Summary: Ms F complains about the way the Council handled safeguarding allegations relating to her children. There was fault in the way meetings were arranged. The Council has already apologised for this which remedies the injustice caused. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the rest of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms F complains about the way her children were taken from her care. She says the decision was unexpected and she was unable to say goodbye to them. She says this caused her significant distress and trauma and has affected her confidence as a mother.
2. Ms F also complains that five core group meetings were cancelled, rescheduled, or the social worker did not attend, and that she was given a new social worker without being prepared for this. This has caused her inconvenience as she has had to reschedule her work and has lost working hours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Ms F about her complaint and considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and:
• The Children Act 1989 (“the Act”)
• Statutory Guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children 2015 (“the Guidance”)
• Statutory Guidance Getting the best from complaints
• Essex safeguarding and child protection procedures
7. I sent Ms F and the Council my draft decision and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

8. The Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. Local authorities have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
9. If a local authority receives a report of concern about a child, the council must decide within one working day what response is required. This includes determining whether:
• the child requires immediate protection, or
• the child is in need and should be assessed under section 17 of the Act, or
• there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.
10. If the initial assessment suggests the child may be suffering, or be likely to suffer, significant harm, the council should hold a strategy discussion to enable it to decide, with other agencies including the police, whether to initiate safeguarding enquiries under section 47 of the Act. The strategy discussion must consider the child's welfare and safety, identify the level of risk faced by the child, and agree what further action is required.
11. The Procedures say where there is the possibility of serious immediate harm to the child, the Council must act quickly to secure the immediate safety of the child. Immediate protection may be achieved by the child not returning to the home. It should be followed quickly by a section 47 enquiry and an assessment of the needs and circumstances of the child and family as necessary.
12. If concerns of significant harm are substantiated following section 47 enquiries, an initial child protection conference should be convened within 15 working days of the original strategy discussion. This is a multi-disciplinary meeting whose attendees decide what action is needed to safeguard the child. The conference may decide to make the child the subject of a child protection plan which details what action is necessary to reduce the risk of harm.
13. Subsequent review child protection case conference(s) consider progress made and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended or discontinued. It may decide to step down the child protection plan to a child in need plan. A core group of key professionals oversees and monitors the plan at “core group meetings”.

What happened

14. Ms F has two children (X and Y) and was separating from her husband, Mr M. In February 2019, the Council received a report of a concern that X and Y had suffered physical abuse by Ms F.
15. On the day of the alert the Council held a strategy discussion with the police. This decided the children were at risk of significant harm, a safeguarding enquiry would be started, and a safety plan was needed for that day. As Mr M had parental responsibility, the Council decided the children should stay with him that night and not with Ms F.
16. The social worker visited the school to discuss with Ms F, but her parents were collecting X and Y from school that day as Ms F and the children were moving into a new house. The social worker spoke to Ms F on the phone who said she had hit the children. Mr M collected the children from school. Ms F says she went to say goodbye to X and Y but the social worker would not let her see them.
17. The Council asked Mr M to care for the children and made a joint visit to Ms F with the police after the weekend. At a further strategy meeting the Council decided a child protection plan was needed to safeguard X and Y. The protection plan was agreed at an initial child protection conference. It said X and Y would stay with Ms F for two nights a week, and with Mr M and their grandparents for the other nights. Ms F was unhappy with the child protection plan as she was concerned about Mr M’s accommodation and that he had misused drugs.

Monitoring of the child protection plan

18. The case was transferred to a new social worker and there was some confusion over the date of the first core group meeting, which meant Ms F could not attend. It was rearranged for 22 March 2019 but I have seen no evidence it went ahead. The next planned core group in May 2019 also had to be rearranged.
19. The child protection plan was considered at a review conference in May 2019. It was decided to continue with the plan. A core group meeting went ahead on 4 June 2019, though a duty social worker had to attend due to illness and Ms F says she had not been told the date of that meeting.
20. The next core group meeting was due to be held on 2 July 2019 but was cancelled on the day due to a scheduling error meaning some people could not attend.
21. Ms F made a formal complaint that she had not been told about the transfer to a new social worker. She complained that meetings had been cancelled, or the social worker had not arrived or had arrived late. This had caused her inconvenience and she had lost time at work. Ms F also complained about the way X and Y had been removed from her care.
22. The Council responded to the complaint on 17 July 2019. It apologised for the problems with the meetings and social work transfer. Ms F complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

23. When the Council received a report of a concern X and Y had been physically abused, it held a strategy discussion with the police. The discussion considered the information the Council had, X and Y's welfare, and the level of risk they faced. The strategy discussion decided X and Y were at risk of significant harm and that a section 47 enquiry and immediate safety plan was needed that they should not return to Ms F’s care.
24. Whilst I understand Ms F found this distressing, it was a decision the Council was entitled to make. The strategy discussion was held in line with the Guidance and there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was made. This means the Ombudsman cannot question it no matter how much Ms F disagrees with it.
25. It was unfortunate that Ms F was unable to say goodbye to the children, and I accept she found this distressing and that the Council’s actions came as a shock to her. But this was not caused by administrative fault by the Council. The social worker was entitled to use their professional judgment to determine whether the children should see Ms F.
26. When the safeguarding enquiries were completed, the Council decided a child protection plan was required to safeguard X and Y. It is not for the Ombudsman to challenge the Council’s decision when it has been made properly and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way this decision was made.
27. Ms F says her concerns about Mr M’s accommodation and drug misuse were ignored. I have seen evidence that these issues were considered by the Council. It decided the children were not at risk of significant harm whilst with Mr M, and there is no evidence of fault in the way it decided this.
28. There was fault by the Council in the way the case was transferred to a new social worker and in the arrangements for the core group meetings from March to July 2019. This caused inconvenience to Ms F. The Council has already apologised. I consider this to be a suitable and proportionate remedy, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedying distress.

Back to top

Final decision

29. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has already taken remedy the injustice cased. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman