Summary: The Council was not at fault for beginning a child protection enquiry. However, the Council failed to give Miss B enough time before a child protection meeting to prepare, failed to include NHS professionals involved with the family in the meeting and included some inaccurate information in the report for the conference. That has caused Miss B some uncertainty about whether the outcome might have been different. An apology and payment to Miss B is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complained about the way the Council dealt with a child protection investigation. Miss B complained the Council:
• began child protection enquiries without good cause;
• placed her children on a child protection plan when there was no evidence to support that decision;
• failed to tell her the reason for the social worker’s visit;
• failed to give her enough time before the child protection meeting to prepare;
• failed to ensure she had access to her social worker before the child protection conference;
• failed to include NHS professionals involved with the family in the child protection conference;
• spoke to her children without her permission or the presence of an advocate;
• did not give her or the father of her eldest child satisfactory opportunity to put their views forward at the child protection conference;
• produced an inaccurate report for the child protection conference which included irrelevant information; and
• refused to consider her complaint at stage two.

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. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 26A(1), as amended and section 34(3))
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Miss B’s comments on my draft decision and the documentation she provided; and
• gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
5. 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

6. On 5 February 2018 the Council received a referral from child and adolescent mental health (CAMHS), raising concerns about possible fabricated illness and the amount of time Miss B’s children were having off school. The referrer said the headteacher shared the concerns. The Council asked the referrer for details of the hospital attendances for the children which the referrer provided later that day.
7. On 7 February the Council asked for information from a previous council involved with Miss B’s children. That council provided the information on 9 February.
8. On 12 February CAMHS provided some more information. It questioned why Miss B had asked for a diagnosis of ADHD for both her children as in the officer’s professional opinion neither showed signs of ADHD. The Council received further information from the school on 12 February. The school said Miss B had asked it to dispense strong painkillers to her youngest son when the age limit was 12 years plus.
9. Between 23 February and 6 March social workers tried to conduct an initial visit to Miss B. On 6 March Miss B asked why she was required to meet with Council officers. The Council explained it had received a referral which it needed to meet with her about. A social worker then met with Miss B on 7 March. During that visit Miss B said she would not allow the social worker to see either child alone.
10. Strategy meetings took place on 12 April and 26 June. An initial child protection conference took place on 16 July. The Council sent Miss B the papers for that on the evening of 12 July. On 16 July the children were made subject to child protection plans.
11. Since then Miss B and her children have moved back into the previous council’s area and I understand that council stepped down the case to child in need plans.

Analysis

12. Miss B says the Council began child protection enquiries when it had no good reason to do so. Miss B says that is because CAMHS had only referred her to the Council for support and had not raised any concerns. Miss B also says any suggestion her children were having too much time off school did not warrant child protection enquiries.
13. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council received a referral from CAMHS in February 2018. That referral was not, however, a referral for support for Miss B, as she has suggested. Rather, the referral made clear CAMHS had concerns about Miss B potentially fabricating illnesses for her children as well as raising concerns about her children’s attendance at school. So, I am satisfied the Council had received a referral raising concerns. I am also satisfied the referral raised concerns other than those about the children’s attendance at school. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for holding a strategy meeting.
14. Miss B says the Council did not have sufficient information to warrant beginning child protection enquiries. It is clear to me though the Council took a different view. I am satisfied the Council reached that decision after holding a strategy meeting. I have considered the notes from that strategy meeting and it is clear the participants decided to move the case onto an initial child protection conference because they had concerns about potential emotional harm to the children. The notes from the strategy meeting record those concerns related to Miss B continuing to raise issues with the school and health services, the potential for the children to have been made aware of too much adult information and concerns the children’s voices were not being heard, as well as concerns about school attendance. I recognise Miss B strongly disagrees with the decision to move the case onto child protection. However, as I said in paragraph 2, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to comment on the merits of that decision unless there is evidence of fault in how that decision has been reached. I have found no evidence of fault here.
15. In reaching that view I am aware Miss B says the Council failed to consider the fact another council previously investigated concerns about fabricated illness and found no evidence to support that conclusion. Had the Council begun an investigation based on the same information already considered by a different council I would have had some concerns. However, as I said earlier, the decision to move the case to child protection was not solely concerned with the possibility of fabricated illness. I am satisfied that formed only a minor part in the Council’s decision to move the case to child protection. In any event, I am satisfied the Council made contact with the previous council and obtained details of its previous investigations before deciding to move the case to child protection. Again, I recognise the Council has reached a decision with which Miss B strongly disagrees. However, as I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached that decision I have no grounds to criticise it.
16. Miss B says the Council should not have placed her children on a child protection plan because there was no evidence to support that. I am satisfied the Council reached the decision to place the children on child protection plans after holding an initial child protection conference. I am satisfied after considering the social worker’s report and listening to the representations of those at the meeting, which included Miss B, those present decided to place the children on child protection plans under the category of neglect. It is clear from the notes from the initial child protection conference that members present decided to move to child protection plans due to concerns about Miss B’s further requests for health assessments that may not be necessary for her children, concerns about the impact on the children of conflicting views between professionals and the parents and due to concerns about the children’s low school attendance. Again, I recognise Miss B strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision. As I have made clear though, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to comment on the merits of that decision unless it is affected by fault. I have found no evidence of fault here.
17. Miss B says the Council failed to tell her about the reason for a social worker’s visit in February 2018. I believe Miss B is referring here to the visit which eventually took place on 7 March 2018. As I understand it, Miss B says when the Council initially tried to arrange the visit in February 2018 it did not tell her about the referral it had received from CAMHS. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me Miss B knew about the referral before the social worker visited on 7 March. I say that because it is referred to in a note of a telephone conversation with Miss B on 6 March. The officer Miss B spoke to told her about the referral during that call. The notes from the social work visit then record Miss B raising queries about whether CAMHS had made a referral given Miss B said she had asked for support. Given that documentary evidence I am satisfied Miss B knew about the purpose of the visit before it took place. In any event, even if the Council had not told Miss B about the purpose of the visit I would not consider that fault. That is because when investigating potential child protection concerns there is no requirement for the Council to tell the person affected about the reason for a visit.
18. Miss B says the Council did not give her enough time before the child protection meeting to prepare. I am satisfied Miss B received the report for the child protection conference on the evening of 12 July when the child protection conference took place on 16 July. The Council accepts it should have provided Miss B with a copy of the report at least two working days before the conference. The Council failed to do that in this case, for which it has apologised. I also understand Miss B had difficulty contacting the social worker to discuss her concerns about the content of the report. Failure to give Miss B adequate opportunity to digest the report and discuss it with the social worker before the initial child protection conference is fault.
19. The Council accepts it failed to invite the GP for Miss B’s children to the initial child protection conference. The Council has apologised and agreed to remind social workers and team managers about the need to invite family GP’s to initial child protection conferences. Failure to invite Miss B’s GP to the initial child protection conference is fault. Given part of the concerns related to the various illnesses suffered by Miss B’s children I consider that a serious failure. It seems to me likely the GP would have had relevant information about the various diagnoses for the children which would have been relevant for the conference. I could not, however, speculate about whether that would have made a difference to the outcome given the concerns went beyond the issue of medical diagnoses. Nevertheless, the fact the family GP was not invited and neither were any of the NHS professionals involved in providing care to Miss B’s children meant conference did not have as much information as it should have done about the children’s health. That has left Miss B not knowing whether the outcome might have been different.
20. Miss B says the Council spoke to her children without her permission and without an advocate at present. Having considered the documentary evidence though I note when the social worker visited Miss B on 7 March 2018 Miss B did not agree to the social worker meeting with her children alone. I am therefore satisfied Miss B accompanied both children when the social worker spoke to them on that occasion. I am also satisfied the Council made an inappropriate referral for an advocate for the children following the initial child protection conference. Although I understand there were difficulties getting the advocate’s availability for the meetings held by the Council I cannot criticise the Council for that.
21. Miss B says the Council did not give her or her son’s father adequate opportunity to put their views forward at the child protection conference. I have carefully considered the minutes of the child protection conference. That records comments from Miss B and the father of the children. I also note the chair of the conference wrote to Miss B and the father of the children before the conference, offering to meet with them 15 minutes before the meeting began. Given all of that, I am satisfied the Council gave Miss B and her son’s father the opportunity to put forward their views. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
22. Miss B says the Council produced an inaccurate report for the child protection conference. I will deal with the specific inaccuracies Miss B raised with the Ombudsman in subsequent paragraphs. I am satisfied though when Miss B raised some concerns about the accuracy of the social worker’s report with the Council it agreed to place her comments on file. I consider that a particularly helpful response as it will ensure anybody considering Miss B’s file will have access to both the social worker’s report and Miss B’s comments about where there are inaccuracies in that report. I turn now to the specific allegations Miss B has made.
23. Miss B says the report refers to her saying it was easier to keep one of her sons off school when she was having an assessment when she did not say that. Having considered the report I am satisfied the reference to that relates to comments made by the GP. So, while that may not be accurate I am satisfied the Council was simply quoting from information provided by the GP. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
24. Miss B says the social worker’s report inaccurately said Miss B was not tested for carbon monoxide at the same time as her children were tested. The documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me Miss B was tested for carbon monoxide on 12 January 2016. The reference in the report is therefore inaccurate. While that is fault I do not consider this had a significant impact on the decision to place the children on child protection plans. I am therefore satisfied the Council’s agreement to place Miss B’s comments about inaccuracies in the report on the file is satisfactory remedy for this part of the complaint.
25. Miss B says the report inaccurately says both her sons had a similar injury at the same age. Miss B says that is not accurate because the injury her second son received was an entirely different injury. I understand Miss B is referring here to burns. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Miss B’s first son had his thumb burnt on an iron and her second son had his fingers burnt on hair straighteners at the same age. The social worker’s report says both children had a burn on their hand at the same age. Given the information about the burns and the location of those burns I do not consider the report so inaccurate it requires a finding of fault.
26. Miss B says the report refers to one of her sons having a high level of medication. Miss B says the report should have said her son has arthritis and the GP had prescribed the medication. I am satisfied though the report makes clear Miss B’s son has various medical conditions. In fact, the report refers to Miss B’s son as having significant health needs and says this has been confirmed by medical information. I am therefore satisfied the report is balanced in that respect. So, I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
27. Miss B says the social worker’s report wrongly says she showers and dresses one of her sons even though he is 15. The only reference I have seen in the documentary evidence to Miss B providing any personal care for her son is a reference to her helping him wash in the bath as he had struggled to do that himself. There is no evidence though to support the reference to Miss B dressing her son. So, including that information in the report is fault as it is not supported by the documentary evidence. Again, I have found no evidence to suggest this influenced the conference conclusion. I therefore consider the Council’s agreement to place Miss B’s record of inaccuracies in the report on its files a satisfactory remedy for this part of the complaint.
28. Miss B says the social work report wrongly says she has not allowed professionals to work directly with her children. Miss B says that is inaccurate because she previously engaged with social services in another council’s area. I understand the point Miss B is making. However, the Council’s records show at times Miss B has told officers she would not allow them to see her children without her present. That was also reported by CAMHS. I therefore could not say this part of the social worker’s report was inaccurate.
29. Miss B says the report should not have referred to professionals having concerns about school attendance and emotional harm as that was investigated by the other council. Miss B says her perception is that every time she moves area the new council begins the process from the beginning. As I said earlier though, I am satisfied the issue investigated by the previous council related to potential fabricated illness. That was not the case here. I have already made clear I cannot criticise the Council for beginning a child protection investigation in this case. As I said earlier, I am satisfied though the Council contacted the previous council to obtain details of its investigations before moving the case on to child protection.
30. Miss B says the report refers to her seeking a private diagnosis of ADHD for her youngest child when she was told from an early age he had traits of ADHD. Miss B says that is why she sought an assessment. I am satisfied though the comments in the report relate to the information the Council obtained from NHS professionals who do not share Miss B’s concern that her youngest son has ADHD. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
31. Miss B says the report refers to the fact she does not request homework for her children when they are off school but does not explain why that is the case. Miss B says because her eldest son has arthritis he sleeps all day when he is off sick and is therefore not well enough to study. Miss B is therefore concerned the Council has included something in the report which appears critical of her when it does not provide any reasoning. Having considered the report though I have found no evidence to suggest the reference to not seeking homework for her children when they are off sick was made as a criticism. While it would have been helpful to record the reasons for that I am satisfied it is now open to Miss B provide the Council with a document to be placed on her file to correct any inaccuracies.
32. Miss B says the social worker’s report wrongly records her as saying her son did not have to complete any homework due to his autism. I have found no supporting documentary evidence to identify where that comment came from. I would have expected that to have been recorded in the social worker’s notes of the visit to Miss B in March 2018 and it is not recorded there. In the absence of any supporting documentary evidence I have to conclude reference to that is inaccurate. That is fault. Again though, that can be addressed by Miss B placing her list of the inaccuracies in the report on the file.
33. Miss B says the report records opinions from those who are not medically trained. I am satisfied though that in writing the report the social worker obtained medical information, information from the school, information from Miss B and information from Miss B’s sons. It is not fault for the social worker to express a view. As I said earlier though, I consider the report would have benefited from the input of medical professionals working with Miss B’s children.
34. Miss B says the report refers to strong painkillers given to her son when those painkillers were prescribed by the GP. I am satisfied the information in the report refers both to the high dose of medication but also the fact it is monitored by physicians and professionals. I therefore do not consider the report inaccurate.
35. Miss B says the Council inaccurately recorded in the report she had said her son could not take part in physical education due to his juvenile arthritis. Having considered the documentary evidence though I am satisfied there is reference to Miss B saying her eldest son should not have to take part in physical education due to pain, which he would not be able to tell the school about due to his autism. I therefore do not consider the report inaccurate.
36. Miss B says the social worker’s report says her eldest son is possibly on the autistic spectrum when the Council should know he has a diagnosis of autism. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the report for the review child protection conference states Miss B’s son has not received a diagnosis of autism. That is clearly inaccurate because other parts of the Council’s documentation refers to the diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder. Failure to record accurate information in the report is fault. I have found no evidence though to suggest this affected any decision-making in relation to Miss B’s sons. In those circumstances I consider the Council’s agreement to place a list of the inaccuracies on the file a satisfactory remedy.
37. Miss B says the social worker’s report refers to the fact she has moved a lot without recording the reasons why. While I understand Miss B’s concern I am satisfied the report is only quoting here what one of her sons said. I see no reason in those circumstances why there would have been a need to explore that further given frequent moves for the children was not a concern raised by the conference attendees.
38. Miss B says the report refers to there being no evidence her eldest son has arthritis when the Council made no attempt to contact his GP. Having considered the report though I note it records Miss B’s eldest son is on high arthritis drugs and there is a comment about the long-term effects of that. Nowhere in the report does it say he does not have arthritis. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
39. Miss B says the report states she did not inform the paediatric department when she moved house. Miss B says she moved to a different paediatrician and that should have been checked by the social worker and included in the report. Again, if the Council had contacted the relevant NHS professionals involved with Miss B’s sons before the conference it would likely have noted that point. Failure to do that is fault.
40. Miss B says the report refers to her eldest son’s father reporting no problems with him when that is not accurate. I am satisfied though the section of the report Miss B is referring to is simply reporting what the father said. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
41. Miss B says the Council refers in the report to her restricting her son’s activities and isolating her children when that is not accurate. I note the report records neither child seems to have any social interaction with their peers outside of school. The report also says the children are not allowed to experience what children of a similar age do. Having considered the remainder of the documentary evidence I believe the social worker was referring here to part of her discussion with Miss B on 7 March 2018. At that point Miss B told the social worker her children tended to stay in the house rather than going out to socialise or meet friends. So, as the comments in the report reflect the information the social worker received from Miss B I have no grounds to criticise it.
42. Miss B is concerned about the report including information about her being in an abusive relationship some years previously. Miss B says she does not consider that relevant. While I understand Miss B’s concern child protection reports will normally refer to historical information to create an overall picture of the family dynamics over the years. So, it is not unusual for older information to be included. In this case the police had also provided information to the initial child protection conference which included reference to domestic abuse by previous partners. Given the Council was assessing the family as a unit and as there were also domestic abuse reports in 2017 I cannot criticise the Council for including the information in the report.
43. Miss B says the Council should not have included in the report her medical history relating to anxiety and antidepressants. Again though, the purpose of the report is to provide an holistic view of the family. That will necessarily include details about Miss B and any medical history she has. So, including that information is not fault.
44. Miss B says the Council refused to consider her complaint at stage two. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council decided not to move the complaint to stage two because it did not consider it could achieve the outcomes Miss B was seeking. That is specifically related to her seeking financial compensation and for her children to be taken off the child protection plans. In terms of financial compensation, it is accurate to say the Council’s complaints procedure cannot provide a financial remedy. However, the Council is right to tell Miss B her children could not be taken of the child protection plans as a result of her complaint and that there was a different process for that. In those circumstances I do not criticise the Council for failing to move the complaint onto stage two.
45. So, although I have found some inaccuracies in the social worker’s report for the initial child protection conference I do not consider those inaccuracies so significant they would likely have affected the outcome. I have, however, found fault in not contacting the NHS professionals involved in the lives of Miss B’s children. That means potentially not all relevant medical information was considered. While I cannot speculate about whether information from NHS professionals would have made a difference to either the report or the outcome Miss B is left not knowing whether that would have been the case had they been involved. In those circumstances to reflect that uncertainty, and to provide a remedy for the failure to give her adequate opportunity to consider the report for the initial child protection conference and discuss her concerns with the social worker, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and pay her £400.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss B; and
• pay Miss B £400.
47. The Council has already agreed to place on Miss B’s file details of the inaccuracies she says are in the social worker’s report. The Council has also agreed to remind officers of the need to provide reports for the initial child protection conference to parents two working days in advance of the meeting and to ensure the relevant NHS professionals are invited to the conference.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused an injustice to Miss B. I am satisfied the action the goats they Council will take is sufficient to remedy her injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman