Cheshire East Council (18 010 925)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 04 Sep 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s child protection case, which she says caused avoidable distress to her and her daughter. The Council is at fault for appointing an inexperienced social worker to lead the child protection process, not sharing reports and minutes in accordance with its policies and refusing a stage 3 panel. It should apologise and pay Mrs X £200 for distress caused by not being able to challenge minutes and reports in relevant meetings.

The complaint

  1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council handled a child protection case involving her daughter, D. She says there was no proper basis for starting child protection and the social worker misreported information.
  2. She also complains the Council wrongly made referrals to the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
  3. She says the Council’s actions caused emotional harm to herself and her daughter, and affected her career, causing financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
  5. 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)
  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

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information provided by Mrs X.
  2. I considered the information provided by the Council, including:
    • daily records for the case from February 2017 to May 2018;
    • minutes of the strategy discussion on 2 August 2017; and
    • the minutes of all core group meetings and child protection conferences.
  3. I considered relevant law and guidance (as set out below), relevant Council policies (as set out below) and our guidance on remedies.
  4. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and gave them an opportunity to comment. I will took their comments into account before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
  2. A child is in need if:
      1. he is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; or
      2. his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support: or
      3. he is disabled.
  3. When the council gets a referral, it must decide whether it needs to carry out an assessment or take urgent action. It can decide the situation does not require a full assessment because the child’s needs can continue to be met through universal services. It must carry out sufficient enquiries to make this decision.
  4. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 says where a council has reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. The enquiries should include talking to the child to ascertain their wishes and feelings. There may be a need for immediate protection whilst the assessment is carried out.
  5. After making section 47 enquiries, where the council considers a child is at risk of significant harm, it should arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC brings together the parents, the child (if appropriate) and relevant professionals to make decisions about the child’s future safety, health and development. It may decide the child should become subject to a child protection plan (CPP).
  6. The statutory guidance: Working together to safeguard children (March 2015) says one of the purposes of the ICPC is to appoint a lead social worker, “who should be a qualified, experienced social worker”.
  7. A local protocol should explain how the council will decide whether to make an assessment and what action to take. This Council’s policy identified four levels of need on a continuum:
    • Level 1 Universal Child’s needs can be met by services available to all
    • Level 2 Targeted Emerging or low level concerns (Early Help)
    • Level 3 Complex Increasing levels of multiple and complex problems –

Intensive support needed to meet the child’s needs

    • Level 4 Specialist Accumulation of unmet needs or evidence that child

is at risk of suffering significant harm.

  1. At level 4, the policy says there should be an assessment by a specialist team, such as children’s social care, and that multi-agency support and a safety plan may be needed.

Serious case reviews

  1. The statutory guidance: Working together to safeguard children (March 2015) says the Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB) should conduct reviews in certain circumstances. A serious case review should be undertaken “for every case where abuse or neglect is known or suspected and either :
    • a child dies; or
    • a child is seriously harmed and there are concerns about how organisations or professionals worked together to safeguard the child”

Private court action

  1. Where there is also an ongoing court action by parents to decide where a child should live or contact arrangements, the court may ask the Council to prepare a welfare report under Section 7 of the Children’s Act 1989.

Referrals to Ofsted and DBS

  1. Where a child is made subject to a child protection plan and their parent(s) work with children the council may be under a duty to make referrals to other bodies, including the police, Ofsted and DBS, and may also need to refer concerns to the parent’s employer.
  2. This Council’s policy applies where there is an allegation or concern that a person who works with children had:
    • behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child;
    • possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child; or
    • behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates he or she may pose a risk of harm to children.
  3. It says the person receiving or identifying an allegation or concern should made a written record of it and refer the matter to the designated senior manager. The designated senior manager should refer the matter to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) and consider with the LADO whether further details are needed and whether a referral should be made to the police, children’s social care and/or the person’s employer. The LADO should decide if a strategy meeting or discussion should take place and who should be invited to this.
  4. The policy states that Ofsted should be informed of concerns about anyone who works with children under age 8 or against a registered child minder. It says Ofsted should be invited to attend any strategy meeting or discussion.

Children’s statutory complaints process

  1. The law sets out a three stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review.
  2. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers that investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

  1. Mr and Mrs X separated in 2011. During their marriage both partners had at times alleged domestic violence by the other, which had led to police and social services involvement. After the separation Mr F did not have contact with their daughter, D, until late February 2017 when D went to stay with Mr F at his house. She did not return at the agreed time. Mrs X made an emergency application to court for D’s return and Mr F lodged an application for custody.
  2. Three days later, the Court ordered Mr F to return D to her mother’s care and made an interim order about contact between D and Mr F. At a further hearing in April 2017 the Court asked the Council to prepare a section 7 welfare report. At this point the Council decided D was a “child in need” under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. In July 2017, the Court decided D should live with Mrs X and have contact with Mr F. It said both parents should “agree to adhere to [D’s] wishes and feelings in respect of contact”.
  3. The Council held a strategy discussion in early August 2017. It agreed to make enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. Following these enquiries, it decided D should be subject to a child protection plan. An initial child protection conference was held in late August 2017. Because Mrs X worked with children and her own child was then on a child protection plan, the Council made referrals to Ofsted and DBS. D remained on a child protection plan until May 2018 when it changed to a “child in need” plan.
  4. Mrs X complained and the Council considered her complaints using the Children’s Statutory Complaints process. The investigating officer issued a report in June 2018. He found:

“there were some administrative failings in relation to communication, providing reports and responding to complaints. There was also a failure to follow guidance which requires an experienced Social Worker to be allocated to a child subject to a Child Protection Plan. In all other respects [he] found that the [Council] acted reasonably”.

  1. He recommended the Council apologise for the failings identified and ensure that minutes and reports were provided within the timescales set out in its policy.
  2. The Council wrote to Mrs X. It accepted the findings and apologised for the failings identified. It said it had considered her request for a serious case review but its view was the case did not meet the threshold for this.
  3. Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaints at stage 3. It refused because it said the documentation provided was unmanageable for a stage 3 panel because the volume of papers and issues was too much for a panel to consider in the time available. Mrs X complained to us. She said the Council had not addressed all her complaints and had not understood several of her concerns in the stage 2 investigation and response.

Child protection – August 2017

  1. At a home visit in early August 2017 Mrs X told the allocated social worker (officer 1) that she had given her adult son, Mr S, some of her anti-depressant medication because she was concerned about him. She said he had been previously been prescribed the same medication but had run out of tablets. Officer 1 said she was concerned about the risks this posed to Mr S and would have to tell her manager about it. The records show officer 1 spoke to a manager and also to the family’s GP, who said Mr F had not been prescribed medication since May. Mrs X texted to say the incident happened “a few months ago” and pointed out that he is “not a child he is nineteen”. It is unclear how many tablets Mr S had taken or exactly when he had taken them.
  2. The Council decided to hold a strategy meeting. This included professionals from social care and a representative from the police. Officer 1 had spoken to the family G.P by telephone the day before. The professionals agreed the threshold was met for enquiries under section 47 because of concerns about Mrs X’s mental health and the impact of this on D.
  3. The Council carried out an assessment and held an initial child protection conference (ICPC) in late August 2017. The minutes show the Council was concerned about:
    • Mrs X’s mental health and the impact of this on D;
    • Mrs X giving Mr S some of her medication, which it described as an “illegal and highly dangerous” act;
    • The impact of historical domestic abuse on D;
    • The impact on D of the re-introduction of contact with her father;
    • The impact on D of being exposed to adult disputes involving court action;
    • Some episodes of D being missing from home;
    • A report of physical abuse in the home;
    • The deterioration in D’s behaviour both at home and school, including the police being called;
    • D’s reporting of low mood and that she had self harmed in the past; and
    • Mrs X’s refusal to let D see officer 1 on her own.
  4. Officer 1 did not attend the ICPC but officer 2, a social worker, who had met the family and shared Officer 1’s assessment with Mrs X, did attend. The team manager (officer 3) was also unable to attend. D’s school was consulted but did not attend.
  5. All the professionals who attended the ICPC agreed D should be subject to a child protection plan (CPP). It was agreed the following action would be taken:
    • Officer 1 would visit D every four weeks and the Council would monitor her wellbeing through core group meetings;
    • to offer D support through a domestic abuse service, a drop-in facility at school and by meetings with a family support worker (officer 4);
    • Officer 1 to carry out a parenting assessment with Mrs X;
    • Mrs X to access counselling for victims of domestic abuse, a programme for women who had suffered domestic abuse, and a parenting course to help her with behaviour management;
    • Mr F to access a programme for perpetrators of domestic abuse and a parenting programme; and
    • Both parents to stop making negative comments about each other in front of D.
  6. Mrs X says the reasons for starting child protection were mis-reported in the minutes. She says the Council started child protection proceedings because she gave Mr S her medication and this was not appropriate because he was not a child and cannot be evidence she posed a risk to a child. She says the Council was concerned about her mental health, but this was also not valid because by the time of the ICPC a mental health assessment had said she did not pose a risk. She says the Council was only involved because it had been asked to prepare a section 7 report following Mr F’s failure to return D to Mrs X’s care after contact. Mrs X says Mr F abducted D and by not accepting D was abducted she says the Council misled other professionals.
  7. Mrs X also says the minutes were inaccurate in some respects. For example,
    • the minutes state Mrs X had prevented D seeing social care alone. Mrs X says she only prevented D seeing officer 1 on her own because she did not trust officer 1. She had allowed D to see another social worker on her own.
    • The minutes make no mention of the mental health assessment that had concluded Mrs X posed no risk. Instead the minutes record concerns about Mrs X’s mental health.

Referrals to Ofsted and DBS – September 2017

  1. Mrs X was registered as a child minder in order to tutor children in her own home. Mrs X says the Council wrongly made referrals to Ofsted and DBS. She also says it wrongly advised her that she could not tutor children in her own home whilst D was on a child protection plan. This meant she had to move her business away from her home, which ultimately meant she could not continue to work as a tutor.
  2. I have seen the social worker’s report that was sent to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) in early September 2017 and was later sent with the referral to Ofsted. It raised two concerns. Firstly, that Mrs X had given her adult son some of her own medication. Secondly, there were concerns about Mrs X’s mental health, which had contributed to the Council deciding D should be subject to a child protection plan.
  3. Officer 1 was concerned that Mrs X “did not see any risk in medicating [S]”. In the ICPC minutes the social worker described it as an illegal and highly dangerous act. The social worker spoke to the police about the incident and also the family doctor. In a letter to Mrs X on 19 August 2018 the Council accepted it was not correct to refer to it as an illegal act but it still considered it was potentially dangerous.
  4. The second concern was about Mrs X’s mental health. In the report sent to the LADO (and later to Ofsted), the social worker states that D has been put on a child protection plan because of concerns that Mrs X’s mental health issues may cause D emotional harm.
  5. The Council has confirmed in response to my enquiries that it did not consider Mrs X giving her son her medication as evidence she posed a risk to children but it was “a factor within the wider family dynamic raised as a concern by Children’s Social Care”.
  6. The LADO wrote to Mrs X to confirm she had made a referral to Ofsted and the reasons for doing this. She said:

“Whilst your daughter is the subject of a child protection plan, I would advise that you refrain from tutoring children in your own home”.

In response to my enquiries the Council said this was advice only and not a requirement.

  1. Mrs X says Ofsted suspended her immediately from her role as a child minder and she felt under pressure to resign to avoid the risk of being prevented from working with children in the future. Because she resigned, Ofsted took no further action.
  2. The Council made a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) in October 2017. It says it did this because Mrs X did not have an employer who could consider whether she posed a risk to the children she was tutoring. It has explained there is currently no statutory guidance on dealing with concerns about self employed people and no regulatory body with responsibility for carrying out investigations. It has not kept a copy of the referral.
  3. DBS wrote to Mrs X on early January 2018 to confirm it had received a referral from the Council and was considering what action (if any) to take. It said:

There are currently no legal restrictions preventing you from engaging in Regulated Activity” (emphasis in the original).

  1. Mrs X says DBS subsequently wrote to her to say it was taking no further action.

Actions from child protection plan

  1. Mrs X says the Council wanted her to attend counselling and a parenting course, both of which she considers were inappropriate. Council records show it was recommending these because it was concerned about her mental health and she had indicated she was struggling with parenting boundaries for D.
  2. The Council also wanted her to attend a programme for those who have suffered domestic abuse and that would help her understand the impact of domestic abuse on D. Mrs X says she could not attend this because it would mean leaving D at home on her own. D was only attending school part-time due to her anxiety and Mrs X had agreed with school that she would not be left alone. Mrs X says she should not have been pressured to attend the programme in those circumstances.
  3. Council records show it was keen for Mrs X to attend the course and it suggested she could do so when D was in school or D could complete school work at home in her absence. It told her solicitor in January 2018 that attending the course was “essential” to addressing the concerns it had. It says it was not aware at the time of the agreement with the school that Mrs X would not leave D on her own.
  4. Mrs X attended the parenting course but records show officers were concerned she was not engaging with it at least in the early sessions.

Parenting assessment

  1. Mrs X complains the parenting assessment ordered by the ICPC in August was completed in November 2017 but not written up and shared with her until February 2018, after she complained. She says the parenting assessment was inaccurate in the following ways:
    • it incorrectly stated she had “smacked” D
    • it wrongly implied Mrs X had coaxed D to write a letter to Mr F stopping contact
    • it incorrectly said D had taken an overdose due to bullying at school and was admitted to hospital because she needed medical intervention
  2. The Council said the formal meetings for the parental assessment were finished in November 2017 but the assessment continued after that and was completed in late January 2018. Officer 1 took into account all the information available at that point when writing up the assessment.
  3. The Council said the allegation Mrs X had smacked her daughter was in a referral from CAMHS. It said officer 1 was concerned Mrs X could have influenced D’s decision to write the letter to Mr F, even though it was written in school and handed to officer 1. This was because D had told her that Mrs X had pressured her into writing a letter on a previous occasion.
  4. D took 5 paracetamol in mid October. School called an ambulance and D was admitted to hospital. The hospital discharge letter states D said she was “annoyed that Social Care was involved with her family” but would not explain further. Mrs X believes D took an overdose because the Council’s approach was wrong and was harming D rather than helping her. She thinks the Council has mis-reported this in the parenting assessment.
  5. Mrs X says she was told she could comment on the parenting assessment and her comments would be placed on the file. She says she did provide her comments but when she later complained, the Council said there was no evidence she had done so.

Concerns about Mr F

  1. Mrs X was concerned about D having contact with Mr F after a long absence. She says the Council should have worked with D and Mr F before agreeing to contact and contact should have been built up gradually. She says the Council made contact compulsory and this was not in D’s best interests as she was forced to have contact after deciding she no longer wanted it.
  2. The Council says the recommendations about contact in the section 7 report were based on D’s wishes and feelings at the time. D was rebuilding a relationship with Mr F after a long absence and officer 1 felt stopping contact at that point would be detrimental for her. The section 7 report does not say contact should be compulsory. The court decided the contact arrangements. The order said both parents should adhere to D’s wishes about contact. D subsequently wrote a letter to Mr F to say she did not want contact and contact ceased in early November 2017.
  3. During contact with D, Mr F showed her Mrs X’s diaries in which she described historical domestic abuse. She says this was damaging for D but although she raised concerns with the Council it did nothing about it. The records show the Council did speak to Mr F about this. Mr F said he recognised that sharing the diaries was inappropriate and expressed remorse.
  4. She also says she told the Council that Mr F was encouraging D to stay at a friend’s house without Mrs X’s permission. The records show the Council raised this with Mr F and the parent of D’s friend but there was no evidence that Mr F was encouraging this.
  5. She says the Council dis-regarded the domestic abuse she had suffered and minimised her concerns about the risks to D of having contact with Mr F. The records show the Council was concerned about the impact of the historical domestic abuse on D. It was also concerned about the impact of the continuing difficulties between the parents. It recommended that Mr F attend a parenting course, which he did.
  6. It also recommended a programme to make Mr F more aware of the potential impact of conflict and domestic abuse on D. Mr F agreed to attend but did not do so. By this stage, D was not having contact with Mr F. The Council said this would need to be considered further if contact resumed but it did not do so whilst D was on the child protection plan.

Council not considering D’s wishes and feelings

  1. Mrs X says the Council refused to consider diaries D had written to express her wishes and feelings at a core group meeting in October 2017. Mrs X says the diaries showed D was unhappy with social care involvement. A few days later D took an overdose and was admitted to hospital.
  2. The records show D had written the diaries at school and had agreed these could be shared with Mrs X. The Council decided that as D had not expressly said the diaries could be shared with the meeting it would not be appropriate to see and discuss them.

D told she might go into care

  1. Mrs X complained officer 1 told D she might go into care and this caused her to have suicidal thoughts.
  2. In June 2017 officer 1 recorded that D had reported her mother had told her that she might be taken into care. Officer 1 told her that “social care always aim to keep families together” and she “would not be recommending [D] to go into care”.
  3. Again in late October 2017 D told Officer 1 Mrs X had threatened to put her into care. Officer 1 said Mrs X was co-operating with the parenting assessment and suggested D try to stay positive.
  4. I also understand that D had a conversation with the independent reviewing officer, who chaired the child protection conferences, about possible outcomes of the child protection process. The officer explained how the Council would approach this.

Inexperienced social worker

  1. Mrs X has complained that officer 1 was inexperienced and should not have been lead social worker in a child protection case. Mrs X did not trust officer 1 and disagreed with her approach. She asked for a different social worker but the Council said this would not be helpful at that time. Mrs X does not think officer 1 was properly supervised as the team manager (officer 3) only attended one core group meeting.
  2. The investigating officer at stage 2 considered that officer 1 was not “experienced” as required by the statutory guidance because she was in her assessed supported year of employment. Therefore, he upheld this part of the complaint. However, he said that to comply with the guidance there would been a change of social worker, which was “not … desirable in terms of continuity”.
  3. The investigating officer did not consider whether this fault caused any injustice to Mrs X or to D. I have therefore considered how the Council considered Mrs X’s request for a change of social worker and how officer 1 was supervised.
  4. I have considered the daily records, which include records of formal supervision sessions. I have also considered the records of the meetings held. The records show that officer 1 was able to discuss the case with officer 3, her line manager, and could also seek support from other managers, as needed. The supervision records, in particular, show there was a comprehensive discussion of the issues raised in the case and appropriate actions were agreed, and followed through.

Sharing information

  1. Mrs X says the Council did not always send her reports before the meetings and did not send minutes of meetings in line with its policy. Sometimes she was given documents just before the meeting. She says this meant she was unable to challenge what was written in those documents in the meeting itself.
  2. The Council’s policy is that reports for conferences should be given to families three days before the conference and that minutes of core group meetings should be shared within ten days of the meeting.
  3. The investigating officer at Stage 2 upheld this complaint because he found the report for the conference in November 2017 was given to her on the day and there was a delay in sending minutes for the core group meeting in December 2017. He said if Mrs X felt the minutes were inaccurate she could have sent her comments and these would be placed on file. He agreed that not getting a report until the day of the conference would have compromised her ability to challenge it.
  4. Apart from the two occasions above, the Council has not been able to confirm when it shared reports and minutes with Mrs X for other meetings because it did not record this.
  5. The investigating officer recommended the Council make changes to ensure that minutes and reports were shared within the timescales set out in its policy. The Council says it developed a process whereby an electronic notification is sent to administrative staff to assist the timely circulation of minutes and reports.

What child protection achieved

  1. Mrs X says the child protection process did not benefit D and caused harm to D and Mrs X.
  2. It is clear from the records that not all the actions in the child protection plan (CPP) were completed. This is because Mrs X and Mr F each refused to engage with some of the support suggested. It is also because D refused to engage with some of the support she was offered. That said, both parents did attend a parenting course, D had regular meetings with the lead social worker and had additional support in school, and a parenting assessment was completed. Further, all the professionals were working together to protect D and ensure her needs were met as far as possible.

Access to complaints process

  1. Mrs X says the Council did not give her information about how to complain when it completed assessments in July and August 2017. She says the boxes to confirm this information was given were not completed. She also says she was told there was no point in complaining because the team manager would respond and she would agree with the social worker. Therefore, she says she did not have access to the complaints process until she raised her concerns with her MP.
  2. It is clear from the records that Mrs X was unhappy with officer 1’s decision to share with her manager that Mrs X had given her son her own medication. She told officer 1 in mid August that she did not want to work with her. Later the same day, officer 2 visited with a family support worker, to discuss the assessment completed in August 2017. Mrs X said she did not like officer 1 and wanted to complain. The record says Officer 2 “advised this was [her] prerogative” and went through the complaint process so Mrs X was “clear about what can/cannot not be achieved by making a complaint”.

Children’s statutory complaints process

  1. Mrs X said she was not happy with the stage 2 response. She said some complaints were not considered and others were misunderstood. The Council replied that unless she could provide a more concise complaint summary, the complaint was unmanageable. In a further letter on 1 October 2019 the Council said a stage 3 panel would not have enough time to consider all the issues she raised. It referred her to this office.
  2. Mrs X says it has refused to accept any further complaints from her.

Serious case review

  1. Mrs X asked the Council to refer the case for a serious case review. The Council refused to do so because it said the case did not meet the criteria.

My findings

Child protection – August 2017

  1. The records support Mrs X’s view that her telling officer 1 that she had given her son her own medication triggered the child protection process. This incident prompted the Council to hold a strategy discussion. However, it is clear from the records this was only one of many concerns. The Council was concerned about Mrs X’s mental health and the impact this might have on D. It wanted to explore that further. It had concerns that D was at significant risk of harm. I have not identified fault in the way the Council decided the threshold for child protection was met.
  2. The Council reported that D had not returned home at the agreed time and Mrs X got a court order to ensure Mr F returned D to her care. Neither D nor Mr F considered that D had been abducted. Therefore, I do not consider the Council mis-reported this nor do I consider it misled other professionals about what happened.
  3. Mrs X had said she did not want D to meet officer 1 alone. The minutes of the ICPC state that she had stopped D seeing social care alone, which implies she had prevented any social worker seeing D on her own. This was not the case and there is evidence D had met another social worker on her own. However, I do not consider this was serious enough an error to make a formal finding of fault.
  4. I have seen the mental health assessment the community mental health practitioner (CMHP) completed for the ICPC. The CMHP attended the ICPC and the minutes show she said Mrs X was suffering from low mood for which she was taking medication and that she was anxious, particularly about decision-making. The minutes record the CMHP’s view that Mrs X “poses no significant risk” and her uncertainty about whether a child protection plan was needed or whether concerns could be managed with a child in need plan. Although the ICPC minutes do not record in detail the CMHP’s conclusions, they do show her views were considered when deciding whether a child protection plan was appropriate. The Council has not mis-reported this.
  5. The Council accepted it was not correct to refer to Mrs X giving medication to her son as an “illegal act” but it still considered it was potentially dangerous. I understand Mrs X was upset that it was referred to as an “illegal act” and does not agree it was dangerous. However, I do not consider the use of this wording in the ICPC minutes was sufficiently inaccurate to warrant a finding of fault.

Referrals to Ofsted and DBS

  1. The Council’s policy says it must refer to Ofsted where a registered child minder may pose a risk to a child. It says where the concerns are about the person’s behaviour to their own children the Council should consider telling their employer so the employer can assess the risks.
  2. Mrs X was a registered child minder. There were concerns about the wellbeing of her own child that were enough to justify a child protection plan. There was no employer to assess whether Mrs X posed a potential risk to the children she tutored. The Council considered there may be risks to the children she tutored because of her mental health and the difficult relationship with her own child at the time. It therefore decided a referral was appropriate.
  3. The Council has confirmed the referral was because of concerns about Mrs X’s mental health and not because it considered giving her son medication showed she posed a risk to children.
  4. There was no fault in the way the Council decided this as it has considered relevant factors and followed its policy. Although I understand Mrs X strongly disagrees with the decision, I cannot criticise a decision that was made without administrative fault.
  5. Mrs X resigned as a registered childminder so Ofsted did not take any further action.
  6. The Council therefore made a referral to DBS because this is the body that has ultimate responsibility for deciding whether someone is suitable to work with children. Its decision to do so was based on the same reasoning as the Ofsted referral.
  7. Mrs X says DBS did investigate and decided to take no further action. However, this does not mean it was wrong for the Council to make the referral. Since I have not found fault in the decision-making process, I cannot criticise the decision to make the referral.
  8. The LADO advised Mrs X that she refrain from tutoring children at home whilst D was on a CP plan. It says this was advice only. However, Mrs X understood it as an instruction. I consider it would have been better if the letter had explained why it was advising this, including setting out the risks of working at home. It would then have been clearer that this was advice only and Mrs X would have been able to make an informed choice about how to respond. As it was she felt she could not continue working as a tutor, which had a significant impact on her career and her income. However, I do not consider this amounted to administrative fault.

D told she might go into care

  1. I have found no record of officer 1 telling D she might go into care. The records suggest that it was D who was concerned about this. She asked both officer 1 and the independent reviewing officer about it. It was appropriate for those officers to answer D’s questions which they did accurately with reference to what was happening. The Council was not at fault.

Actions from child protection plan

  1. The records show that social care and other professionals were concerned about Mrs X’s mental health. Therefore, it was entitled to recommend counselling, the domestic abuse programme or the parenting course. It was also entitled to say the domestic abuse programme was essential to address its concerns. D was attending school part-time so it may have been possible for D to attend school when Mrs X was attending the programme as the Council suggested if Mrs X has discussed this with the school.

Parenting assessment

  1. The Council gave Mrs X general information about parenting assessments at the outset, which set out the number of meetings and the content of those meetings. It is therefore understandable that Mrs X thought the assessment was concluded when the final meeting was held. The Council later explained it continued to assess parenting capacity beyond that meeting. I am satisfied the Council did not delay in sharing the assessment but it would have been better if it had explained that the assessment was not yet complete at the final formal meeting. I do not consider this is sufficient to warrant a formal finding of fault.
  2. The Council was not at fault for referring to Mrs X smacking her daughter since CAMHS gave it that information. It was also not at fault for suggesting there was doubt over whether D had written the letter to Mr F of her own free will since D had told it that on an earlier occasion her mother had made her write a similar letter.
  3. There is no evidence that social care was involved in deciding to admit D to hospital nor when to discharge her. D said only that she was annoyed with social care involvement. There were many factors that may have contributed to her taking an overdose given her situation at the time. I do not consider the Council mis-reported this.
  4. I have reviewed the daily records and the complaint correspondence and found no record the Council received comments on the parenting assessment before Mrs X complained formally. Since I cannot say with certainty the Council received the comments I cannot say it was at fault for not putting them on the file.

Concerns about Mr F

  1. I have seen the section 7 report the Council prepared for the court. The report does not say contact should be compulsory. Mrs X was had a solicitor with her at court and had the opportunity to present her views about contact. The court did make an order for contact but specifically stated that both parents should adhere to D’s wishes and feelings about contact. If Mrs X was unhappy with the contact arrangements she could have made a further application to the court. When D told the Council she did not want contact, the contact stopped.
  2. When Mrs X told the Council about the issue with the diaries it did speak to Mr F about this. It made enquiries but found no evidence that he was encouraging D to be away from home without Mrs X’s permission. It asked Mr F to attend a parenting course, which he did. It also asked him to attend a programme to help him understand the impact of domestic abuse. He agreed to attend this but then did not do so. By the time it became clear he would not attend, D had told the Council she no longer wanted contact and it had stopped.
  3. I am satisfied the Council considered the potential risks to D of contact with Mr F and took appropriate action. It was not at fault.

Council not considering D’s wishes and feelings

  1. There is no evidence to show D had agreed to share her diaries with the core group meeting in October 2017. Therefore, the Council was not at fault for deciding not to see or discuss them.
  2. Having reviewed the records I am satisfied the Council did talk to D about her wishes and feelings regularly whilst she was on a child protection plan and took them into account.

Inexperienced social worker

  1. The Council accepted it was at fault for not ensuring the lead social worker for the child protection case was an experienced social worker.
  2. I have considered whether this fault caused any injustice to D or Mrs X. The Council says it was not a good idea to change the social worker because another social worker would have had to get to know D and the family. The investigating officer at stage 2, who had interviewed relevant staff, agreed with this. There would have been an impact on D if she had had to start afresh with a new social worker. It would take time to build a relationship with the new social worker and this may have caused delay in achieving the outcomes in the child protection plan. Therefore, this was a relevant factor for the Council to consider.
  3. I am aware that Mrs X did not get on well with officer 1 and felt she had not taken the right approach to the case. Mrs X also said officer 1 mis-represented information at meetings and in minutes of meetings. However, I have not found evidence that officer 1 for mis-represented information and I am satisfied there was adequate supervision in place. On balance, I consider it is unlikely a new social worker would have taken a radically different approach. Therefore, I do not consider the fault caused a significant injustice and an apology would be a sufficient remedy.

Sharing information

  1. The investigating officer at stage 2 upheld the complaint about the Council’s failure to share reports and minutes within the timescales set out in its policy. I agree the Council was at fault but have been unable to determine the full extent of that fault because the Council has not kept records of when it shared minutes and reports with Mrs X.
  2. The investigating officer said it was difficult for Mrs X to challenge reports that she had not seen before the relevant meeting and I agree. He said she did not suffer a disadvantage when minutes were not shared because she had been present at the meeting the minutes related to. I disagree with this view. Mrs X should have been able to read the minutes before the next meeting so she could raise any concerns about them at that meeting. I consider she suffered an injustice on those occasions where she did not have that opportunity.
  3. I note the Council has taken steps to comply with the stage 2 recommendation.

What child protection achieved

  1. Although Mrs X does not agree the CP process helped D or herself, I consider it was a benefit to have all the professionals working together to help to keep D safe and meet her needs. All the support identified at the initial child protection conference was offered, although not all of it was accepted or engaged with. The Council was not at fault.

Access to complaints process

  1. Mrs X says the Council did not give her information about how to complain when it completed assessments in July and August 2017. The Council accepts it did not complete the relevant boxes to confirm it provided this information. The Council should have given Mrs X this information at the outset and, on balance, I consider it did not do so. This was fault.
  2. I have considered whether Mrs X suffered an injustice because of this fault. The records show an officer told Mrs X about the complaints process in mid August 2017. It is not clear Mrs X wanted to complain before then. The complaint correspondence shows Mrs X complained a number of times from November 2017 onwards.
  3. Therefore, I do not consider Mrs X suffered an injustice as a result of the Council’s failure to provide the information about how to complain when it completed the assessments.

Children’s statutory process

  1. The Council did not have to use the children’s statutory complaints process because child protection cases are excluded from this process. However, having started this process, I consider it should have continued it to the end.
  2. The children’s statutory complaints process is a three-stage process. Cases can be referred to the Ombudsman at the end of stage 2 where certain criteria are satisfied. This is called an early referral. This case did not meet the criteria because significant complaints were not upheld and Mrs X had not agreed to an early referral. Therefore, the Council should have arranged a stage 3 panel. The refusal to do so was fault. However, Mrs X did not suffer an injustice because her concerns have been addressed by my investigation.
  3. Mrs X has made further complaints about the child protection process and the Council’s various complaint responses. The Council is entitled to say it won’t consider any further complaints about the child protection process since it has been considered using the statutory complaints process and also by an Ombudsman investigation.

Serious case review

  1. Serious cases reviews are for the most serious of cases, such as where a child has died. The Council refused to consider a serious case review because it said this case did not meet the criteria. I have found no fault in the way the Council considered this.

Agreed action

  1. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision, apologise to Mrs X for:
    • appointing an inexperienced social worker as lead social worker for the child protection case; and
    • not sharing reports and minutes in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy.
  2. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision, pay Mrs X £200 for the frustration caused because she could not challenge the contents of reports and minutes in the meeting itself.
  3. The Council will, within three months of the date of the final decision:
    • review its processes to ensure it complies with the requirements of the children’s statutory complaints process regarding the criteria to be met for early referrals;
    • remind relevant staff of the importance of recording when documents are shared so there is a clear record of when and how this was done.
  4. The Council has already made changes to its processes to ensure information is shared more efficiently and within the timescales set out in its policy.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings