Summary: The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council in its consideration of a safeguarding concern regarding Mrs X’s children.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council did not listen to her views and should not have forced her sons to live with her ex-husband. She says this led to her son feeling scared of his father and difficulties in the relationship between her and her sons.
2. Mrs X has asked why and requested an apology. She would like the Council to learn lessons regarding the complaints she raised

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I also invited the complainant to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X had involved the Council’s children’s services department some years earlier due to difficulty managing her children’s behaviour. She complained at stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure in 2017. Part of her complaint was that the she felt forced by social workers to allow her sons to be placed in her ex husband’s care. She says that her ex-husband was controlling, and her son was scared of him. Mrs X also complained a social worker refused to take a letter from her solicitor which explained that Mr X was unsuitable and her sons should not be forced to live with him.
7. The Council’s investigating officer considered the complaints Mrs X raised and discussed it with her. The officer considered the Council’s records and interviewed social workers, managers and other relevant officers. An independent person oversaw the investigation and the investigating officer’s findings.
8. The Council wrote to Mrs X in December 2017 with its response. It did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint. It said the social worker stated she had not seen the solicitor’s letter Mrs X referred to and would not have refused to take such a letter. The Council said the interviews and case notes indicated Mrs X sons often chose where they wanted live. In addition, it said Mrs X had requested that her sons stayed with their father when she was having difficulty in managing their behaviour. It explained the social worker said the living arrangements were constantly changing. The Council concluded there was no evidence to support the complaint that social workers forced the boys to go to their father's home or put undue pressure on them.
9. Mrs X complained further to the Council at stage three. She said the social worker stated she had agreed her sons could live with their father but this was untrue. She said she had not agreed and had made this clear from the start. She felt her reasons regarding her ex-husband’s alleged controlling behaviour were not recorded by the social worker. She said the social worker’s “advice” regarding where her boys lived did not come across as advice and she felt pressurised into agreeing. She asked for an apology for her views and wishes not being acknowledged. She also repeated that she had offered her solicitor’s letter to the social worker but she had not asked to see it.
10. The Council’s independent stage three panel considered the complaint in March 2018. Mrs X attended the hearing and had an opportunity to comment.

The panel decided that it would make no finding regarding Mrs X’s stage three complaint that she wanted an apology because her views about where her sons lived were not acknowledged and also requested an apology because the social worker failed to acknowledge her solicitor’s letter. The panel considered that these points were desired outcomes rather than complaints.

11. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. She asked why the Council placed her sons in the care of her ex-husband. She said she felt her sons were unsafe, and it went against her solicitor’s advice. She considered this affected her sons’ relationship with her. She asked for an apology and wanted the Council to learn lessons from her complaint.

Analysis

12. In response to my enquiries the Council provided copies of the Council’s complaint responses and the panel’s notes and consideration of her complaint at stage three. The Council also provided copies of minutes of multi agency meetings.
13. The Council commented regarding placement of Mrs X’s sons that it was aware of different parenting styles and disagreement between the parents. However, it says that the decision regarding where the boys lived was reached in agreement with the parents. The Council says it mediated but considered the decision was a judgment call for the parents. It considered it did not force Mrs X regarding the arrangements but that it advised. There was no child arrangements order which specified where the children would live decided by a court.
14. I have considered this and I have not seen evidence of Mrs X raising objections regarding where her sons lived. The decision appears to have been one sometimes made by the parents and sometimes by the children themselves. There may have been circumstances where the Council advised that the children should live at their father’s, but it was a decision for the parents.
15. The consideration of Mrs X’s complaint stage two appears thorough and robust. Some of Mrs X’s complaints were upheld. However, the complaint that the Council should not have allowed the children to live with their father because of his alleged controlling behaviour was not upheld. I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s consideration of this aspect of Mrs X’s complaint. The Council did not consider it should apologise regarding this complaint because it did not uphold it. I have not found fault here.
16. The Council’s complaint responses did not find there was evidence that Mrs X offered a solicitor’s letter to a social worker but it was refused. I have not found evidence of fault here.
17. The Council says it does not have a record of receiving a safeguarding concern from Mrs X or her sons. It says no concerns were reported in meetings or identified in conversations. However, if more specific information about the date concerns were said to be raised it will check its information again. Based on the information I have seen, I have not found fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman