Summary: Mr E says the Council failed to properly assess whether his children were suffering emotional abuse from their mother. When carrying out the assessment, the Council relied on historical information about him, which a previous Ombudsman’s investigation had said was wrong. There is evidence of fault in the Council using incorrect information about him and in not updating its files. The Council has agreed to make payments for time and trouble and distress, to consider whether social workers need additional guidance on emotional abuse and to share appropriate information with another council who are assessing Mr E’s other two children.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr E, complains that the assessment carried out on his children in 2017 was incorrect and that incorrect information from it was shared with another council. He says the Council’s failure to conduct a thorough assessment resulted in his children continuing to suffer abuse. He has also told me subsequently that if the investigation into his complaint had been done properly; he would not have lost contact with his children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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) Only the court can consider contact issues and ensure that agreements are kept to. I am not investigating issues relating to contact for this reason. Mr E says there has been collusion between his ex-partners to deny him access to his children. We can only look at the actions of the Council so this is not something we can consider. The Council could not have investigated this either, as it is not behaviour it would be able to change. The court could be asked to make a ruling on contact in order that Mr E could have it reinstated.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)
6. 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 independent 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. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider that investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
7. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
8. 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.
9. 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

10. I considered the information submitted by Mr E with his complaint and spoke to him on the telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and assessed its response. I refer to the Children Act 1989. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr E and the Council and took comments made into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

11. I consider the Stage Two report is sufficiently robust and comprehensive. I consider it unlikely I could add to it through further investigation. Mr E disagrees. He says the investigating officer should have spoken to the children affected and to the parents of the children both in the Council’s area and in the other council’s area. He says if the Stage Two investigation had been conducted properly, he would not have lost contact with his children and they would not continue to experience abuse. If the investigating officer felt an additional assessment should be done; I would expect that to have been one of the findings. I would not expect the investigating officer to have interviewed the children, or Ms J (or the mother of his other children) as this is not their complaint.
12. Contact is for the court, not the Council. The court would be able (as part of the process to assess the adequacy of contact arrangements) to consider Mr E’s contention that his children are being emotionally abused. The court can ensure, as far as possible, that contact, which has been arranged, goes ahead. I cannot look at allegations of collusion between Ms J and the mother of his other children as they are not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and the Council is not responsible for it. Mr E disagrees.

Background

13. Mr E is the father of three children: F, G and H who live in Sheffield in the care of his ex-partner, Ms J. Ms J’s older sons (F, G and H’s half siblings) K and L also live at the property, or have lived there at times. Mr E had contact with F, G and H on one weekend per month and informally at other times. Mr E had, and has, concerns about F, G and H’s welfare. He believes they are suffering emotional abuse from their mother and also says they are living in overcrowded accommodation as other family members had moved in to live with them. He considers Ms J is colluding with his ex-partner in another council’s area in order to stop him from seeing his children. Mr E referred his concerns to the Council and the children's circumstances were assessed by a social worker in 2017.

Previous investigation

14. Mr E had raised previous concerns about the Council in 2012 and the Ombudsman investigated at that point. It was established that a previous assessment contained information which was inaccurate.
15. The Council had accepted an account from Ms J that she had fled to Sheffield to escape domestic abuse by Mr E and that the children had been on child protection plans for this reason. This was untrue. Mr E was not a domestic violence perpetrator and the children had been on child protection plans because of the risk of harm from Ms J. The Council said, as a result of the complaint in 2012, all information held on file had been checked for accuracy and amended where necessary.

Recent concerns

16. Mr E made further allegations about the care F, G and H were receiving in 2017 saying that they were victims of emotional abuse by Ms J. The Council agreed to carry out an initial assessment. Initial assessments are ‘snapshots’ of children and families. The aim is to identify whether children need help and support and whether they are, or could be, at risk of significant harm. If concerns are highlighted, a more detailed assessment can be carried out. Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 says; ‘Where the question of whether the harm suffered by a child is significant turns on the child’s health or development, it is necessary to compare his health or development with what could reasonably be expected of a similar child‘.
17. Mr E reported the assessment contained the same incorrect information about him and the family (i.e. that he was a domestic violence perpetrator, Ms J had fled her home and the children had been on child protection plans because of the risks he posed) that he had complained about in 2012.
18. The other main cause of concern for Mr E with the 2017 assessment was that he considered the social worker had failed to consider the wishes and feelings of F, G and H. In Mr E's view, not enough was done to look beneath the surface and to appropriately challenge some of the things the children were saying about him. He suggested the Council might be colluding with Ms J so she denied contact but that when he reported this, it was not investigated. Mr E said the Council was relying on reports of him as a domestic violence perpetrator, which were incorrect.
19. As a result, Mr E made seven complaints.
1. The Council failed, despite assurances and a finding by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, to amend its records to accurately record that the reason for Ms J moving was not due to domestic abuse by Mr E. This error was repeated in assessments completed in 2017.
2. The 2017 assessments also failed to reflect accurately the circumstances under which Mr E’s children were previously subject to child protection measures. The 2012 complaint investigation details the circumstances under which the children were made the subject of child protection plans. It was clear this was due to concerns about Ms J. This important information has also been misrepresented in the 2017 assessments by the social worker.
3. The 2017 assessments did not properly reflect the wishes and feelings of the children. Mr E says that he shared his concerns about the emotional abuse of the children with the social worker and feels the assessment fails to properly address his concerns about the children being manipulated and made to believe and act on stories about him. Mr E feels the children are bullied into disrupting contact.
4. The assessments wrongly say that Mr E has been inflexible about contact arrangements.
5. Mr E’s concerns about his children living in overcrowded accommodation, and their safety while living with half-sibling K, have not been the subject of proper investigation and analysis.
6. The Council has shared assessments with another council, which contain inaccurate information as above. Mr E is concerned about the impact this will have on consideration of his children who live in the other council’s area and are also subject to assessment.
7. The social worker mentioning the payment previously made to Mr E was a breach of confidentiality.
20. As an outcome, Mr E wanted:
1. The children's needs to be assessed again by an independent assessor;
2. The Council to do what it promised in 2012 and ensure its records are accurate;
3. That the Council informs the other council, where two of his children live, of the errors within the information it has shared; and,

d) Compensation due to the impact this has had on Mr E's health and wellbeing.

21. The Council considered his complaints through the statutory children’s complaints process at Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3. It upheld complaints a) and b) at Stage Two and Stage Three. It partially upheld complaints c) and f). It did not uphold complaints d), e) and g). The Council offered £500 as a remedy to the injustice Mr E had experienced. Mr E was unhappy with this and asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaints. He did not feel the investigating officer had treated him fairly because of his religious beliefs. I will consider whether the remedy proposed for his complaints is appropriate.

Mr E’s complaints

22. For ease of reference, I will look at Mr E’s complaints in turn. In doing this, I am not looking at historical matters that could have been, or were, brought up in his previous complaint to the Ombudsman. This includes a message about Ms J 'getting him back', which (according to the Stage Two investigation report) dates from 2011. In his comments on my draft decision, Mr E also sent me information from 2004, 2007 and 2008, which do not change my view. He also sent me recordings, which I listened to, and a piece of information from G, which is about his two children, who do not live in the Council’s area so do not relate to the assessment about which he is complaining (even though he feels the investigating officer and independent person should have spoken to the parent and children in the other council’s area).
23. Mr E has previously said that after his complaint in 2013, there were a few years where contact went well.
24. Mr E suggested information he provided had not been considered in the Stage Two investigation although there are references to such information. I have already said I consider the Stage Two investigation robust enough and it is unlikely we could add to it.

Complaint a) - The Council failed, despite assurances and a finding by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, to amend its records to accurately record that the reason for Ms J moving was not due to domestic abuse by Mr E. This error was repeated in assessments completed in 2017.

25. This complaint was upheld. The Council accepted the fault should not have happened, and apologised. It explained this was due to the file management system it used previously. Nevertheless, that there was nothing clearly on file to say the information was incorrect is concerning given the Council’s confidence, following the Ombudsman’s decision, that this could and would be resolved. The Council has acknowledged this caused Mr E distress having to go over the facts again, when he thought the matter had been resolved. This also caused Mr E considerable time and trouble having to bring a further complaint.
26. I have seen evidence to show the Council has now gone back over the files. I have had sight of a ‘banner’ of information attached to the children’s electronic files telling officers to refer to the manager’s decision before conducting any assessments. The manager’s decision sets out the facts of the case.
27. From the evidence I have seen, I consider the Council has taken a sufficient level of action to guard against this being repeated.
28. If Mr E remains concerned about the information the Council holds on him, he can go to the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO), which is the agency best placed to investigate.

Complaint b) - The 2017 assessments also failed to reflect accurately the circumstances under which Mr E’s children were previously subject to child protection measures. The 2012 complaint investigation details the circumstances under which the children were made the subject of child protection plans. It was clear this was due to concerns about Ms J. This important information has also been misrepresented in the 2017 assessments by the social worker.

29. This complaint was upheld. The Council accepted it was at fault and that its fault caused Mr E distress and time and trouble.
30. Further investigation of this point is unlikely to change the outcome so I will not look at this matter further. The Council has taken steps, which should prevent this situation recurring and I have suggested Mr E contact the Office of the Information Commissioner if he remains concerned about the accuracy of the records the Council holds.

Complaint c) - The 2017 assessments did not properly reflect the wishes and feelings of the children. Mr E says that he shared his concerns about the emotional abuse of the children with the social worker and feels the assessment fails to properly address his concerns about the children being manipulated and made to believe and act on stories about him. Mr E feels the children are bullied into disrupting contact

31. This complaint was partially upheld. The investigating officer suggested the ‘focus’ of the report would need to be assessed given there were issues, which had not been explored.
32. Following the Stage Two investigation, the Council asked a senior fieldwork manager, who had not been involved in the case, to look at the assessment and decide whether any further work was necessary. They decided no further work was necessary, which means they concluded it was sufficiently thorough even though Mr E disagrees. This is a matter of professional judgement and there is no evidence it was made with fault.
33. For Mr E, that the social worker considered him a domestic abuse perpetrator and thought Ms J had needed to leave her home because of him, means the assessment was biased. Ms J told the social worker she had been a victim, which was not true. The social worker spoke to the children together, rather than individually so Mr E believes their wishes and feelings are not properly specified. In addition, a previous social worker had expressed concern the children may have been ‘coached’ to say things and Mr E considers this should have been followed up.
34. Mr E gave a number of examples to the Stage Two investigation (and has done to me) about the behaviour of the children and what they had experienced. He told me Ms J threw away toys or other things that he gave the children and that she told the children she would never see them again if they complained. He says Ms J sends messages during contact to encourage the children to disrupt it. Mr E has said he is ‘policed’ by the older children when dealing with the younger ones and rumours had been circulated by Ms J, including in his community, that he was gay or a paedophile (which was not explored in the assessment, which was more focused on emotional abuse as in his referral). Defamation is a criminal matter and can only be addressed by the court. F, G and H explained their sexual language use in the assessment but did not suggest they were concerned about Mr E as a potential perpetrator. This should be explored further by the other council assessing the younger children and the Council should alert them to this.
35. The children were, at the time of the Stage Two investigation, aged 15, 14 and 12. There is no question of their competence to make decisions for themselves about contact. They all attended school regularly and the school had no concerns. Mr E says they would not say anything to the school because they believe the emotional abuse is ‘normal’ but I disagree. I would expect threats, or their feelings in relation to having their possessions thrown away, to come out at school. The Council advised Mr E to take legal advice and go to court to arrange contact, as he has done before.
36. From listening to the children, the social worker said they were: ‘Clear that they wanted to have contact with their Dad and in the main enjoyed this’. The investigating officer said, however, ‘Mr E’s behaviour seemed to be having an impact on the children who were not happy with the way he behaved at times during contact frequently seeking information, or talking negatively, about their Mum’. Mr E disagrees that he talks negatively about Ms J. It is not possible to reach a view where both sides disagree and there is no supporting evidence in favour of either. However, the information he sent me from his child G from 2017 says: ‘Question: Why did you leave your dad’s house? Answer: Because he was talking about my mum and I didn’t like it’.
37. I consider this complaint is ‘partially upheld’, which recognises the Council’s fault in its failure to change the records and that the investigating officer said the assessment may not have been as focused on the issue of emotional abuse as it could have been. The social worker and her manager said at the Stage Two investigation there was no explicit guidance on looking at emotional abuse. The Council should consider whether it needs such guidance. However, the assessment clearly shows the health or development of F, G and H is comparable ‘with what could reasonably be expected of a similar child‘. The conclusions of the assessment are not unreasonable and there is no evidence of fault. There are no grounds to ask for a further assessment.
38. Mr E says that Ms J and his ex-partner in another council’s area are colluding against him to deny him contact with his children. He says they are friends and reward the children for poor behaviour when they are with him; he has reported they are going on holiday together. Mr E also believes the Council is colluding with Ms J to support her in denying contact. There is no evidence of this in the documentation I have seen. Ms J was able to deny contact. This was the case before the social worker said, as part of the assessment, Ms J could act in the children’s best interests by not allowing them to see Mr E if she had concerns. This can be resolved by the court if Mr E believes she is acting against the children’s best interests by denying contact. I am not looking at the actions of the other council.

Complaint d) - The assessments wrongly say that Mr E has been inflexible about contact arrangements.

39. This was not upheld. The assessment is clear the children said Mr E has been inflexible about contact arrangements. The social worker could have chosen to explore this given contact is arranged on an ‘ad hoc’ basis (currently). If the children had other plans, or wanted to be elsewhere, they could choose not to have contact with Mr E.
40. The social worker had written that Mr E had told the children; ‘you either come at the usual time or not at all’ but this could not be the case if it was an ad hoc arrangement because the children could have chosen to come at any time. Because of this, on the balance of probabilities, I consider the complaint should be upheld. This information about Mr E’s inflexibility should not have been recorded without appropriate challenge. There is no evidence this was challenged at the time even though the social worker had this information.

Complaint e) - Mr E’s concerns about his children living in overcrowded accommodation, and their safety while living with half-sibling L, have not been the subject of proper investigation and analysis.

41. This complaint was not upheld. It did not form part of the most recent referral made by Mr E although the social worker looked at the house as part of the assessment. In the social worker’s view, the house was not overcrowded and there was enough space. This is matter of professional judgement and I have no evidence it was exercised with fault.
42. Mr E has provided no recent evidence to suggest L is a risk to the children. Because of this, I am not investigating this point further.

Complaint f) - The Council has shared assessments with another council, which contain inaccurate information as above. Mr E is concerned about the impact this will have on consideration of his other children who live in the other council’s area and are also subject to assessment.

43. This complaint was partially upheld. I have seen evidence to show the Council has now informed the other council that its information about Mr E being a domestic violence perpetrator, and that the children were on child protection plans because of him, is incorrect.
44. The Council should, in accordance with the investigating officer’s view at Stage Two, also consider telling the other council about the allegations made about Mr E feeling he was being policed by the older children when taking care of the younger ones, which are the subject of the other council’s assessment. There was also an allegation detailed about one of the other children being told they could not use the toilet in daddy’s house and having to go home with a stomach ache. This is not a matter concerning the children who are the subject of this complaint but should be forwarded on so it can inform the considerations of the other council.

Complaint g) – The social worker mentioning the payment previously made to Mr E was a breach of confidentiality.

45. This complaint was not upheld. The assessment suggests this issue was brought up by Ms J, who had heard it from Mr E or the children. There is no evidence of Council fault.

Outcomes wanted by Mr E

The children's needs to be assessed again by an independent assessor.

46. There is no evidence from the assessment that F, G or H’s health or development is not ‘what could reasonably be expected of a similar child’. Although I have criticised the Council for the lack of focus in its assessment, this does not mean there is a need to do a further assessment. The children are also of an age where they can decide for themselves what contact they wish for and Mr E is able to go to court for contact if he believes Ms J is stopping it taking place.

The Council to do what it promised in 2012 and ensure its records are accurate

47. I have seen evidence of the action the Council has taken and consider it has ensured its records are accurate as far as it can. There are no further actions for it to take.

That the Council informs the other council, where two of his children live, of the errors within the information it has shared

48. The Council has done this. I have also asked it to share some additional information with the other council.

Compensation due to the impact this has had on Mr E's health and wellbeing.

49. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman does not give ‘compensation’ in the way a court might – we remedy injustice arising from Council fault. Our guidance says, in relation to payments for ‘distress’ and ‘time and trouble’, these are ‘more of a symbolic payment, which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties’. I set out agreed payments below.
50.  
51.  

Agreed action

52. For the Council to apologise to Mr E, in particular for complaint d) which I consider should have been upheld within a month of the date of my decision.
53. For the Council to make a payment of £300 for the time and trouble experienced by Mr E. Mr E expected the matters he complained of in 2012 to be resolved so he would not need to make the same complaint again. The Council will also make a payment of £300 for the distress experienced by Mr E, which has, again, been prolonged because he has had to revisit the incorrect statements made about him. I note the Council has already made a payment of £500 to Mr E as a remedy to his complaints and will pay a further £100 within a month of the date of my decision.
54. For the Council to consider whether it needs specific guidance on emotional abuse for social workers who are carrying out assessments. It should tell me what action it plans to take within two months of the date of my decision.
55. For the Council to share information with the other council about matters that affect its assessment of Mr E’s other children within a month of the date of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

56. There is evidence of fault leading to injustice and the Council has agreed actions to remedy that fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman