Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the action it took following safeguarding concerns about Miss B’s children.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council wrongly put her children on a child protection plan. She said the Council has relied on false information, failed to follow the correct processes, and failed to provide the correct support to her and her children. She said this has caused her and her family significant ongoing distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

4. 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 means that I cannot investigate the court proceedings that led to the interim care order.
5. I can investigate the events leading to the court proceedings. So I have investigated the Council’s assessments, the decisions it made, how it implemented the child protection plans, and how it decided to move to court action.
6. Child Protection Case Conferences are made up of various professionals including the children’s schools. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended). This means that I cannot investigate the information the schools submitted to the Conferences, only what the Council made of that information when it was deciding what action to take.
7. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended). Miss B says that some of her problems were caused by disrepair in the housing association property she rents. I cannot investigate this but I have considered how the Council took this into account as part of the child protection processes.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information provided by Miss B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered all comments received before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

9. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
10. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools, and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in:

• no further action;
• a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• a decision to convene a strategy meeting.

11. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
12. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’, and implementing a Child Protection Plan.
13. After the ICPC, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
14. Review Child Protection Conferences should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
15. The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conference unless there was good reason not to.
16. The statutory guidance on child safeguarding, ‘Working together to safeguard children’, says after the ICPC, the council should convene a core group meeting within 10 working days. The purpose of core group is to:

• further develop the child protection plan;
• facilitate the in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and
• implement the child protection plan.

17. The core group is made up of key family members and professionals involved with the child and/or family.

What happened

18. Miss B lives with her children. In July 2022, the Police visited Miss B’s home on an unrelated matter regarding someone known to the family. The Police alerted the Council to concerns about the home environment and the Council visited Miss B’s home. Miss B was not at home, but some of the young children were there unsupervised while Miss B took some of her other children to school. The Council was concerned that the condition of the house was not safe for the children, and that Miss B had not returned to the house when called. Miss B explained she and the children had been ill and she had got behind with the housework. She was longer than intended on the school run because her child had become sick and she had to stop off. The children went to stay with family and friends so that Miss B could have some time to improve the home environment. The Council decided that it would need to gather more information and then a strategy meeting would decide what action was needed.
19. The Council visited Miss B and saw the children, who by then had been able to return home. It found that the home was not sanitary and there were concerns about the children being unsupervised. The Council consulted wider family members. The Council held a strategy meeting at which all the professional involved with the children were highly concerned about risk of neglect to them. The meeting decided that the concerns met the threshold for risk of significant harm to the children. It considered ‘child in need plans’ but agreed the risk was too high and so decided it should proceed to an ICPC.
20. The Council visited the home to complete the child and family assessment. It also conducted a joint visit with the housing association to look at repairs to the house. The assessment evidenced a very high level of concern for the children due to neglect, unmet health needs, lack of parental supervision, unhygienic and unsafe home environment, and low school attendance.
21. The Council gave Miss B the social worker’s assessment ahead of the ICPC. Miss B told the Council the assessment did not reflect the positive changes she had made. She said she did not agree with information provided by the schools or the health visitor.
22. The ICPC decided that all the children needed a Child Protection Plan. These included:
• that the Council needed to better understand their wishes and feelings; they needed to attend school fully;
• one of the children would be referred to the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS);
• Miss B needed to keep the children’s health appointments and the Council would make sure that the older children had health need assessments;
• Miss B would engage with professionals so that a family support package could be put in place urgently. She would allow access to the home, and make the home safe and hygienic;
• Miss B should be encouraged to seek an assessment of her own mental health;
• Miss B should follow up housing repairs; and
• Family Group Conferencing would start as soon as possible. This is where family members meet with the Council to find ways to meet the children’s needs.
23. Miss B told the Council she had not had the chance to express her views at the ICPC and the process had been distressing. She said the assessment did not take into account the positive changes she had made; nor that illness meant she had got behind with the housework. Miss B said the child protection plans would put more pressure on her and take time away from her being able to support her children, and that they needed the right kind of support. The Council said it had not been possible to see the children or Miss B alone because it had been the school holidays, but that its aim is to support the family. The Council explained that she had been able to express her views at the conference.
24. The Council made regular visits to the home in line with the legal requirements. It reported that it was difficult to discuss concerns with Miss B as she did not appear to accept the children needed child protection plans. Miss B said she had been struggling with the house and could not afford the furniture they needed such as beds or to replace the flooring. She explained that the children have health and educational needs but do not always get the help they need. Miss B also said that the Council had taken the children’s views from assessments completed over a year earlier.
25. The Council held regular core group meetings of the various professionals involved and Miss B. The purpose of these meetings was to review progress of the various elements of the plan. The meetings reported:
• the health needs for the children had been assessed.
• the Council had offered family group conferencing. Miss B considered this but decided not to go ahead.
• the Council offered a support worker in the mornings to help with morning routines, but Miss B declined this.
• school attendance sometimes improved but was variable and still too low. This also meant that it was hard for the Council to do direct work with the children.
• The Council had referred Miss B to the family centre for parenting help, some work had been completed but she had not properly engaged with this and progress was slow.
• The housing repairs were ongoing and Miss B was working with the housing association on this.
• Some of the children had additional needs and were being supported in school. There were concerns about the mental health of one of the children. Miss B did not think there was mental illness, and CAMHS had assessed her and not offered any ongoing treatment. Miss B said her child had a condition (such as ADHD or ASD), and had not been properly diagnosed.
• Overall, Miss B still did not think the children needed child protection plans and the support on offer was not the right kind of support. The Council said that this made it difficult to make progress on the aims of the plans.
• The Council offered to fund a deep clean of the home and help to dispose of unwanted items.
26. In March 2023, the Council held a Review Child Protection Conference. It decided that the children’s child protection plans should continue. Miss B was unhappy about this and the Council explained that the concerns that the children were at risk of neglect had been substantiated and it was still receiving concerns about the children. Its visits to Miss B’s home showed she had a positive relationship with the children but there were still concerns about them and these were long standing.
27. The Council continued to make visits and offer the support needed under the protection plans. Its notes say it found it hard to engage Miss B. It found the home was improved, but still not sanitary, and the children were not always supervised. The school attendance was again a concern. As Miss B now had no car, the Council arranged taxis and bus passes to help the children get to school. Miss B said that the Council’s involvement was making her ill and distressed.
28. The Council notified Miss B in writing that it was considering care proceedings for the children. It set out its concerns for each child, advised her to get legal advice and invited her to a meeting to discuss this. Miss B said that this was based on inaccurate information and she was doing all she could to work to the child protection plans. The Council paused its action to complete fresh assessments.
29. However, as concerns continued the Police decided to take protective action and the children were placed in foster care. Miss B was admitted to hospital to assess her mental health. The Council decided that it should proceed with court action and the court made an interim care order. This meant that the children have remained in foster care.
30. Throughout this time, Miss B had complained to the Council. She said the Council had made the child protection plans based on wrong and out of date information from the schools, and from its own records. It has not assessed her properly or included her views. She disagreed that the children need to be on the plans and said the support offered was not what they needed.
31. The Council met with Miss B to discuss her concerns. It allocated a new social worker and Miss B was able to engage with them better. It said that Miss B had been able to contribute to the review conference, but that concerns for the children remained. The Council’s aim was to support Miss B so that the children were not at risk of neglect. This could include practical help in the home, as well as help to access health services for the children.

Analysis

32. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether the Council was right or wrong to implement child protection plans. That is for the Council to decide. The Ombudsman’s role is to make sure the Council followed the processes and properly considered all the available information when it made these decisions. It is clear that Miss B and her children have had many challenges. However, overall, there is no fault by the Council.
33. The Council did not have to share the information it used before the ICPC. It did share the assessment. Miss B did not agree with the assessment or that her children were at risk of neglect. The Council did seek Miss B’s views (although it did acknowledge that this was hard as it was the school holidays), and she was able to speak at the Core Groups and the conferences.
34. Miss B says the Council used outdated and inaccurate information for their assessment and to decide the children needed child protection plans. However, this was only part of the information the Council used. It visited the family several times before the ICPC to gather information. It was able to draw on information from its earlier dealings with Miss B, as well as factual up to date information such as observations during these visits and information about school attendance.
35. Even if some of the information was not up to date, the concerns are serious and also continued throughout, and despite new and up-to-date information becoming available. The Council reviewed the care plans regularly and in line with the legal requirements. We are unlikely to criticise a council for action to safeguard children and furthermore, it is clear that the Council properly considered the need for the care plans.
36. Miss B disagrees with the support on offer. However, it is for the Council to decide what support is needed to meet the children’s needs. It did seek Miss B’s views on this and reviewed this with her regularly. Miss B might have disagreed with the diagnoses of some of the children but this was not fault by the Council. The Council properly considered the issues that were impacting on Miss B and the children. It supported improving the home environment and getting the house repairs done. It offered support with the morning routine and with Miss B’s parenting. It also supported Miss B to have the health needs re-assessed and to look at whether the children needed further special educational support. The support offered was in line with the concerns identified in the safeguarding process.
37. The Council followed the safeguarding process set out in government guidance as well as that set out in the Hertfordshire Safeguarding Children Partnership manual. It involved other agencies, gathered information and involved Miss B and the children. The Council continued with visits and made sure the core group monitored the progress against the plan. The case notes show that The Council carefully considered whether it needed to move from the plan to the court action.
38. I appreciate that these events have had a significant impact on Miss B and her family. However, there is no clear fault in those actions within the Ombudsman’s remit.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman