Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s actions in relation to the child protection proceedings for his daughter, X. Mr Y feels the Council has been one-sided and not taken account of his views. He also says a social worker was unprofessional. The Ombudsman does not uphold these parts of the complaint. However, there is some evidence of drift in the Council’s intervention once it became aware that X was at risk of possible harm due to her sleeping arrangements. The Council will pay £250 directly to X to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mr Y, complains that:
1. the child protection process has been one-sided, and the Council has not taken account of his views. As a result, the Council now wrongly concludes that Mr Y has caused emotional damage to his daughter, whom I will call X;
2. the Council failed to safeguard X from any harm posed by her mother;
3. a social worker has, at times, been unprofessional towards Mr Y;
4. the Council failed to supervise X when she left a contact session with her mother. As a result, X was left to walk across a dark car park, unattended; and
5. the Council failed to log and respond to Mr Y’s first formal complaint.
2. Mr Y says the actions of the Council caused avoidable distress to him and X.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. During my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mr Y by telephone and considered any information he submitted.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I also consulted the relevant policies and procedures around child protection proceedings.
8. I issued a draft decision and invited comments from the Council and Mr Y. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

9. The Council has a duty to make enquiries when it considers a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. Section 47 of the Children Act (1989) says the enquiries must establish the child’s situation and to determine whether protective action is required. Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse or neglect.
10. Once the Council completes this first assessment it can take a range of actions. At one end of the spectrum it can close a case where it finds no grounds to substantiate concerns and no reason to take any other action. At the opposite end, it could place a child into its care. Between, it has a range of choices including carrying out a detailed assessment of children’s needs. This might lead it to the introduction of a Child Protection (CP) Plan.
11. The Council’s ‘Child Protection Core Group Guidance’ says that: “A child protection plan is a detailed working tool for the core group to help the likelihood of the child suffering significant harm. It must be recorded concisely and clearly, in language that parents/carers and children can understand”
12. The guidance reiterates that: “Particular emphasis is given to involving parents/cares and the child/young person, when appropriate, and to ensuring that there is agreement and clarity amongst all parties about working towards outcomes and actions which prioritise the child’s welfare throughout the child’s plan”

Complaint a) the child protection process has been one-sided and not taken account of Mr Ys views. The Council wrongly concluded he caused emotional damage to X

13. X is 14 years old and currently lives with her father, Mr Y. In May 2017 the Council decided it was necessary to implement a Child Protection (CP) Plan because of concerns it had about the volatile relationship between Mr Y and X’s Mother whom I will call Miss Z.
14. Mr Y and Miss Z have now separated. For a period leading up to early 2017, X and Miss Z lived together in an apartment. X’s mother made an allegation of domestic abuse against Mr Y and for a time he was subject to bail conditions imposed by the police. This meant that Mr Y could not contact Miss Z and he could have only supervised contact with X.
15. Miss Z and X moved to live with Miss Z’s parents (X’s maternal grandparents). Shortly after moving, the case notes show that X expressed a wish to see Mr Y. The Council explained this would take some time to arrange due to the limits imposed by Mr Y’s bail conditions.
16. Around one month later in July 2017 a social worker met with Mr Y. The notes show Mr Y discussed his own wishes and feelings. He made clear that he wanted to resume regular contact with X. The Council agreed to arrange this. The first supervised contact session took place one week later, and every week after that until X moved to live with Mr Y permanently in November 2017 after his bail conditions were lifted.
17. Throughout the CP process, the Council held regular meetings to discuss X’s plan. The Council’s guidance makes clear that it should ensure that “parents/carers are helped to be fully involved” and to “ensure the child’s lived experience, views, wishes and feelings are known and shared”.
18. Mr Y was invited to, and attended, all Core Group meetings held in 2018. The minutes of the 2017 meetings show that Mr Y could not attend due to the bail conditions in place at the time which prevented him from having direct contact with Miss Z and her family. Mr Y’s views are expressed in the minutes of all the meetings he attended.
19. Furthermore, in the most recent CP plan dated 13 July 2018, Mr Y’s views are noted: “[Mr Y] believes that [X] is well cared for in his care and that he is providing a stable home for her. [Mr Y] also believes that the local authority placed [X] at risk when they let her stay with maternal grandmother and to sleep in the same room/bed as [Miss Z] when [Miss Z] was mentally unwell”
20. The parenting assessment arranged by the Council was undertaken by an independent social worker who had no previous involvement with the family and therefore had no prior views of Mr Y’s parenting. The independent social worker decided that Mr Y’s parenting of X was acceptable.
21. Based on the records seen, it is my opinion that the views of both X’s parents have been considered throughout the CP process. I appreciate Mr Y is frustrated to feel that he is accused of emotionally harming X. The reason for the CP plan was emotional harm, but this was because of the volatile nature of X’s household and not solely due to the actions of Mr Y. I consider the records are balanced; the Council recognises that both parents have, at times, not put X’s needs first. The Council’s parenting assessment of Mr Y was also completed by an independent worker to ensure balance. I do not therefore uphold this part of Mr Y’s complaint.

Complaint b) the Council failed to safeguard X from harm

Sleeping arrangements

22. For a period in 2017 X lived with Miss Z at her grandmother’s house. Mr Y had concerns about the living arrangements; particularly that X shared a bed with Miss Z. The records show the Council also shared these concerns once it became aware that X shared a bed with Miss Z. Mr Y says X was subject to harm which the Council could and should have prevented.
23. The case notes show the Council first recoded its concerns in July 2017: “there are concerns about [Miss Z’s] mental state having an effect on her daughter whom she shares a bed with since moving into her mother’s home“ and “discussion [with grandmother] about [X] sharing a bed with Mum. Grandmother said she thinks this has always happened apart from when Dad was living in the home. [X] and [Miss Z] share a king-sized bed and there is not space for another single in the bedroom. Said she thought [X] was comfortable being with Mum and didn’t want to upset her further “.
24. After the social worker’s case supervision on 3 July, is it recorded that the she would: “… will challenge the fact that [X] and her mother share a bed even though there are other bedrooms”.
25. The records show no further discussion about X’s sleeping arrangements until August when X’s grandmother reported concerns about Miss Z and X spending a lot of time in the bedroom. The grandmother told the Council she was concerned about what conversations were taking place, given Miss Z’s mental health issues.
26. In September X told the social worker that she “would prefer not to share a bed with her Mum although says its ok”. X also told the Council she was having trouble sleeping because of Miss Z’s mental health issues. The Council agreed X needed her own room and it was not suitable for her to share a bed with Miss Z. It made the following plan on 24 October: “arrange another meeting with the family after the court case to explain to the birth family we cannot continue to see [X] exposed to her mother’s difficulties through sharing a room with her when the grandmother has a house large enough to avoid sharing a room and bed“.
27. Shortly after this, X moved to live with Mr Y.
28. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council said the sleeping arrangements, in its view, did not cause ‘significant harm’ and that Miss Z was advised not to encourage this. However, the contemporaneous notes show the Council was concerned about X sleeping with Miss Z at the time and planned in late October to tackle the issue with the family. It did not have time to do so from this point because X moved home some days later.
29. The records show the significant extent of Miss Z’s mental health issues. She is not part of this complaint and to protect her confidentiality I cannot go into detail about her health. However, it is important and relevant to note that the Council was aware from at least July 2017 that Miss Z, due to her health, would spend long periods of time in bed. X told the social worker that she had disturbed sleep as a result.
30. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of social worker’s decisions unless there is procedural fault in the way those decisions were made. Nor can we place ourselves into the role of the social worker and suggest what we may have done in the circumstances. But in this case, it is clear the Council had concerns about the sleeping arrangements from July when Miss Z’s mental health worsened, yet it did not draw up a plan to deal with the issue until October. The records do not show any good reason for this drift.
31. I am mindful that X did have her own bed for six weeks between July and November. This is because Miss Z was in hospital for four weeks and X stayed with Mr Y’s mother for a further two weeks in September. This leaves around ten weeks during which time the Council did not intervene, despite its concerns. It is more likely than not that X experienced disrupted sleep and distress in this period.
32. To recognise the effects of that distress, the Council has agreed to pay £250 directly to X.

Frequency of social worker visits

33. More recently, Mr Y also complains the Council has not followed X’s CP plan which states the allocated social worker will meet with X every ten days. He says the Council is failing to safeguard X as a result.
34. The record of the CP Conference held on 13 July 2018 stated the Council would visit X via announced and unannounced visits every 15 working days. The case notes show the Council visited X 13 times between July 2018 and March 2019, when then CP plan ended. These were a mixture of home and school visits, as well as discussions with X during Core Group meetings.
35. Mr Y is correct to point out that these visits were not always strictly 15 working days apart, which was not in accordance with X’s plan. However, after reviewing the file as a whole, I am satisfied the Council maintained an appropriate and regular level of contact with X. I also note that on at least two occasions Mr Y expressed his wish for professionals not to visit X as he became more dissatisfied with the Council’s approach.
36. It is not clear what Mr Y considers the Council failed to safeguard X against as she was living with him during this period. Mr Y always made clear his view that he was providing X with a supportive upbringing. If any issues did arise, such as concerning contact from Miss Z, Mr Y would report these to the Council, and they were dealt with at the time. Based on the records seen, I do not find that the frequency of the Council’s visits had any adverse impact on Mr Y or X.

Complaint c) a social worker has, at times, been unprofessional to Mr Y

37. The records show that Mr Y has, at times, become frustrated with the CP process. Mr Y accepted that he can sometimes display difficult behaviour towards professionals because of his frustration. The Ombudsman recognises that CP proceedings are inevitably difficult for all family members involved
38. The case notes show that Mr Y expressed some concerns about the allocated social worker in 2018 after a Core Group meeting held in May. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr Y describes how he was “bombarded with allegations” and the social worker was unprofessional, making facial expressions every time Mr Y spoke during the meeting.
39. I was not present at the meeting, nor have I witnessed first-hand any interactions between Mr Y and the social worker. I can only reach a view based on the evidence available to me. I have reviewed the case notes in full. These detail key interactions between the social worker and Mr Y, such as meetings, telephone calls and text messages. While Mr Y was sometimes frustrated, I have seen no evidence of any unprofessional behaviour by the social worker, and I do not uphold this part of Mr Y’s complaint.

Complaint d) the Council failed to supervise X when she left a contact session. As a result, X was left to walk across a dark car park unattended

40. On 22 November X had supervised contact with Miss Z. Mr Y drove X to the contact session and waited in his car whilst it took place. Mr Y had previously contacted the Council to express concerns about the usual allocated social worker being present. The Council arranged for another social worker to attend. I understand that social worker was not present in the room whilst the contact between X and her mother took place. However, a student social worker from another team remained present during the session.
41. Mr Y complained to the Council after the session because he says that X was allowed to leave the building unattended to walk across the dark car park to Mr Y’s waiting car.
42. Again, as mentioned in the previous section of this statement, I was not at the contact session. My views must be based on the information available.
43. Following Mr Y’s complaint, the social worker who remained in the hallway while contact took place submitted a statement to the Council with her version of events. In summary, she said:
• X left the session early. She came into the hallway and said that she did not want to return to the room to continue contact with Miss Z. Instead X said she would like to see her maternal auntie soon.
• The social worker agreed to walk X back to Mr Y’s car. X said that she could walk on her own, but the social worker walked with her anyway.
• The social worker was a ‘few steps’ behind X when she witnessed X getting safely into Mr Y’s car. The social worker said goodbye to X.
44. Mr Y disputes this account. He says X was not supervised back to his car. However, by his own admission, the car park was dark. It is possible the social worker was a few steps behind X, as stated, but that Mr Y was not able to see the social worker from his car.
45. 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.
46. I have taken into account the social worker’s account of what happened, as well as the fact the car park was dark and visibility therefore restricted. In my view, there is not enough evidence on balance to uphold Mr Y’s complaint that X was left unsupervised by social workers.

Complaint e) the Council failed to log and respond to Mr Y’s complaint

47. The Council says its records show a complaint received from Mr Y on 5 May 2018. Mr Y disputes this was his first complaint. He says he raised a verbal complaint with a Council officer some time before, but that this was not recorded as a formal complaint. The Council says it has no record of this contact and the officer in question has since left the Council. It apologised to Mr Y if the officer had provided incorrect information at the time.
48. The Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint in June. It contacted Mr Y again later that month to provide additional comments from a manager.
49. Mr Y then called the Council on 19 July to escalate his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint process. He also raised some new concerns. The Council responded on 9 August and referred Mr Y to the Ombudsman. It said it would not provide any further response as his complaint was ‘on hold’ pending ongoing police investigations.
50. On 3 October, and after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, Mr Y called the Council to raise further concerns. The officer dealing with the complaint discussed the complaint with Mr Y on 15 October. The Council then issued its response on 5 November. This letter gave Mr Y the option of escalating the complaint with the Council. Instead he approached the Ombudsman and we accepted his complaint because he had received a final response from the Council in August.
51. There is no evidence of Mr Y’s first complaint. As an impartial investigator, and in the absence of supporting evidence, I cannot prefer Mr Y’s account over the Council’s and make a finding of fault. Mr Y has not been able to show that he submitted a formal corporate complaint earlier than May 2018.
52. The Council appeared to respond to the complaints Mr Y submitted in May and July under it’s ‘Corporate Comments, Compliments and Complaints Policy’. This says the Council will aim to respond to a complaint made at the first stage of its process within 20 working days. At the second stage of the process, the Council will respond within 25 working days, but in complex cases, its response could take up to 65 working days. The Council met these timescales in Mr Y’s case.
53. However, when Mr Y complained again in October, the Council accepted his complaint under its statutory complaints procedure for ‘Children and Young People’s Services’. In my view, its letter of 5 November did not make this clear.
54. The statutory government guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ says that all council functions under Part 3, and some of Part 4 and 5, of the Children Act 1989 may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory procedure.

“Where a complaint is accepted at Stage 1, the complainant is entitled to pursue their complaint further through this procedure… once a complaint has entered Stage 1, the local authority is obliged to ensure that the complaint proceeds to Stages 2 and 3 of this procedure, if that is the complainant’s wish”

55. Complaints about Section 47 of the Children Act do not fall within the sections covered by the various acts or regulations. Some councils do, however, consider such complaints under the Children Act procedure, especially where there are other elements to the complaint as is often the case. In this case, the Council accepted Mr Y’s second complaint under the statutory procedure, and so it was obliged to proceed as such. However Mr Y approached the Ombudsman instead of seeking progression to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
56. As it was not clear to us that the Council had accepted Mr Y’s complaint under the statutory procedure, and because Mr Y’s complaint concerned matters about Section 47 of the Children Act, we accepted the complaint for investigation.
57. The Council has agreed to amend their template letters to make it clear to complainants once their complaint has been accepted under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This is to help complainants make an informed decision about how to progress their complaints.

Agreed action

58. Within six weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Arrange to pay £250 directly to X. As this remedy is for the effects of distress caused to X, the payment will be made to her directly. The Council will enquire whether X has a bank account which the money could be paid into, otherwise it may consider it is appropriate to make the payment upon her 18th birthday; and
• Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has amended its template letter for responses issued under the statutory children’s complaints process. This is to make clear that any such complaints are being dealt with under that process.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I have completed my investigation. I uphold parts of Mr Y’s complaint for the reasons explains in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the above actions. This appropriately remedies the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman