Summary: Ms B complained about the way in which the Council dealt with issues of abuse in her family and subsequent provision of support since 2015, causing her severe distress and practical difficulties. We found the Council delayed in acting effectively when the first incident between the children occurred in December 2015. It then delayed for over two years in providing specialist support for Ms B’s daughter. The Council has agreed to continue to fund therapy for Ms B and D, to provide some family mediation therapy and to provide a holiday for the whole family along with community activities for D.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that Wiltshire Council (the Council) failed to:
• respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual abuse by her son on her daughter in December 2015 which led to further incidents during the following year;
• offer adequate support and therapy to her daughter following the abuse, or to the rest of the family for the consequences of domestic abuse;
• offer practical and financial support with benefit claims, moving house, debt problems and recovering from sewage flooding in the new property;
• properly safeguard her and her children from domestic abuse;
• offer appropriate and ongoing support to her son to deal with the pressures of living with his father; and
• take account of Ms B’s mental health issues while she was trying to resolve and respond to the complex issues over a three-year period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have written to Ms B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.
6. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

7. The definition of a child-in-need is a child who is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority. It is often used to protect children where the threshold of risk of significant harm is not met but a council considers support is still needed.
8. Under section 47 of the Children Act, where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm (physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect including the risk of these things) a council must make enquiries to establish the child’s situation and to determine whether protective action is required.
9. If the information gathered under section 47 substantiates concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange a child protection conference within 15 working days of the strategy meeting.

What happened

10. Ms B has four children, one of whom is an adult and not included in this complaint. The Council’s children’s services team has been involved with the family for some years due to concerns about Ms B’s partner, Mr C, including mental health and domestic abuse issues.

2015

11. The Council first started a child-in-need plan in April 2015. Following this intervention, the school and Ms B raised concerns about her daughter’s (D) behaviour and the impact of Mr C’s behaviour on the family. Tensions escalated and the Council held a strategy discussion in August 2015. It agreed to start a section 47 investigation to consider whether the children were at risk of harm. The investigation resulted in the two younger children being placed under child protection plans. Ms B was pregnant with her youngest son (F) at this time.
12. In December 2015 Ms B reported to the Council, a sexual incident between her daughter D and her son E. She also said D had disclosed further harmful behaviour by E. The Council visited the family to discuss the incident. It was agreed to keep bedroom doors open and place a baby monitor upstairs for additional supervision.

2016

13. On 8 January 2016 the family intervention service (which offers intensive support to families in need), began to work with the family, visiting frequently.
14. On 11 January 2016 the Council held a strategy discussion with the school and the police in attendance. The meeting noted concerns that neither Ms B, nor any professionals had spoken to either of the children about the incident. The meeting agreed that the threshold for significant harm had not been met and the social worker should arrange to speak to both children, in the first instance.
15. The family intervention service continued to work with the family with regular visits throughout February and March 2016. Ms B’s fourth child, F, was born in April 2016.
16. Later in April 2016 Ms B reported a further disclosure by D of sexualised behaviour by E. The Council held a strategy discussion the following day, with representatives from the Police, the children’s schools and a health visitor. They reviewed the history over the past 12 months and the concerns about domestic violence, Mr C’s behaviour, D’s behaviour and the apparent inability to keep the children safe. The meeting agreed unanimously that the threshold for significant harm was met and a section 47 investigation should be completed.
17. During the investigation D gave further details of the harmful behaviour and the Council put together a safety plan for the family to implement, preventing D and E from playing together unsupervised and keeping out of each other’s bedrooms. The section 47 investigation was completed at the beginning of May 2016 and concluded that D had suffered significant harm from E and additional services should be provided. The Council put in place child protection plans for all three children.
18. In May 2016 a child protection conference was held in respect of D, E and F. This noted that the Council’s response to the first incident in December 2015 had been inadequate and to date no risk assessment had been done and no specialist services had been identified to help D.
19. The Council then referred D to a third-party organisation for support, but the referral was declined as the perpetrator, E, was living in the same home as D. In June 2016 the Youth Offending Team and social care started some joint work with E to assess the level of risk he posed and enable him to have healthy relationships in the future. A review of D noted a deterioration in, and concerns about, her behaviour. The family intervention service felt she needed more specialist work.
20. The Council discussed the case with the family assessment and safeguarding service who undertake specialised risk assessment-based work to inform social care. But the service concluded there was no role for them in the situation and they did not work with sexual abuse.
21. The family intervention service continued to visit the family and social workers carried out individual sessions with D and E. The school, Ms B and social workers highlighted concerns around D’s escalating behaviour.
22. In August 2016, a further child protection conference was held. The meeting noted multiple concerns about D’s behaviour and the lack of specialised support for her, along with emerging concerns about F. It concluded that there were still significant problems with the parents’ relationship, neither parent recognised the emotional harm being caused to the children and they had both failed to act to protect the children from emotional abuse. The children continued to be at risk of significant harm due to emotional abuse. The risk of sexual abuse was less, but still there.
23. The meeting also noted that the Council was taking the first steps towards legal proceedings (pre-proceedings) to protect the children. It had sent a letter to Ms B and Mr C explaining that it was considering taking legal action due to concerns about the care of the children. It explained what they needed to do to stop this happening and advised them to seek legal advice.
24. In September 2016 the Council noted an escalation in concerns about the domestic abuse within the household. Ms B requested help in obtaining court orders against Mr C.
25. The Council produced an updated safety plan in October 2016 and visited the family to discuss the plan with the whole family. The notes of the meeting record that while everyone expressed agreement with the plan the Council had concerns about the level of understanding within the family and their ability to implement it properly.
26. Ms B’s solicitor issued Mr C with a warning before injunction letter, requesting that he leave the home. Ms B made a housing application to move due to ongoing domestic abuse. The Council offered Ms B a property in a different area which she declined.
27. At a meeting in November 2016 the Council advised Ms B and Mr C that it had significant concerns about domestic abuse and they should not live together. The Council also started a parenting assessment.
28. The assessment work with E was completed and the report shared with Ms B and Mr C. It concluded E required a medium level of supervision and highlighted concerns about the impact on him of domestic abuse at home and the problems within the family. It considered there was a need for psychological assessments to provide the whole family with the right support. It suggested a three-month programme of weekly sessions with E.
29. The Council again contacted the third-party organisation to obtain counselling for D but again it declined due to the steps towards legal proceedings and the potential instability of the family.
30. The Council offered Ms B a house, along with help from a Family Support Worker to move. Due to medical issues she felt unable to accept it. Following a letter from the Council, Mr C moved out of the family home at the end of November 2016.
31. In December 2016 E abused D again. An out-of-hours strategy discussion was held the same day and D was interviewed. E went to stay with Mr C. The Council carried out regular visits to Mr C’s house but did not register any concerns.

2017

32. The Council completed the parenting assessment in January 2017 and recommended that the current living arrangements continued. The Council was concerned that without intervention Ms B and Mr C would resume their relationship which would be harmful to the children. It noted that E’s sexualised behaviour may have arisen partly due to the harmful family environment and that D required urgent support to recover from the sexual abuse she had experienced.
33. The Council began care proceedings in February 2017 and the court granted an interim supervision order. As part of the court proceedings, psychological reports were obtained for Ms B, Mr C and all three children. These noted concerns about the dynamics of the relationship between Ms B and Mr C and said that work was needed for them to be able to provide ‘good enough’ parenting to the children. The children had all been affected adversely by the parenting they received. D and E could live together; the risk they posed to each other was less that the risk from the dysfunctional family dynamics.
34. The Council also referred the case to the intensive family intervention service who started work with Ms B and D in April 2017 to improve her parenting skills and help her manage D’s behaviour. It reported improvements in the relationship between D and Ms B and in D’s behaviour. The service says it also provided support to Ms B with finances, housing, and attending court. It ended its work in January 2018 due to the improvement in D’s behaviour.
35. In July 2017 Ms B experienced some antisocial behaviour from neighbours, which she reported to the police and received support from Victim Support. Counter-allegations were made against her.
36. In August 2017 the court made supervision orders approving the Council’s care plan to provide an extended period of support in addition to robust monitoring and assessment of the children and the family.
37. In September 2017 Ms B moved to a different area where she had a support network. The Council says the intervention service provided support with moving, obtaining bedding and other household items and some emergency financial assistance.
38. In October 2017 the Council again referred D to the third-party organisation for counselling. The organisation said D would be on a waiting list for three to six months.

2018

39. The Council chased up the referral in January 2018 and the organisation said the case would be allocated in February. Ms B also contacted a centre in a different town in January 2018.
40. The Council held its last child-protection conference in January 2018 and downgraded the case to children-in-need rather than children at risk of significant harm.
41. The Council contacted another organisation at the end of February, but D was too young for them. It also made a referral to a third organisation given the delay. In April 2018 the first organisation said it could not provide a service to D. The mental health team said that D could benefit from play therapy and the Council obtained funding for this from a community group. The play therapy started in May 2018 and was extended in July 2018. The centre Ms B contacted began work with D in October 2018, which is still ongoing. The Council also arranged a holiday for D away from the family.
42. There was a sewage flood in her new property caused by a broken pipe which damaged a lot of her belongings and caused significant distress. Ms B said the Council failed to provide sufficient support to her at that time. She resigned from her job, she says due to lack of support from the Council.
43. The Council held a review meeting in July 2018 as the supervision order was coming to an end. The Council did not consider the case needed to go back to court. It would complete an updated assessment and continue with monthly child in need meetings. It would also assign a family key worker to the family to support Ms B with D and F and Mr C with E. Ms B requested assistance with benefits, counselling for all her children including her eldest and other financial support.

Complaint

44. Ms B complained to the Council in 2018 about the failure of the Council to safeguard her and her children, causing them all harm. She said her concerns about E were not properly dealt with in 2015/16, exposing D to further harm.
45. The Council responded in June 2018. It considered that it had taken appropriate and timely action in response to Ms B’s concerns. It recognised the difficult circumstances of her case but noted, D was receiving therapy, E was also receiving support through the joint work programme and the health visiting team was providing support to Ms B in parenting F. It said it could not provide compensation for the loss of her job or moving costs.
46. Ms B disputed the Council’s response and escalated the complaint to stage two of the corporate complaints process.
47. The Council responded in October 2018. It responded to concerns Ms B had about E living with Mr C. It considered it had provided appropriate support and supervision following the change to children-in-need plans. It agreed to continue to fund therapy sessions for Ms B and D and transport to those sessions. It said it was not its role to provide decorating or support with furniture but directed Ms B to community groups. It said it would discuss family mediation therapy further. It did not consider compensation was appropriate as continuing support was being provided to the family.
48. Ms B then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Jurisdiction

49. Some of the events are now over three years old. We exercised discretion to investigate the complaints given that the Council considered the complaint in 2018 and the intervening court action made it difficult for Ms B to have complained at an earlier point.

failure to respond promptly and effectively to reports of sexual abuse by her son on her daughter in December 2015 which led to further incidents during the following year

50. The Council responded promptly to Ms B’s reports in December 2015, by visiting the home and ensuring some actions were taken to supervise the children. It also held a strategy discussion in early January 2016 which concluded the threshold for significant harm was not met. It put some services in for the whole family and some one-to-one sessions with D.
51. However, following the second incident in April 2016, the child protection conference criticised the action taken initially as inadequate, noting that the children had not been spoken to individually and very little individual work had been done. This was fault.
52. I cannot conclude this directly led to further incidents as it is evident from the subsequent reports, that there were other factors within the family which could have contributed to the situation. However, it has caused distress and uncertainty to Ms B as to whether the outcome could have been different.

offer adequate support and therapy to her daughter following the abuse, or to the rest of the family for the consequences of domestic abuse

53. It was first noted in May 2016 (at the child protection conference) that D had not received any specialist support. The Council made one attempt at this point to find some but was unsuccessful due to E still living in in the property. It was mentioned again in June 2016 and at the next child protection conference in August 2016. The Council made a further attempt in October 2016 but this was again unsuccessful due to the potential court proceedings.
54. The parenting assessment completed in January 2017 noted that D required urgent support, but the Council did not make a referral until October 2017 two months after the court proceedings had concluded. This was ultimately unsuccessful due to factors beyond the Council’s control but no further efforts were made to source an alternative option until April 2018. In the meantime, Ms B had made her own enquiries and succeeded in finding some therapy for D which started in October 2018. This delay was fault. I accept that the court proceedings were a partial obstacle but given that the need had been identified in May 2016, it was unacceptable to take another two years to provide support.
55. It is difficult to conclude how this has affected D and it may well have been difficult to proceed given the upheaval within the family during this period, but she has waited too long for much-needed support to be provided.

offer practical and financial support with benefit claims, moving house, debt problems and recovering from sewage flooding in the new property

56. It is not the Council’s primary role to help with all these issues. Benefit advice is available from other voluntary organisations such as Citizens Advice. There is evidence the Council provided some direct support with the move, providing bedding and access to emergency financial assistance and signposting Ms B to more appropriate organisations for help. The flooding was the responsibility of her landlord to resolve.

properly safeguard her and her children from domestic abuse

57. I cannot identify fault in the processes the Council followed to respond to the situation from May 2016 when the Council initiated child protection plans. The Council put in additional support services, visited regularly and when the situation escalated it took the first steps towards legal proceedings. It produced a detailed safety plan for the whole family but when this failed, it tried to help Ms B by offering her alternative accommodation. It also intervened to ensure Mr C left the property in November 2016. It then took court action to ensure the children were protected.
58. It has provided intensive family support to Ms B, resulting in improvements to D’s behaviour and in her relationship with Ms B. The Council has also provided, and continues to provide, therapy for Ms B.
59. It arranged assessment and ongoing support for E. The delay in providing support for D has been dealt with above.

offer appropriate and ongoing support to her son to deal with the pressures of living with his father

60. The Council provided assessment and support to E from June 2016 which continued into 2017. Since he lived with his father the Council has carried out the necessary checks and visited regularly.

take account of Ms B’s mental health issues while she was trying to resolve and respond to the complex issues over a three-year period.

61. This is a wide-ranging complaint and difficult to pin down any specific incidents. It is evident that the situation has been very stressful for Ms B for a prolonged period of time. However, I cannot identify a specific time that the Council has not responded to Ms B’s needs: as noted above it has provided a variety of support, including therapy, since 2016, its primary focus being to protect the children and ensure they can remain in the care of their parents.

Agreed action

62. In recognition of the delay in providing specialised support services to D, I recommended that the Council:
• continues to provide the current therapy to D and Ms B for as long as it is considered necessary by the professionals involved;
• makes a decision within a month on Ms B’s request for family mediation therapy; and
• provides D with a holiday during the summer of 2019.
63. The Council has said in response, that:
• Arrangements are in place for the therapy to continue for D and Ms B and the need for this therapy will be reviewed by the Multi-Agency Team around the Child group.
• The Council is prepared to pay for Ms B to have a family mediation session with a third-party organisation, dependent on other parties being willing to take part.
• The Council has sourced a holiday for Ms B and all of her children to take place during the summer holidays. D will also be invited to take part in activities which are run in the community over the summer period. It says Ms B is pleased to accept this arrangement.

Back to top

Final decision

64. I consider this is a reasonable and fair way of resolving the complaint and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman