provided me with a record of the social worker’s visit at Miss C’s house on 18 April 2019. The notes of the visit suggest that Miss C’s mother was unhappy with the social worker, but there is no evidence the social worker was aggressive.
57. Two different recollections of this visit exist, and so it is not possible for me to reach a safe conclusion on what happened.
58. The social worker disputes Miss C’s and her mother’s version of events of the incidents at the contact centre. There is no independent evidence and so I cannot reach a safe conclusion on what happened.
59. Miss C says the social worker claimed she left D at home during the COVID-19 lockdown to look after her siblings. I have reviewed the minutes of the meeting in question in April 2020 and there is no evidence to support Miss C’s comments. The minutes of the meeting say the independent social worker agreed it was reasonable for D not to attend school because of her health issues. The Council’s social worker did not question this.
60. Miss C is unhappy the Council failed to invite her to meetings and send her the relevant minutes and documents from the meetings.
61. Miss C attended the meetings on 11 and 26 February 2019. The Council also emailed her on 1 March, attached the minutes of the meeting on 11 February and invited her to the RCPC on 25 June 2019.
62. The Council says after 11 February 2019, it agreed to send the minutes and reports to Miss C’s solicitor. It also says its legal team was responsible for sending the documents. All dates for the next meeting are arranged and agreed in the previous one. However, the legal team does not have a separate case system where it saves emails. One of the officers involved in the case left the Council and his emails were deleted. The other officer went on maternity leave, and during that time her email account was disabled, and she lost all the emails she saved in that account. Therefore, the Council cannot provide me with copies of the emails it sent to Miss C’s solicitor.
63. Miss C left the core group meeting early on the 26 February, and so there is a strong possibility she left before the Council arranged the date for the next meeting. The minutes of 3 April say Miss C was unaware of the meeting, and there is no reference to the agreement the Council reached to send the minutes to her solicitor. The Council also sent Miss C a copy of the minutes from the RCPC on 1 March 2019, and it is unlikely it would have done that if there was an agreement to only send the minutes to her solicitor at that stage. Therefore, based on the evidence, I am not satisfied the Council informed Miss C about the core group meeting on 3 April and sent her or her solicitor a copy of the minutes in time. This is fault, which caused Miss C an injustice as she missed an opportunity to attend the meeting and for her voice to be heard.
64. The social worker attempted on 10 April to provide Miss C with a copy of the minutes from the core group meeting on 3 April. It is not clear if Miss C accepted them, but I am satisfied the Council attempted to provide them to her. If Miss C had read the minutes, it would have been clear to her there was a meeting scheduled for 2 May.
65. The first time the agreement to send the minutes to Miss C’s solicitor is mentioned is in the meeting of 25 June 2019. As I have mentioned in paragraph 62, the Council cannot provide me with copies of the emails it sent to Miss C’s solicitor. However, the Council called Miss C on 11 December to tell her about the meeting the following week, but she chose not to attend. The Council has also provided me with an internal email from 14 January 2020. The social worker confirmed she sent the minutes from the meeting on 18 December 2019 to the Council’s legal department on 20 December 2019 so they could be sent to Miss C’s solicitor. Therefore, I find it more likely than not the Council was in contact with Miss C’s solicitor and sent him copies of the minutes.
66. The Council’s legal team emailed Miss C’s solicitor on 20 January 2020 and provided him with copies of the case notes and records of the social worker’s visits. It is therefore unlikely the Council would have refused to send Miss C’s solicitor copies of the minutes of the meetings. Miss C was aware meetings were taking place and so if she was not receiving the invites/minutes, she could have asked for them to be sent in a different format much sooner.
67. The Council phoned Miss C and told her in advance about the final meetings in May and July 2020, but she chose not to attend. Therefore, I do not find the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

68. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 11 April 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss C for frustration caused by not inviting her a meeting and giving her an opportunity for her voice to be heard.

Back to top

Final decision

69. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss C an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

70. I have not investigated the complaints listed at paragraph two of this statement as we cannot investigate matters that happened in court. Miss C can also refer her concerns about whether the Council shared photographs of her son without her permission to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the body with specific powers to investigate the Council’s information handling practices.
71. I have also not investigated Miss C’s concerns about the Council’s involvement with her in 2018. The Council responded to these concerns in October 2018. I am satisfied she had sufficient opportunities to bring her earlier concerns to us sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman