Summary: The complainant alleges that the Council has been biased against him when carrying out its child in need and child protection duties. The Ombudsman finds that the Council acted appropriately, when initiating child protection procedures. But the Ombudsman has concerns about the written agreement, which the complainant was asked to sign, concerning his contact with his son. The Council was also at fault in not processing the complaint through the statutory Children Act procedures, thereby denying the complainant an independent investigation. To resolve the complaint, the Council has agreed to arrange a Stage 2 investigation under the Children Act. The Ombudsman is therefore closing the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about services provided to him, his son (Child B) and to his partner, Ms Y. In particular, he complains that:
1. There was a domestic incident between him and his partner, Ms Y. The Police were called. The Police recorded that Ms Y had hit the complainant. The Police sent notification to the Council. A social worker visited, and the case was marked for assessment. The complainant says the Council was biased and wrongly claimed he had hit Ms Y;
2. The Council told the complainant that he should leave the house and advised Ms Y to get an injunction and take Child B to live with Ms Y’s mother. The complainant says the social worker had not read the Police report and wrongly alleged that the complainant had said ‘he would get a baseball bat and hit Ms Y’. But the complainant had never said this, and Ms Y confirmed this. The Council decided that the case would go to an initial child protection conference. The Council gave the complainant a form to sign agreeing to have supervised contact with his son. He felt intimidated and signed it for fear that the Council would prevent him seeing his son if he did not;
3. Ms Y subsequently moved out of the home and left Child B in the complainant’s care. When the Council found out, the social worker telephoned the complainant, many times, to ask where Ms Y was. The complainant did not know. The social worker said she would call the Police if she could not speak to Ms Y. The Council eventually called the Police to report Ms Y missing. The Police found Ms Y and the Police visited the complainant. The complainant had the impression that the Council had alleged to the Police that he might have harmed Ms Y;
4. The case went to a child protection conference. The complainant thinks the other professionals just followed the Council’s lead. Child B was put on a child protection plan. The complainant says he was not sent a copy of the minutes of the conference and was told he would have to pay for them. There were subsequent Core Group meetings. The complainant says that there were no minutes taken, or if they were, he has not been sent copies;
5. Mr X says that the Council was biased because he was known to the Adult Mental Health Team. Ms Y had asked him to look after Child B long term and the Council did not take account of her view that Child B was safe in his care. The child protection plan came to an end and Mr X considers that this demonstrates the Council had been biased against him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We 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. 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)
4. The Ombudsman cannot question the decisions made at a multi-agency case conference because they involve other professionals over whom he has no jurisdiction. Councils should have their own complaints process for these types of complaints.
5. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, currently the Health and Care Professionals Council (HCPC).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. The Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint under its corporate complaints’ procedure. There is only one stage to this process although the Council will respond in the event of a further disagreement from the complainant.
7. I have seen the Council’s complaint letters to the complainant, been sent a copy of the case notes from the Children’ Services files, and I have spoken to the complainant. I issued a draft decision statement to the Council and complainant and have considered their further comments.
8. The Ombudsman’s final statement will be sent to the Office for Standards in Education, Children Services and Skills (Ofsted) in accordance with the arrangement the Ombudsman has to share findings with this organisation.

Back to top

What I found

9. Legal and administrative arrangements
1. Working Together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children’ (March 2015/2018) provides guidance about child protection investigations for all agencies. Social workers have a statutory duty to lead assessments which should be holistic in approach;
2. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides that a local authority has a duty to investigate, where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is, or is likely to suffer, significant harm;
3. Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) set out the multi-agency arrangements for its area. Where a child is suspected to be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, enquiries should be made to decide how best to safeguard the child. Normally, there is a strategy meeting involving key professionals, including the Police, which sets out the scope of the section 47 investigation. Multi-agency child protection conferences decide whether the child should be subject to a child protection plan;
4. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, a child is considered a ‘child in need’ if disabled or it is likely that his or her development will be impaired unless services are provided;
5. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 extended the definition of harm to include ‘impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another’;
6. The Children Act 1989, says all functions of the local authority under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint under the statutory complaints procedure. There are three stages to the process and, at Stage 2 and Stage 3 (the Complaints Review Panel), there is an independent element;
7. If separated parents cannot agree arrangements between themselves, in respect of their children, they can apply to the Family Court to decide residency (Child Arrangements Order) and contact issues. The Court can ask the local council to prepare a section 7 or section 37 report to advise the Court as to the children’s best interests and provide background information.
8. Councils sometimes use Written Agreements, or Written Contracts, with parents or other family members, as a useful tool to help manage situations where there is a concern. Some serious case review have questioned their effectiveness in protecting a child. Ofsted produced guidance in January 2018 about how these agreements can be used more effectively. It has provided information about some of the key ingredients which can ensure the agreements are protective and effective.

The Council’s procedures

10. The Council’s Local Children’s Safeguarding Board sets out the policies and procedures to be followed by all agencies when safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in its area.
11. The Council has a procedure for dealing with complaints about child protection conferences.
12. The Local Children’s Safeguarding Board updated its procedures in light of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which requires the three lead statutory agencies (council, police and local clinical commissioning group) to put in place revised safeguarding multi-agency arrangements by September 2019.

Key facts

13. Mr X and Ms Y have a child, Child B. He has a diagnosis of an inherited disorder which causes weaknesses and stiffness in the leg muscles and is progressive. Mr X suffers from the same condition, which was diagnosed when he was older.
14. In early 2018, Mr X and Ms Y’s relationship became strained. In February 2018, the Police visited the house because of a verbal argument between the two. Mr X left to stay at his mother’s house.
15. Mr X sought professional help about his mental health, as advised to do so by his father. It is also reported that there were concerns about Ms Y’s emotional stability.
16. The Council decided to carry out an assessment to determine whether Child B was at risk of significant harm because of both parents’ emotional difficulties and from their volatile relationship. The Council completed the assessment by mid-April. It was decided the case should be managed under the child in need provisions because the parents agreed to engage with services.
17. In mid-2018, through mutual agreement, Ms Y became the sole carer for Child B, having asked Mr X to leave the family home. Mr X went to live at his mother’s home and Mr X and Ms Y agreed regular contact for him with Child B. Ms Y spoke to the health visitor about her relationship with Mr X.
18. In May 2018, there was an argument between Mr X and Ms Y when he went to collect Child B for contact. He was suspicious of Ms Y’s activities. The Police were involved. Their notes record that both parties had said “they have been as bad as each other and shouting at each other”. Mr X left the property to stay at his mother’s house taking Child B with him.
19. In accordance with standard practice, the Police referred the incident to the Council. Ms Y also reported the incident to the social worker. Ms Y said that she was confident that Mr X would not harm Child B. The social worker visited Ms Y, who said that she continued to be happy for the contact to continue between Mr X and Child B. However, Ms Y subsequently agreed that Mr X should not have contact, unless supervised, as advised by the social worker. Mr X returned Child B to Ms Y’s care.
20. The Council decided to carry out a more detailed assessment. The complainant says that the Council told him to leave the property and advised Ms Y to get an injunction.
21. On 30 May, at an office visit to the social worker, Mr X was told that he should have no contact with Child B, unless supervised by a third party. The social worker explained that there needed to be a risk assessment of his mental health before he could see his son unsupervised.
22. Mr X told the social worker that he had acted in self-defence during the argument with Ms Y. Mr X told the social worker that he had been diagnosed with a mental health disorder (schizophrenia) for which he took medication. The social worker recorded concerns that Mr X’s mental health was unstable. The social worker said that Mr X would have to find a third party to supervise contact and advised him to seek legal advice.
23. Mr X reported to the social worker his concerns about Ms Y’s actions and their impact on Child B. The social worker felt his allegations were ‘far-fetched’ and the social worker explained to Mr X that she had seen no evidence of what he was alleging.
24. It is at this meeting that Mr X signed the agreement not to have contact with Child B unless supervised by a third party.
25. The Council held two ‘child in need’ meetings. There was one contact between Mr X and Child B between May and August 2018, supervised by Mr X’s sister. However, I understand that contact did still take place between Mr X and Child B.
26. The Council obtained information from Mr X’s Adult Mental Health Team who reported that he was taking his medication and was able to manage his daily needs.
27. On 7 September 2018, Ms Y asked Mr X to become the main carer for Child B. Ms Y had found it difficult to care for Child B on her own. Mr X returned to their address to look after Child B fulltime. Ms Y left the property.
28. In September 2018, Child B started at nursery. Initial observations by the nursery indicated that Child B may have significant developmental delay and he required a Speech and Language assessment.
29. On 19 September 2018, the social worker visited Mr X. Mr X told the social worker that Ms Y wanted to concentrate on her education and obtain employment. Mr X gave the social worker a letter, which Ms Y had written to the social worker and health visitor, stating she did not want to have further contact with the social workers because the child in need meetings were causing her distress. Ms Y stated that Mr X was more capable of looking after Child B.
30. The social worker reported that Child B seemed happy. Mr X explained that Ms Y had visited him regularly since she moved out. The social worker relayed to Mr X the information which she had received from his mental health team. She advised him to continue to take his medication.
31. Mr X was unable to tell the social worker where Ms Y was staying, he says because he simply did not know. The social worker telephoned Mr X that day, asking again for Ms Y’s whereabouts. But he did not know. The social worker later that day reported to the Police that Ms Y was ‘missing'. Mr X had texted Ms Y asking her to contact the social worker. But Ms Y had not, nor had she responded to the social worker’s text messages.
32. The Police located Ms Y and spoke to her. She explained that she was staying at her mother’s address and that she had no concerns about Child B being in Mr X’s care. She confirmed that she had written a letter handing over the care of Child B to Mr X.
33. The Police visited Mr X. He thinks that the social worker had raised a concern with them that he may have harmed Ms Y.
34. On 20 September 2018, Ms Y contacted the social worker. She explained that she was working fulltime and was staying with friends and relatives.

Child Protection actions

35. In view of the change of living arrangements for Child B, the Council held a strategy meeting, deciding that a section 47 investigation should be started. The concern at the time was that Child B had been exposed to his parents’ arguments and there was a concern about Mr X’s mental health disorder and how this may affect his parenting. It was agreed that the Police and social worker would visit Ms Y to clarify her reasons for leaving the family home.
36. This visit took place and Ms Y explained her reasons for leaving. She expressed no concern about Mr X caring for Child B fulltime.
37. The Council decided to hold an initial child protection case conference so that the concerns could be properly considered within a multi-agency forum.
38. In October 2018, Mr X visited the mental health team to question the validity of his mental health diagnosis. However, he agreed to continue with the medication prescribed.

Initial Child Protection Case Conference on 10 0ctober 2018

39. Reports were prepared by the health visitor, the Police, Child B’s nursery and the social worker. In addition, there was a mental health support worker. Mr X says he was not provided with a copy of the report in good time before the conference.
40. The concerns expressed at the conference by the Council and health services were about the mental health stability of both Mr X and Ms Y, in particular Mr X’s mental health given he had the fulltime care of Child B, and the impact of their relationship on Child B. The conference decided that Child B should be subject to a child protection plan.
41. It was agreed that Mr X should refer himself to the housing department to seek suitable adaptions to the property to help both Child B, and himself manage, their disability. Both have a tendency to fall over because of their condition. It was also agreed that Child B should have a Speech and Language assessment, for Mr X and Ms Y to complete work regarding planning for Child B’s care and for Mr X’s mental health worker to complete a risk assessment.

Core Group meetings

42. In accordance with child protection procedures, the Council arranged core group meetings to check and review the implementation of the child protection plan. Ms Y did not attend the core group meetings in 2018. The Council also undertook statutory visits to Child B and Mr X. There are minutes of these meetings.
43. In January 2019, there was a review child protection conference and again in June 2019, when it was decided that Child B no longer required a child protection plan. It was felt that Mr X was meeting all of Child B’s needs and he was working with his General Practitioner (GP) in respect of managing his mental health. Child B was also having regular contact with Ms Y and this was being managed appropriately by the parents.
44. It was a unanimous decision at the last conference that the child protection plan should cease and there was no requirement either for a child in need plan. Therefore, Mr X has no current involvement with the Council’s Children Services.

Analysis

45. Child protection enquiries are daunting for parents but are required to be undertaken. To help professionals deal with this duty, there are procedures and guidance to follow. This is to enable the difficult decisions and exercise of professional judgement to be made satisfactorily on a case by case basis and to ensure that the child’s welfare remains the paramount concern.
46. In addition, there are timeframes for child protection decisions to be made. Enquiries, therefore, must be focused and purposeful. Assessments should be informed by evidence and holistic in approach, addressing the child’s needs with their family and wider community. To do this properly, there must be some face to face contact with parents and children.
47. In February 2018, Mr X sought professional help with his mental health difficulties, which was a responsible and sensible action on his behalf.
48. Matters changed in September 2018, following an argument between Mr X and Ms Y, involving the Police. The Council’s concerns were heightened after this incident. It sought to protect Child B from the possible harm caused to him by witnessing his parents’ arguments. The Council also became concerned about Mr X’s mental health and having the fulltime care of Child B.
49. The case moved into child protection. I do not find fault with the Council at this point.
50. However, Mr X’s complaint is that the Council took a negative view of him unfairly and without considering all the available information, particularly the Police evidence, and that of Ms Y, who had made it clear that she had no concerns about Mr X’s care of Child B. Mr X considers the Council did not weigh this evidence in the balance and it took steps to limit his contact with Child B which was detrimental to him and to Child B. He considers that the written agreement, which he felt compelled to sign, restricted his contact with Child B, as from May 2018 unfairly and without regard to the evidence.
51. The agreement stated Mr X should not have contact with Child B unless supervised but the parties were expected to provide the appropriate supervision.
52. Generally, written agreements are not effective as a protective tool unless they are specific and clear and they should not rely upon the other parent to ensure that they are adhered to. Ofsted also advises that there should be clarity on how the agreements will be monitored.
53. While it is important for councils to take action to protect children, this should be done fairly and parents should not be pressurised to agree to actions, which limit their ability to exercise their parental responsibility or maintain their relationship with their child, without the Council being satisfied that the parent is freely consenting to such action and that the agreement will act as a protective tool. An agreement on paper provides no guarantee.
54. In addition, councils have a range of legal options, which they can take, to protect children. These should be considered if there is any doubt that a written agreement is not a reliable and safe way to protect a child from the Council’s concerns.
55. Mr X says he agreed not to see Child B, unless supervised, because he feared that, if he did not, Child B would be removed from his care. This is a natural fear of most parents and councils should be careful to ensure consent is given freely and, in doing so, councils can then more easily rely upon parents’ adherence to the agreement.
56. Therefore, on the face of it, there does seem to be some fault by the Council in respect of this written agreement and conditions.
57. I do not criticise the Council for being concerned about Ms Y’s whereabouts. But, I can see that Mr X felt he was not being believed when he said that he did not know of her whereabouts. I can see that a visit from the Police would have given rise to Mr X’s concerns that the Council thought he had harmed Ms Y. However, it is common practice for councils/parents to refer matters to the Police if they are concerned a person has gone missing and it is the case that Ms Y has had her difficulties which might have heightened the Council’s concerns at that time. I therefore do not find the Council at fault for contacting the Police.
58. Mr X says he was not provided with minutes of conferences and meetings. He also says he was told he would have to pay for a copy of the child protection minutes. The Council says that this is not the case and there is no evidence to support Mr X’s assertion.

The Council’s consideration of Mr X’s complaint

59. The Council was unwilling to consider the complaint under the statutory Children Act procedures. Instead it was dealt with under the Council’s corporate complaints process. The reason given was that the Council did not consider it could achieve the outcome which Mr X wanted, namely to put ‘these lying professionals in their place’.
60. I accept that this was not an outcome which could be achieved through any complaint process. However, Mr X was complaining about a service provided to him under Part 3 of the Children Act and, while matters of the social workers’ employment was not open for consideration under this process, that in itself should not have prevented the Council from looking at his complaints under the correct process. My view, therefore, is that Mr X has been denied the opportunity to have his complaints properly considered under the statutory Children Act complaints process and that is fault.
61. I recognise that Mr X’s complaint has now been considered by the Ombudsman. But I have not had access to all the records and the Council has now offered to investigate Mr X’s concerns under the Children Act complaints process at Stage 2. I consider that this is a fair way to remedy Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s investigation to date and provides him with an opportunity to have his concerns considered by an independent investigator who will also have access to the Children Services’ case files.
62. The Council says that it is unusual for a case not to be considered under the correct complaint process. I am therefore reassured that the fault in this case is unlikely to occur again.
63. I also cannot see that the Council told Mr X how to complain about the initial child protection conference. It is important parents are told of the Council’s procedures for challenging child protection processes and decisions. The Council says that it has since improved the quality of the information provided to parents so that they are aware of how they can appeal a child protection decision.

Agreed action

64. The Council has agreed to investigate the complaint under the Children Act process. It has made arrangements to start this process and I recommend that, within one month of the final decision statement, an independent investigator will have been appointed to start the Stage 2 investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I am satisfied that the Council has offered a way to resolve Mr X’s outstanding concerns. I have therefore completed my investigation and I am closing the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman