London Borough of Barnet (19 001 728)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 11 Oct 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council was not at fault in the actions it took to protect Miss B’s daughter from harm. Its assessments of risk were evidence-based and conducted in consultation with practitioners from other agencies. It followed national guidance and regional procedures, and responded to developments over the course of the child protection plan. When it decided the risk to Miss B’s daughter had reduced, it ended its involvement. There is no evidence to support Miss B’s complaints.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, complains about the Council’s actions during its social work involvement with her daughter. I refer to her daughter as C.
  2. Miss B says the Council made C the subject of a child protection (CP) plan without good reasons or evidence. She says she swore at social workers when they visited her, but this did not justify a CP plan, and there were no other CP concerns.
  3. Miss B says the Council claimed she had relapsed into drug use, which was not true, as she has been drug-free for around 13 years. She says the Council conducted no drug or psychiatric testing to support its decision-making.
  4. Miss B says the Council ended the CP plan early and without assessment.
  5. Miss B says the Council made a false report about her to the Police, which resulted in her arrest and detainment.
  6. Miss B says different social workers had different views about the risks she posed, which is proof of the Council’s inconsistent approach.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Miss B about her complaint and considered the information she provided.
  2. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
  3. I considered the government’s 2018 statutory guidance on inter-agency children’s safeguarding, ‘Working together to safeguard children’.
  4. I considered the ‘London child protection procedures and practice guidance’.
  5. I wrote to Miss B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. I have looked at each part of Miss B’s complaint in turn.

The Council made C the subject of a CP plan without good reasons or evidence

What should have happened?

  1. The London CP procedures say a council must arrange a CP conference when it has decided (following a section 47 enquiry) that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.
  2. A social work manager is responsible for deciding to arrange a CP conference. They must record their reasons.

What happened?

  1. On 6 September 2018 the Council received a referral from the Police. The referral said Miss B had visited a friend’s house late at night and threatened to smash his windows. She then damaged some items and emptied a bin bag into his garden. C was present throughout.
  2. The Council decided this incident, as well as past concerns about Miss B’s parenting of her older children, justified further assessment.
  3. The Council’s social worker contacted Miss B to discuss the assessment. However, she said she would not allow visits and would not engage with the assessment.
  4. The Council visited Miss B anyway. She confirmed that she would not engage with the assessment, and told C never to speak to a social worker who visited her at school. She then asked the Council’s social workers to leave her home.
  5. Shortly after this, Miss B told the Council that she had been the victim of an assault by C’s father (who did not live with her). She said C was present during the assault.
  6. The Council visited Miss B again on 18 September. She said she would not allow it to seek information about her and C from other agencies. She said, again, that she would not engage with the assessment. The Council told her it had serious concerns about C, which could possibly lead to a CP conference. Miss B said the Council should go to court if it wanted access to C.
  7. On 20 September the Council consulted a CP conference reviewing officer to gain advice on whether C was at risk of significant harm. The Council summarised its concerns, which included that:
    • Miss B had exposed C to recent domestic abuse incidents;
    • C had told a social worker that these incidents made her sad and scared;
    • Miss B had shown no insight into her behaviour or its impact on C;
    • There was a long history of social work involvement with the family, including with Miss B’s older children and with Miss B herself; and
    • Miss B had repeatedly said she would not engage with the Council’s assessment.
  8. The conference reviewing officer suggested the concerns met the ‘significant harm’ threshold.
  9. Shortly after this, the Council spoke to Miss B on the telephone. She refused access to C, refused her consent for the Council to seek information from other agencies, and refused further social work visits. She said she would not comply with a CP plan.
  10. The Council completed its section 47 enquiry on 25 September. A manager recorded that C was likely to be at risk of suffering significant harm, and that a CP conference should consider this risk.
  11. The CP conference took place on 9 October. Attendees (the independent Chair, the Council, Miss B and other professionals involved with the family) considered all the information provided by different agencies. They also considered Miss B’s contribution to the meeting. All attendees except Miss B decided C was at risk of suffering significant harm.
  12. The Chair agreed and issued a CP plan under the category of emotional abuse.

My findings

  1. If, following a section 47 (CP) enquiry, a council believes a child is likely to suffer significant harm, it must arrange a CP conference. A manager must record the reasons.
  2. The Ombudsman has limited powers to question a decision based on professional opinion. There must have been fault in how the council made the decision, or it must have been ‘unreasonable’ (a ‘reasonable’ authority would not have made it). This threshold is understandably high.
  3. In C’s case a manager reviewed the identified risks, decided they justified a CP conference, and recorded why. There is evidence on C’s case record to support each of the Council’s reasons for the conference, and it acted within its powers.
  4. This means there was no fault in how the Council decided a CP conference should consider the risk of harm to C.
  5. Because of the evidence supporting the Council’s decision, and – afterwards – the conference’s decision that C was at risk of significant harm, I do not see how the Council’s actions were ‘unreasonable’.
  6. This means I cannot question the decision to arrange the conference.
  7. CP conferences are multi-agency forums which are not, in themselves, bodies in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. But conferences only play an advisory role in decision-making. A council has the final decision about a CP plan, and a conference Chair has the power to overrule a conference’s recommendations.
  8. However, the Ombudsman usually considers it reasonable for a council to follow the recommendations of a CP conference unless there are good reasons not to. ‘Good reasons’ may include significant mistakes in information provided to a conference, or attendees misunderstanding the issues or risks. Parental disagreement is not, in itself, a good reason to ignore professional consensus.
  9. In my view, C’s case records do not provide any reasons which would have justified the conference Chair overruling the conference’s unanimous recommendation for a CP plan.
  10. Because of this, I have not found fault with the Council’s decision to issue the plan.

The Council wrongly claimed Miss B had relapsed into drug use, but conducted no drug or psychiatric testing to support its decision-making

What happened?

  1. In September 2018 the Council received the Police referral about Miss B (described in paragraph 18 of this decision statement). It decided this incident, as well as past concerns about Miss B’s parenting of her older children, justified further assessment.
  2. When referring the case for further assessment, the referring officer suggested that drug use could be a reason for Miss B’s behaviour.
  3. The Council completed its assessment in October. The assessment set out information received from health services, which said Miss B had “No recorded issues [with] drugs for over 20 years”.
  4. In the CP conference minutes, the Council recorded that Miss B had been drug-free for 12 years. The Chair noted that Miss B’s past drug use was relevant to why her older children were no longer in her care, but this was not a current concern.
  5. The Council formed C’s CP plan at the core group meeting following the conference. The plan contained no reference to Miss B’s drug use. However, one point on the plan was for Miss B to access mental health services. Miss B agreed to this.
  6. The Council updated its assessment in December 2018, and then held a review CP conference. Neither the assessment nor the updated CP plan referred to concerns about drug use.
  7. In January 2019 Miss B told a core group meeting that she had been to her GP, and had been referred to therapy.
  8. In March the Council updated its assessment and said C was no longer at risk of significant harm. It held an early review CP conference and ended the CP plan.

My findings

  1. Miss B has been open about her past drug use, but says she has not used drugs for many years.
  2. When the Council first received the referral, the officer who recommended further assessment suggested a relapse may have explained Miss B’s behaviour.
  3. It turned out this was not the case. However, at that point the Council did not know whether Miss B had relapsed or not. It was under the duty to consider risk, and it decided that – with Miss B’s history in mind, as well as her recent behaviour – the possibility of relapse justified further assessment.
  4. The Council was not saying Miss B was using drugs, only that she could be. Further assessment found she was not. Neither the Council (after the referral) nor the CP conference believed drug use by Miss B was a risk to C.
  5. This was not fault by the Council.
  6. I agree that no drug testing took place. However, as the Council had no concerns about drug use, there was no reason to recommend testing.
  7. Although Miss B says there was ‘no psychiatric assessment’ (despite the Council’s concerns about her mental health), the Council clearly asked Miss B to go to her GP to discuss this. By January 2019 she had been referred to therapy.
  8. The Council decided this was satisfactory, and – after a review CP conference – closed the case.
  9. This shows the Council recommended action to reduce the risk to C, considered the results, and decided the risk had reduced. I have seen nothing which suggests the Council failed to explore issues which it had identified as risks.
  10. As a result, I have found no fault with the Council.

The Council ended the CP plan early and without assessment

What should have happened?

  1. The London CP procedures say that, when a CP conference is to take place, a council must conduct an assessment and provide the information and analysis in that assessment to the conference.
  2. A child may not need a continued CP plan if a review conference decides they are no longer at risk of significant harm. If a core group of professionals thinks this may be the case, the Council should consider holding the review conference early.
  3. If a CP plan ends, the Council must consider what services the child needs, based on its most recent assessment. If the child needs support, the Council must develop a ‘child in need’ (CIN) plan.

What happened?

  1. In January 2019 the Council held a core group meeting, attended by the professionals who were in contact with C. The attendees of the meeting agreed that C may no longer be at risk of significant harm.
  2. The Council updated its assessment in March 2019. It said C’s next CP conference should take place early, and the CP plan should end.
  3. The Council shared this assessment with Miss B on 4 March.
  4. The review CP conference took place on 5 March (the original date of the review had been 21 May). All attendees decided C was no longer at risk of significant harm, and said her CP plan should end.
  5. The Council considered developing a CIN plan for C. However, Miss B had told the conference that she would not engage with this plan.
  6. The Council recorded that, as engagement with a CIN plan is voluntary and C was not at risk of significant harm, the case should close.
  7. The Council closed C’s case in April.

My findings

  1. Miss B’s complaint is that C’s CP plan ended without assessment.
  2. A council must complete an assessment before a review CP conference, even if it is intending to end the CP plan. If a core group thinks a child is no longer at risk of significant harm, the council should consider holding the conference early.
  3. In C’s case the core group did think she was no longer at risk of significant harm. The Council arranged an early CP conference to consider this, in line with the London CP procedures.
  4. Before the conference the Council updated its assessment and shared it with Miss B. It then discussed a CIN plan with Miss B, but she refused it.
  5. This means – in contrast to what Miss B says in her complaint – the Council assessed C before ending her CP plan, and offered continued support. It is not accurate to suggest the Council simply ended the plan without any assessment or other consideration.
  6. Because of this, I have found no fault with the Council.

The Council made a false report about Miss B to the Police, which resulted in her arrest and detainment

What should have happened?

  1. ‘Working together to safeguard children’ says effective information-sharing between agencies is essential for the early identification of children in need or at risk.
  2. Practitioners working with children should proactively share information about a child’s welfare as early as possible. If they think a child is in need or at risk of significant harm, they should tell the child’s local council (as the safeguarding authority) and/or the Police.
  3. If a council thinks a crime has been committed, it should tell the Police.

What happened?

  1. In January 2018 Miss B told the Council, in a telephone call, that she had found her adopted daughter and was unhappy with the care her daughter’s adoptive family was providing. Miss B said she intended to go to her daughter’s home and stab her adoptive mother. Miss B said she knew the address and had spent time in prison for violent crimes.
  2. The Council told the Police and Miss B’s daughter’s local council about its telephone call with Miss B.
  3. Miss B says the Police then arrested and detained her.

My findings

  1. If any children’s practitioner receives information which suggests a child may be at risk of significant harm, they must share this with the child’s local council. If they think a crime has been committed, they must tell the Police.
  2. The decision to arrest Miss B was the Police’s, and therefore I cannot look at it. However, I have considered whether the Council was at fault for reporting the matter.
  3. The Council’s records show that Miss B threatened to stab her daughter’s adoptive mother. This was a clear risk of significant harm to her daughter (who was at risk of witnessing serious violence), and a statement of intent to commit a crime.
  4. This meant the Council was under the duty to report the threat to the Police and to Miss B’s daughter’s local council – which it did.
  5. This was not fault by the Council.

Different social workers had different views about the risks Miss B posed, which is proof of the Council’s inconsistent approach

  1. Three social workers worked on C’s case. The first held the case until the first CP conference; the second until the first review conference; and the third until case closure.
  2. A council is not necessarily at fault simply because its practitioners hold different views to each other. The same is true if they change their views over time.
  3. However, practitioners should record and explain their views, and these views should be evidence-based.
  4. In C’s case, the Council had concerns, as did other professionals. Miss B refused to engage with the Council’s first assessment, and it believed C may have been at risk of significant harm. As I have set out earlier in this decision statement, this view was supported by evidence and by other professionals (in the first CP conference in October 2018).
  5. By January 2019, however, things had changed. Miss B had engaged with the CP plan and had sought a therapy referral from her GP. The Council felt the action points on the CP plan were complete and the risk to C had reduced. Because of this, it decided a CP plan was no longer necessary. This change in position was also supported by evidence and by other professionals.
  6. This evolution of the Council’s view does not mean its original view was wrong. It simply means that, over time, it had the opportunity to assess the risk to C and to recommend actions to reduce that risk. At the same time, Miss B had the opportunity to act on those recommendations.
  7. On review, the Council (and others) decided C was no longer likely to suffer significant harm. This meant, in effect, the CP plan had achieved its objectives. This was not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There is no evidence to support Miss B’s complaints. The Council was not at fault in the actions it took to protect C from harm.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings