Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council conducted a child and family assessment in May and June 2017. She also complains it did not disclose information about her then partner’s full history of domestic violence during the assessment, nor did it do enough to support her and her children though this assessment and the others which followed. The Council has acknowledged it was at fault for failing to provide Ms X with a copy of the child and family assessment completed in June 2017. Likewise, it was at fault for not recording why C’s father or his childminder were not contacted during the assessment. However, we have found it was not at fault in relation to the other parts of the complaint. It has already acted to remedy the injustice caused by the faults that have been identified. Nevertheless, we recommend it shares this decision with its social workers to prevent these faults from reoccurring. The Council has agreed to carry out this recommendation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Ms X, complains about the way the Council conducted a child and family assessment in May and June 2017. She also complains it did not disclose information about her then partner’s full history of domestic violence during the assessment, nor did it do enough to support her and her children though this assessment and the others which followed.

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. 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)
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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have:
• Read Ms X’s complaint and the information she submitted in support of it;
• Considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided, and;
• Provided both parties with an opportunity to comment on the draft decision and considered the comments that were made.

Back to top

What I found

8. At the beginning of May 2017, a safeguarding referral was made to the Council about Ms X’s then partner, Mr Y. The referral concerned a domestic violence incident involving Mr Y and his ex-partner. At the time, Ms X lived with her two sons, B and C who were aged 11 and four. Both maintained regular contact with their respective fathers.
9. The Council subsequently decided to undertake a child and family assessment. In the middle of June 2017, it completed the assessment and concluded no further action was required.
10. Between March and December 2018, the Council conducted three further child and family assessments and undertook one set of child protection enquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. Throughout this period, C’s father took legal action to obtain custody of his son and was granted an interim care order.
11. In the middle of January 2019, Ms X wrote to the Council to complain about the way it had handled these matters. She reviewed each child and family assessment and listed her concerns about each one.
12. Regarding the assessment completed in June 2017, she said the social worker did not accurately record what happened and she did not receive a copy of the final report until November 2018, meaning she could not question the discrepancies at the time. She said the social worker failed to consult C’s childminder when conducting the assessment. Similarly, she said she did not refuse to provide contact details for her son’s fathers, although she accepted she asked that they were not told the assessment was taking place.
13. In addition, she noted she had not been made aware of Mr Y’s history of domestic violence, despite the Council possessing this information and discussing it in the assessment. Regarding support, she said this was not offered to C when the second assessment was carried out and no referrals were offered or made. Similarly, she noted the assessment stated “the school” were offering support to her via the common assessment framework, but no referral had been offered or made to date.
14. In mid-February 2019, Ms X emailed the Council and stated it was yet to respond to her complaint, even though it had promised to do so by that date. She asked when she could expect to receive a response and noted she was previously told she could escalate her complaint directly to the next stage if a timely response was not given. The Council subsequently emailed Ms X and explained why it had not responded on time. Ms X felt the delay could have been avoided and requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the Council’s procedure.
15. In mid-April 2019, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It apologised for not providing a response at stage one in the timeframe required and stated the officer concerned had been spoken to about the importance of meeting complaint deadlines. Regarding the stage two investigation, it noted this had been undertaken by an independent person and enclosed a copy of her report. In summary, it accepted the findings and recommendations made in the report and stated a note would be attached to the case file so her views about the child and family assessments formed part of the record.
16. The investigation considered Ms X’s complaint in four parts, which included:
• The alleged inaccuracies in the assessments and other Council documentation;
• Her assertion the Council should have informed her about Mr Y’s history of domestic violence and any potential threat that he posed;
• Concerns about the level of support that she and her son needed not being provided, and;
• Concerns about the level of communication and engagement with the Council regarding her case.
17. The independent person partially upheld parts one and four; parts two and three were not upheld. Regarding the first part, she noted the social worker had said in interview that Ms X indicated she did not want C’s childminder to be contacted during the first assessment. However, the independent person acknowledged there was no record of this. She also noted the social worker failed to provide Ms X with a copy of the final assessment, although it was acknowledged the contents had been shared with her at the time. In response to this finding, the independent person recommended that a note of the points Ms X had made be kept on the case file for reference. She also recommended that records were made when parental permissions were not given and the reasons why.
18. Regarding part four, the independent person found some communications were delayed or unsatisfactory and this caused Ms X frustration and angst at the time, given that court proceedings were ongoing. Consequently, she reminded the Council of the need to be proactive when communicating with service users in these types of cases to help them understand what is happening and prevent the escalation of any disagreements which might occur.
19. A few days later, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. Regarding the first child and family assessment, she says it did not speak to her youngest son’s childminder or engage with him when undertaking the assessment. Likewise, she states she did not refuse to give contact details for C’s childminder or his father, as asserted by the social worker. She also notes the social worker failed to provide her with a copy of the final report once complete, adding she only received this in October 2018.
20. She says the Council’s failures have caused her and her two children distress. To remedy this, she wants it to acknowledge its failures and make service improvements to ensure they do not reoccur. Furthermore, she wants it to make financial payments to her family for the distress it caused.

Analysis

21. There are three parts to the complaint that Ms X made to the Ombudsman which I have decided to investigate. I have discussed each part in the sections below and considered whether the Council was at fault.

The first child and family assessment

22. I note Ms X disputes the social worker’s assertion that she refused to provide the contact details of C’s childminder’s during the assessment process. Given the conflicting accounts and the lack of evidence, I am unable to determine which account is correct. However, following the stage two investigation, the Council accepted this alleged refusal was not recorded and should have been.
23. I also note the assessment stated Ms X asked that her children’s respective fathers were not told it was taking place, as they would “have one over her” after she took them to court. I have not seen any explicit reference to her refusing to provide their contact details. Nevertheless, the social worker should have explored, in greater detail, why Ms X did not want the fathers informed of the assessment and recorded the reasons why contact was not made with them.
24. The Council has accepted it was at fault for failing to record these details. In addition, it acknowledges it was at fault for failing to provide a copy of the assessment to Ms X once complete. She states it also failed to engage with C during the assessment process, but I have found no evidence of this.
25. The injustice resulting from these faults was not significant as the assessment concluded there was no risk to the children and no further action was to be taken. I accept they did cause Ms X some frustration, but the Council investigated her concerns and placed a note on the case file detailing the points she disputes. Therefore, the injustice she was caused has been remedied.
26. Despite my findings, it is important the Council takes action to ensure the faults that have been identified do not reoccur. Therefore, I recommend it sends a copy of this decision statement to its social workers so they can learn from the shortcomings in the case. When sending the statement, it should stress the importance of recording parental permissions and the reasons why these may not be given. Similarly, it should highlight the importance of providing parents with a copy of assessments once complete.

Disclosure of Mr Y’s history of domestic violence

27. At the beginning of June 2017, the Council noted that Ms X had been advised to access “Claire’s law”, which is also known as the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme. Under the Scheme, there are two routes through which a disclosure can be made to the partner or ex-partner of someone with a history of domestic violence: one is called the “right to ask” and the other the “right to know”. Both put a duty on the police to act when a request for a disclosure is made, or officers become aware of information which they should consider disclosing.
28. Consequently, I cannot find the Council as at fault because it was not the body responsible for making a disclosure to Ms X. It did the right thing by referring her to the Scheme when it became aware of Mr Y’s background.

Concerns about support

29. I note the independent person did not uphold this part of Ms X’s complaint and found:
• The social worker who assessed C in July 2018 found he was well-supported by both parents and his school;
• The same social worker offered to mediate between Ms X and C’s father whilst court proceedings were ongoing;
• Another social worker felt that any support additional to that detailed above would overwhelm C, and;
• A closure plan written in November 2018 noted the school would continue to work with C to help develop his emotional well-being, confidence and self-esteem.
30. The investigation also noted the Council had never received a request from Ms X for support and was aware she had sought this privately on her own accord. Moreover, it highlighted she had sought counselling privately when she contacted the Council in February 2019 to raise concerns about the level of support she and C were given.
31. I appreciate this was a very difficult period for Ms X and her son, but I have not seen any evidence which indicates she requested support from the Council that was not given. I understand she feels it should have been more proactive in offering support, however the evidence shows it found her and C’s need for support was being met by other agencies and there was nothing further it could do. Therefore, I have found it was not at fault in relation to this part of Ms X’s complaint.

Agreed action

32. The Council has agreed to send a copy of this decision statement to its social workers so they can learn from the shortcomings in the case. When sending the statement, it should stress the importance of recording parental permissions and the reasons why these may not be given. Similarly, it should highlight the importance of providing parents with a copy of assessments once complete.
33. The Council will complete this action within one month of the date of this final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

34. The Council was at fault for failing to provide Ms X with a copy of the child and family assessment completed in June 2017. Likewise, it was at fault for not recording why C’s father or his childminder were not contacted during the assessment. However, it was not at fault in relation to the other parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

35. I did not investigate the part of Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council handled the safeguarding referral she made in December 2018. This is because the courts have already considered this matter. The law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate any matter that has already been considered in court. Therefore, I am unable to investigate this part of the complaint.
36. Likewise, I did not investigate whether the Council properly assessed the mental health of C’s father, which also formed part of the complaint. This is because there is evidence that this matter has already been considered in court.
37. Finally, I did not investigate Ms X’s concerns about the child and family assessments and enquiries conducted after March 2018. This is because she could have raised them in court whilst the legal proceedings were ongoing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman