Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the way the Council conducted a Position of Trust meeting and Initial Child Protection Case Conference in respect of concerns about Mr B. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused to Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the decision to place his son, Child C, and his partner’s daughter, Child E, on a Child Protection Plan. Mr B says:
• the decision was wrong because there was no evidence and the allegations were false; and
• he lost his job as a result and the Council have offered an insufficient remedy in respect of this.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the complaints outlined above.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. During my investigation I:
• considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint;
• made enquiries with the Council and considered its response; and
• reviewed relevant law, guidance and council policy/ procedure.
7. Mr B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I carefully considered the responses.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and procedure

8. When a decision is made that a child should be the subject of a child protection plan, it must be recorded under which category the decision is made. The decision as to category must be made by the conference chair on the basis of the evidence presented to the conference and the views of those present.
9. The conference chair is accountable to the Director of Children’s Services. Where possible the same person should chair subsequent child protection reviews; should be a professional, independent of operational and/or line management responsibilities for the case; and should meet the child and parents in advance to ensure they understand the purpose and the process.
10. A child should no longer be the subject of a child protection plan if it is judged that the child is no longer continuing to, or is likely to, suffer significant harm and therefore no longer requires safeguarding by means of a child protection plan.
11. Up until August 2018 Local Children Safeguarding Boards (LSCB) required agencies to have clear policies for handling allegations of abuse made against people who work with children. The policy should make a clear distinction between allegations, concern about the quality of care or practice or a complaint.
12. Councils are expected to arrange to provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary agencies about handling such allegations. If an organisation removes a person from working with children because he or she poses a risk of harm, or would have if the person had not left, it must make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service.
13. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) should monitor and record the progress of each case, either fortnightly or monthly depending on its complexity. This could be by way of review strategy meetings / discussions / initial evaluations or direct liaison with the police, Children's social care, or employer, as appropriate. Where the target timescales cannot be met, the LADO should record the reasons.

What happened

Background information

14. Mr B is the father of Child C. He is in a relationship with Ms D who has a Child, E. Mr B worked as a nursery nurse at a childcare provider.

Chronology

15. The following information is a chronology of key events which are relevant for this complaint. It is not a full chronology of all the information I reviewed as part of my investigation.
16. In March 2017 Child C’s school made a referral to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). Child C was displaying sexually inappropriate behaviour at school and there were other concerns about his communication, emotional wellbeing and reluctance to go home.
17. In June 2017 there was an Allegations Management Meeting/ Position of Trust (POT) held because of Mr B’s employment as a nursery worker. A number of concerns were shared at this meeting. Following this meeting Mr B was suspended from his employment, pending an investigation. The meeting record noted ‘allegation substantiated’ and ‘further enquiries/ review meeting required’.
18. The Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) was held at the beginning of July 2017. Both Child C and Child E were made subject of child protection plans under the category of sexual harm. As part of the plan the Chair instructed that Mr B should not be alone with either child and this should be supervised by Ms D.
19. The first core group was held 13 days after the ICPC. Several of the professionals raised concerns about the outcome of the ICPC. They did not agree with the type of plan or the category.
20. Two days later the ICPC chair amended the child protection plan. In place of the restriction about supervision of Mr B’s contact with Child C and E the Chair amended the plan with the following restriction on Mr B:

“That Mr B is never to be alone with his children or other children”.

This amendment was made without consultation with the group or his manager.

21. Mr B’s employer wrote to him at the end of July 2017. It said:

“This meeting was arranged to discuss your explanation in relation to an investigation into allegations of misconduct in your private life and this investigation has resulted in Torbay Children’s Services imposing personal sanctions on you. As these sanctions relate to safeguarding and you are employed within a business that undertakes ‘regulated activity’ with children, it is not possible to continue your employment”.

22. Mr B complained to the Council in August 2017. He complained about the delays, information sharing, conduct of staff, the way the ICPC was conducted and lack of support.
23. The second core group meeting was held in August 2017. This meeting decided to amend the restriction on Mr B:

“Following a review of the safety planning in respect of Child C and Child E it has now been agreed the supervision requirements on the safety planning has been relaxed in respect of Mr B”.

24. In March 2018 the core group meeting decided there was no further role for Children’s Services and the case was closed.
25. In April 2018 the Council started the statutory complaint procedure. The complaint was separated into 18 headings. The final report was published in August 2018. The Investigating Officer (IO) upheld 13 of the complaints. For the purposes of my investigation the relevant headings are:
• The case was not investigated fairly, and Mr B’s views were not taken into account. Partially upheld.
• The chair of the allegation management meeting was also the chair of the ICPC and was therefore not independent. Upheld.
• Mr B and Ms D were not given the opportunity to express their views in the ICPC. Upheld.
• The ICPC referred to records of an allegation from another country but these did not exist. Upheld.
• A lot of information shared at the ICPC was untrue or fabricated. Upheld.
• Professionals at the first core group meeting said they did not think the children were in danger at home and they felt pressurised into putting the children on a child protection plan. Upheld.
• The family feel let down by the Council and do not feel their children should have been placed on a child protection plan. Not upheld.
26. The IO recommended the Council should:
• Apologise for all the complaints upheld.
• Consider compensating Mr B for his loss of employment due to the chair of the ICPC changing the content of the plan without informing or seeking approval of the other individuals who approved the original plan.
• Consider an opening statement at the beginning of child protection meetings reminding attendees of their professional responsibility to voice any concerns about decisions being made during the meeting and before child protection plans are agreed.
27. In its adjudication letter the Council did not accept the IO recommendation about compensating Mr B for his loss of employment.
28. The case was heard at review panel and the Council responded to the panel findings. Importantly for my investigation it said:
• It is not acceptable for relevant information to be omitted or overlooked when producing the final report (for the ICPC).
• It is apparent, from evidence of some attendees and the recording of the ICPC, there were times during the meeting that family members were unable to have their voices heard in the manner that should have been afforded.
• It is not acceptable that reference to allegations were made in such a way after they had been deemed unsubstantiated by the Police in advance of the ICPC meeting. They should have been considered but noted that the allegations were unsubstantiated.
• As stated by the Adjudicating Officer; it has become clear, following the investigation, that some of the information presented at the ICPC has been found to be untrue, fabricated by a third party or withdrawn.
• The evidence at the time rightly led to an ICPC being held in respect of Child C and E. The decision to put both of the children on child protection plans was unanimous and there was no challenge by any of the professionals during or subsequent to the meeting.
• The decision at the ICPC was unanimous and was not challenged at the time. Each professional attendee has a responsibility to challenge the content and the outcome of the meeting if they were unhappy. Each professional attending also has the duty to challenge the conduct of the Chair if they feel that it is not appropriate. There is a clear escalation policy which was not utilised at the time.
29. The Council offered Mr B the following remedies for the identified fault:
• an apology for its failings;
• £1500 for the distress caused due to processes not being carried out correctly;
• £250 for the time and trouble of pursuing his complaint; and
• £150 for the delay in the complaint process.
30. Mr B was not satisfied with the Council response and the remedies it offered. He complained to the Ombudsman in June 2019.
31. In September 2019 the Council wrote to Mr B and offered him an additional £5000. It said:

“I am of the view that on this occasion a decision was made which we are unable to justify and this more than likely had an impact on the decision made by your employer”.

My findings

32. Prior to coming to the Ombudsman this complaint had been through both the Council corporate complaints process and the statutory complaints procedure for children’s services complaints. I have reviewed the information from both these investigations. I am confident the statutory complaint investigation was robust and I agree with the majority of findings. However, there are outstanding matters, which have been the focus of my investigation, these are:
• whether there was fault with the decision to place the children on a child protection plan;
• whether fault by the Council caused Mr B to lose his job; and
• if the remedy offered by the Council for the identified faults is sufficient.

Position of Trust (POT) meeting

33. The statutory complaint investigation upheld the complaint that the chair of the POT meeting was also the chair of the ICPC and this created a conflict of interest. I agree with this finding. The independence of the chair’s role was compromised. This is fault.
34. The IO did not consider the POT meeting and process as part of their investigation. I am concerned about the POT aspect of this case. The Torbay procedures for allegations against staff give clear expectations of how cases should be handled. In this case the procedures were not followed correctly and this is fault. The Council:
• Inappropriately determined the allegation was ‘substantiated’ at the first meeting before an investigation had been conducted.
• Failed to monitor and record the progress of the case on a regular basis to ensure the case was dealt with expeditiously.
• Recorded an outcome of ‘criminal investigation/outcome’ when no criminal investigation appears to have been conducted.
• Failed to hold a final strategy meeting/discussion to ensure all tasks had been completed and establish the outcome of any enquiries/investigation.
35. Following the first POT meeting Mr B’s employer suspended him pending the investigation. There were no further meetings, and importantly, the employer was not provided with an outcome. This is fault. It should have come to a proper conclusion following the child protection process.

Initial Child Protection Conference

36. The IO upheld a number of complaints about the ICPC, including the way it was chaired and the information shared at the meeting. However, the complaint about the decision to place the children on a plan was not upheld. I do not think this complaint can be considered in isolation of the others. There was so much fault with the ICPC – the evidence was flawed, the chairing was not independent and the professionals failed to appropriately challenge and raise concerns. This calls into question the fairness and robustness of the decision.
37. The fact the core group changed the ICPC decision without any material factual change and based on the same evidence also calls into question the original decision. However, on balance, I do consider there would have been some form of intervention, such as a child in need plan. Therefore, I cannot conclude that if the process had been without fault the decision would have been significantly different.
38. It was wrong for the Chair to make decisions about the restrictions outside of the meeting, without consultation with other professionals. In this case the decisions about the wider restrictions on Mr B and the affect on his employment should have been decided within the POT context. This is fault.

Injustice and remedy

39. All the fault I have identified, in both the POT and child protection process, has caused Mr B an injustice. He was denied the fair and independent process he was entitled to. He has been left with uncertainty about both the decision making and outcome of his case. This has caused him distress over a prolonged period of time.
40. Whenever we find fault causing injustice we look to remedy the injustice. In this case a remedy would look to put Mr B back in the position he was in before the fault. I have considered whether to invite the Council to revisit the POT process to provide a conclusion. However, due to the period of time that has now passed and the age of the children I do not consider this to be appropriate. Therefore, the only remedy left is a financial remedy.
41. The Council’s offer of £1900 in recognition of the distress, time and trouble and delay in handling Mr B’s complaint is reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
42. I’ve considered whether to come to a view about Mr B’s claim his loss of job was solely attributable to the Council’s maladministration. I do not think I should pursue this further. The scale and nature of Mr B’s claim is so great it is better dealt with through the legal process. Therefore, I have not come to a view on the Council’s further offer of £5000 in respect of Mr B’s loss of earnings.
43. It is a matter for Mr B to decide whether to now accept the Council’s offer of £5000 or pursue this through the legal route.
44. I have concerns about the wider implications of the fault I have found during this investigation and I have made recommendations for service improvements to address this.

Agreed action

45. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council agrees to pay Mr B:
• £1500 for the distress caused as a result of fault by the Council;
• £250 for the time and trouble of pursuing his complaint; and
• £150 for the delay in the complaint process.
46. Within 12 weeks of my final decision the Council agrees to:
• Review its procedure to ensure position of trust meetings and child protection meetings involving the same person are chaired independently.
• Put measures in place to ensure professionals attending case conferences know their role and responsibilities and are aware of the escalation process if they have a concern.
• Produce a case study outlining the facts of this case, the Ombudsman’s findings and organisational learning. This should be shared with relevant children’s services managers and chairs.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I find fault with the Council, which caused injustice to Mr B. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman