Summary: Mrs B complains about the actions of the Council after her teenage son left home and stayed at addresses she did not consider safe or appropriate. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council in respect of the matters complained of.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs B, complains the Council failed to take appropriate action in respect of safeguarding her son, C, then aged 15, after he left her home and went to stay at his maternal grandparents’ address, which she felt placed him at risk of exposure to alcohol abuse and domestic violence. He later moved to another address, but Mrs B considers the situation in that household too was inappropriate and that the Council failed to take appropriate action to address this. Finally, Mrs B complains that when her son subsequently went missing again from his grandparents’ home in a state of distress the Council closed his case without knowing where he was or whether he was safe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information provided by Mrs B about her complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information it provided in reply, which include the records of actions taken by children’s social care in this case. I provided Mrs B and the Council with a draft of this decision and considered of all comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Chronology of events from the Council’s records

6. On 16 and 17 March 2018, Mrs B contacted the Council. She reported her son C, who was then 15 years old, had left her household and gone to stay with his maternal grandmother (MGM). Mrs B said C was refusing to return home and that the MGM was undermining her parenting and boundaries set for C. She said there were issues with and domestic violence and at that address. The police had been informed.
7. The Council contacted the police and then visited C on 18 March 2018. There were no safeguarding concerns at the address at this time, but C agreed to go back home and the social worker from the emergency duty team took him there. However, there was then an incident at the home address that evening which the police attended: C had self-inflicted a superficial cut on his arm and tried to leave the house through a window. The police took C back to the MGM’s for the night, with Mrs B’s agreement.
8. The next day C’s case was allocated to a social worker and planning began for various actions including for a visit to the family to discuss concerns; for C to be seen alone to ascertain his wishes and feelings; for a safety plan to be made and implemented with C and his parents; and for a Child and Family Assessment to be competed to explore family systems and support networks. The Council visited Mrs B that day and she shared concerns about C’s association with his girlfriend X who was allowed to stay over at the MGM’s home. She said X had a boyfriend (Y) in prison for underage sexual activity, and that C had been speaking to him on the phone. The Council then completed a Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) risk assessment, given that C was apparently having some contact with a known perpetrator, Y.
9. On 28 March Mrs B again reported that C had absconded. The emergency duty team visited his MGM’s home and he was there. On 29 March the Council’s notes say the police had located C, indicating he had absconded again, and that Mrs B had reported she did not want him to return home. The emergency duty team called Mrs B and noted she wanted to consider C going into the care of the local authority. She later reported he had returned home, and she asked for a social worker to visit, which they did. Agreement was then made for C to go back to his MGM’s home as a short-term arrangement. The social worker visited him there the next day and noted no concerns.
10. The Council’s records show that it tried to call Mrs B over the next few days without success, but on 3 April she telephoned and was given an update. She repeated her view that C should be taken into care. She felt risks at the MGM’s home were not being properly considered. But the social worker visited C again the next day and there were no concerns. Mrs B was again updated and advised there was no evidence to suggest C was at risk at MGM’s. Mrs B felt C should be at his paternal grandmother’s home (PGM), and that the Council should arrange this. She was advised that this was a matter for Mrs B herself.
11. There were more calls of a similar nature over the next few days and weeks. Mrs B wanted C removed from MGM’s and was reminded she had agreed to him being there, and that the Council had no grounds to remove him. A family group conference was offered to support the family to find solutions to the issues, but Mrs B declined this. Mrs B asked the police for a harbouring notice or an abduction notice: the police considered there was no immediate threat to C, and it was a matter for social services to deal with. The social worker visited C at school, and he said he was happy at his MGM’s house. The Council continued to try to work towards getting agreement to a family group conference.
12. On 8 May C left his MGM’s home and went to the home of his girlfriend, X. He was reported as saying he wanted to kill himself. The police were involved, and all parties agreed he could stay there for the night, with a view to preventing him absconding.
13. On 15 May Mrs B told the Council that X’s boyfriend, Y, was being released from prison at the end of the week and she felt there could be trouble. There is a service commissioned by the Council, the county council and the police to deliver early work and targeted support with families; it supports children and young people in unhealthy relationships, victims of child sexual abuse and children missing from home. Mrs B asked the Council for a referral for support for her son from this service, which she felt would be needed if X ended her relationship with him.
14. At the end of May Mrs B told the Council she was going abroad on holiday and that she had agreed with X’s mother that C would be staying there. After her return from holiday Mrs B told the Council she had ‘had enough’ and that C could stay where he liked.
15. The Council had completed its Child and Family Assessment process on 24 May 2018. It noted: “There are no concerns in respect of [C]’s safeguarding. During the many visits that have been completed to the family and [C] in school, it is his view of boundaries and his relationships which are of concern. Evidently there needs to be works completed with [C] around what is a healthy relationship and the importance of maintaining these with peers and family members. This can be completed by the local authority, Catch 22, and the school”. The family was to be supported by a Child in Need Plan.
16. At a Child in Need meeting held on 20 June the proposal was that the case should be closed as the case was not deemed to meet the safeguarding threshold and early help support could meet the identified need. The case was not closed at this point and C remained open to social services as a Child in Need. The Council’s records show further communication with other agencies including the police over the summer, as well as some telephone contact with Mrs B and liaison with the school and reference to early help provision there. A new social worker was allocated to C’s case and a visit made to him again confirmed no safeguarding concerns in respect of where he was living.
17. The Council prepared a draft Child in Need plan which noted there were no current safeguarding concerns for C. He had made clear he did not want contact with his mother but was having positive contact with his PGM as well as his stepfather. Draft outcomes were for C to have access to support around emotional wellbeing and mental health and to be encouraged to work with Healthy Minds in school. At a CSE panel meeting on 25 October, the decision was made that C no longer needed to be open to the panel as he was deemed low risk.
18. During October Mrs B raised concerns that C was being used by X’s mother as a babysitter when she and X were out, and she also had concerns that C was associating with an older male whom she thought could be a drug user or dealer.
    The Council continued to make visits to see C, at school and at home, including unannounced visits to see him at X’s house. C said he was happy where he was.
19. On 8 November Mrs B called the Council again. She said after X had accused C of sexual assault which had resulted in him leaving her house, he had been staying at his MGM’s house but had now absconded again. Mrs B again asked the Council to take her son into care. The police located C at X’s house. The Council spoke to the police and confirmed that X’s mother said he could stay overnight there: there were no other females present. Further calls throughout the following day indicated that C had a friend he could stay with over the weekend and that Mrs B was happy with this arrangement after speaking to his friend’s mother. Social workers visited C at his friend’s home that evening and over the weekend, and on Sunday C returned to his PGM’s home, facilitated by the Council.

Analysis

20. The Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
21. The statutory guidance “Working together to safeguard children” says: “Understanding risk involves judgement and balance. To manage risks, social workers and other professionals should make decisions with the best interests of the child in mind, informed by the evidence available and underpinned by knowledge of child development.”
22. It is very clear that in this case there were considerable differences of opinion between Mrs B and her son C about how safe he was and how he was being treated. It is also clear that this is a difficult situation Mrs B given that her son chose to live away from the family home and with people she did not feel were suitable. However, it is the case that at the age of 15 C was able to make his own choices (even as a minor), and he was clear in expressing his views about where he wanted to be. The Council’s role was to consider any risk to C, and what action might be appropriate in light of any identified risks. It exercised professional judgment in its decision making in this regard, and as set out at paragraph 3 it is not the Ombudsman’s role to question such decisions where these have not been affected by administrative fault. I find no such fault here. The evidence shows the Council responded to concerns Mrs B raised about her son’s welfare, but that it did not agree with her views about what action should be taken. The Council was not obliged to agree to Mrs B’s request to take her son into care, which it considered there were no grounds to do, and it had neither the duty nor the power to physically bring him back to her house from where he was staying. Mrs B’s assertion that the Council closed his case when it did not know where C was or whether he was safe is incorrect.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman