Summary: Miss X complains that the Council was wrong to carry out a child protection investigation, that its investigation was flawed and that a decision to place the children on a child protection plan was incorrect. She says this has caused stress to her family and damage to her reputation and health. The Council is at fault with regards to information sharing with the child protection conference and an inaccuracy in the conference report. Only the inaccuracy caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed to a financial remedy, an apology and to place a note on the record correcting the inaccuracy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complains that the Council was wrong to carry out a child protection investigation, that the investigation was flawed and that an initial child protection conference (ICPC) decision to place the children on a child protection plan was incorrect.
2. Specifically, she says that:
1. The Council accepted allegations from her former partner, Mr Y, without question or proper investigation;
2. While Mr Y’s concerns were repeated to the ICPC as if they were correct, while Miss X’s evidence disproving or explaining concerns was withheld;
3. The ICPC also considered concerns about Miss X’s mental health despite the fact that the Council has access to records showing she has never suffered mental health problems. Miss X states that a social worker stated that she could be suffering from psychosis without ever having seen her; and
4. The ICPC considered Miss X was fabricating or exaggerating her son’s presentations without considering evidence from the NHS.
3. Miss X feels her ex-husband has used the local authority against her as part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour and that the Council is failing to meet her son’s needs. She says the Council’s actions have caused stress to the family and damage to Miss X’s reputation, health and career.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot question whether a council’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)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Miss X and considered information provided by Miss X and the Council. I shared this draft decision with both parties and considered their comments before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection investigations

8. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018 provides guidance on how councils should protect and support children. The document states that “whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, there should be a strategy discussion.” The purpose of the strategy meeting is to decide a plan of future action to safeguard the child’s welfare.
9. If the strategy discussion concludes the child is at risk of, or has suffered, significant harm the council must carry out a child protection investigation known as a Section 47 enquiry. If the investigation concludes that the threshold of risk of significant harm is met, the council must hold an initial child protection conference (ICPC). This is a multi-agency meeting chaired by an independent person. The conference may conclude that the child needs to be placed on a child protection plan in order to protect them from harm. If the threshold for significant harm is not met, but professionals think the child concerned needs additional support from the council, the child may be placed instead on a Child in Need plan.

Education, Health and Care Plan

10. An Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) is a plan for children with special educational needs (SEN) who require additional support from the council. The EHCP lists the child’s needs and the support the council will provide to meet them.

What happened

11. Miss X is estranged from Mr Y, who is the father of her two teenage children, A and B. A has complex developmental and behavioural needs and suffers from anxiety. The parents have a history of attending court to settle disputes over contact. Mr Y has made referrals to social care about Miss X in the past which were considered unfounded. Miss X has also accused Mr Y of domestic abuse. Neither parent has any criminal convictions.
12. In 2020 a court order ruled that Miss X should be the children’s primary carer. During Covid, at Miss X’s request, B was signed off school by a GP. B began attending a hospital school in November 2020. The hospital school offered a maximum of 10 hours’ education per week.
13. In March 2021 Mr Y sent an email to the Council raising concerns that Miss X had shouted at the children, called them names and locked them in the house. A social worker spoke to the children who confirmed this account. A expressed a wish to live with Mr Y. Mr Y also expressed concerns about the number of school moves the children had experienced.
14. The Council held a strategy meeting in the same month. The police, NHS and professionals from social care and education contributed to this. A record of the meeting said Miss X was spoken to by a team manager and shared her views electronically. It said Miss X had not been observed with her children since autumn 2020 as Miss X had refused further social worker visits. At the meeting, professionals raised concerns that Miss X was obstructing A’s education. They reported finding it difficult to speak to A or assess him for an EHCP and were concerned about the number of times the children had moved school. The Council was concerned that the GP had signed off B as unfit for school without meeting him in person due to Covid. Professionals were also worried by disclosures from both children about Miss X’s language and behaviour towards them.
15. The note of the meeting included a section on Miss X’s views, which were critical of Mr Y and explained why Miss X had postponed social worker visits. The strategy meeting concluded an ICPC should be held.
16. The ICPC was convened in April. All of the 12 professionals who attended the ICPC recommended that the children be placed on a child protection plan. The reason given was emotional abuse, related to A’s non-attendance at school and the impact on the children of Miss X’s behaviour. The professionals all rated the children’s safety as 3 or 4 out of 10, on a scale where 0 is the highest possible risk rating and 10 the lowest. Miss X was the only person who attended the meeting who thought the children should be on a Child in Need plan instead.
17. A further child protection conference was held in July. The professionals’ safety scores were lower than before. In the same month the Council records state that both children told their social worker they wanted to live with Mr Y due to Miss X’s deteriorating behaviour towards them. They then moved in with Mr Y full-time. Mr Y has since applied for a child arrangements order, which is a court order stating where the children should live. A prohibited steps order was made during the proceedings which restricted contact between Miss X and the children.
18. Miss X submitted a large number of complaints to the Council, which were not upheld. The Council told me that Miss X did not engage with the complaints process. When the Council’s complaints process completed, she came to us. I summarise her complaints below.
19. Miss X complains that the child protection investigation carried out by the Council was unjustified and flawed and that the ICPC’s decision to place the children on a child protection plan was incorrect. Her main concern is that the social worker involved based her professional reports purely on the evidence of Mr Y, who had a history of raising unfounded safeguarding concerns about Miss X’s care. She questions how the children could be considered at significant risk when a social worker assessment of her care of the children carried out a few months earlier found no concerns.
20. Miss X says the Council repeated Mr Y’s allegations to the ICPC as if they were correct and that the context of his previous reports was not disclosed or discussed with the ICPC, which accepted his evidence at face value.
21. She says the social worker concerned never observed her with her children and met her only once by video call in April 2021.
22. She complains that her own evidence disproving or explaining the Council’s concerns was withheld from professionals at the ICPC. For example:
1. one of the concerns raised by Mr Y was that the children were being locked in the house. A social worker visited Miss X’s home and established that there were no locks on any of the rooms except the front and back doors. However, the Council presented this to the ICPC as an ongoing concern;
2. Miss X was forced to move house due to rent increases while school moves were driven in part by consistent bullying of the children. Miss X is concerned her explanations were not presented at the ICPC which was told that the moves occurred when the school tried to support the family;
3. The ICPC also considered concerns about Miss X’s mental health despite the fact that the Council has access to records showing she has never suffered mental health problems. Miss X states that a social worker stated that she could be suffering from psychosis without ever having seen her; and
4. The ICPC considered Miss X was fabricating or exaggerating her son’s presentations without considering evidence from an NHS psychiatrist.

Analysis

23. The Council followed the process set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children after Mr Y raised concerns. Various professionals also expressed concerns. The Council’s documents show Miss X’s views were taken into account, as were those of the children. Miss X is not correct that the Council relied solely on Mr Y’s evidence.
24. The social worker did not see Miss X with her children because she was unable to arrange a meeting with Miss X. There is no fault by the Council. The Council used information Miss X provided by email and on a call to reflect her views before the ICPC.
25. The Council is not at fault in its decision to hold a child protection investigation based on serious concerns raised by professionals, comments from the children and Mr Y’s referral. There is no evidence that the ICPC’s decision that the children should be placed on a child protection plan was wrongly made.
26. The main concerns expressed by multiple professionals at the ICPC were A’s lack of education, Miss X’s obstruction of professionals and her behaviour towards the children. These concerns were mainly based on evidence from the children as well as professionals’ own experiences of working with Miss X. Mr Y’s reports did not have a significant impact on the ICPC’s decision-making and there is no evidence that fuller explanations from Miss X on the points raised would have changed the conclusion reached. In addition, the July child protection conference showed professionals thought the children were at increasing risk. The Council’s records show the children opted to leave Miss X’s care in the same month due to her behaviour towards them. This is evidence that placing the children on the child protection plan was the correct decision.
27. The ICPC report incorrectly states that Miss X has previous criminal convictions including a conviction for battery of Mr X. This is fault by the Council. It told me the ICPC was informed of the correct position. However I am satisfied that the inaccuracy does represent an injustice to Miss X as it may have caused prejudice against her in anyone reading the report who was not aware of the true situation.
28. Miss X complains that the Council did not tell the ICPC Mr X had raised concerns in the past that the Council considered to be unfounded. In my view the Council should have provided this information to the ICPC. However, I do not think there was injustice to Miss X arising from this fault as it would have not have made a difference to the outcome. This is because Mr X’s statements that led to the ICPC were corroborated by the children.
29. With regards to the evidence Miss X states was withheld from the ICPC, the Council’s records state that A and B said it was the front door that was locked. This is consistent with Miss X’s position that only the external doors were capable of being locked. There is no suggestion from the records that Ms X locked internal doors. The ICPC minutes record Miss X’s denial that the children were locked in.
30. Miss X complains that her explanation for multiple school moves was not presented to the ICPC. I agree that the Council is at fault in this regard. However I do not consider that this resulted in injustice. The ICPC considered a range of evidence that suggested Miss X was obstructing A’s access to education and the school moves were only one part of this evidence.
31. The ICPC minutes show one professional was concerned Miss X was over-medicalising A while another was concerned A’s mental health needs were not being addressed. Professionals raised concerns during the Council’s investigation that A had multiple diagnoses, some of which Mr Y disputed and some of which professionals had made without a thorough in-person assessment. However, the minutes do not record any professional expressing a view that A was at risk because Miss X was fabricating his illness.
32. The Council’s records show one professional at the ICPC felt Miss X was under a lot of stress and raised concerns about her mental health and wellbeing. There is no evidence that incorrect information about Miss X’s mental health played a significant role in the ICPC’s decision. I will not investigate the social worker’s comment as there is insufficient evidence of injustice to Miss X.
33. Miss X has raised numerous other concerns about the Council’s investigation and the ICPC decision however I do not intend to investigate these. We need to take a proportionate approach to investigation and in my view, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
34. In response to my draft decision Miss X said she had not obstructed A’s education and had been fully engaged with returning him to school. However several professionals at the ICPC interpreted her actions as obstructive or concerning. I am not able to challenge the merits of professional decisions.
35. Miss X also provided me with an advocate report written in April 2021 which countered the concerns raised in Mr Y’s March email and said there was little evidence Miss X provided a significant risk. The report failed to address evidence considered by the ICPC about comments reported by A and B about Miss X. Both children are recorded in the Council’s records stating that they feared their mother’s reactions. Miss X insists the children’s comments were fabricated or induced by the social worker as the children had not revealed concerns to the advocate. There is no evidence for this. I have therefore not altered my decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. The Council has agreed that within one month of my final decision it will:
1. Pay Miss X £200 to remedy distress caused by the ICPC report which incorrectly states that she has a criminal conviction for violence;
2. Place a note on the record to correct the report; and
3. Apologise to Miss X for wrongly describing her as a convicted criminal.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council with regards to information provided to the ICPC, leading to injustice in one respect. The Council has agreed a financial remedy, an apology and to place a note on the record correcting its error.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman