Summary: Mr X complained the Council had not addressed all the concerns he raised about the parenting of his children by their mother. He was also unhappy with the decision to stop the child protection plan and support the children using a child in need plan. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not address all the concerns he raised about the parenting of his children by their mother, Ms M. He is also unhappy with the Council’s decision to replace the child protection plan with a child in need plan in March 2019.

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. 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 spoke to Ms R, who is representing Mr X, and considered the information they provided.
6. I considered information the Council provided in response to my enquiries, including the case notes and records from key meetings.
7. I considered relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. The law says where a council has reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm it should make enquiries to enable it to decide whether it should take action to protect the child’s welfare, such as the use of a child protection plan. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
10. When a child is subject to a child protection plan an independent reviewing officer (IRO) is appointed to monitor the actions in the plan. The IRO chairs the review child protection conferences (RCPC) to which the child’s parents and relevant professionals are invited. In between conferences there are core group meetings, attended by a smaller group, which includes the allocated social worker and the child’s parents.
11. A child who is not at risk of significant harm may still be a child in need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. This states the council may decide they are a child in need if:
• He is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; or
• His health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support: or
• He is disabled.

Background

12. Mr X was separated from Ms M with whom he has three children. The children lived partly with Mr X and partly with Ms M. A court order set out the residence arrangements for the children. It stated when the children were with Mr X there should be telephone contact between the children and Ms M. Similarly, when the children were with Ms M there should be telephone contact between the children and Mr X.
13. Mr X consistently raised concerns about Ms M’s parenting of the children. He said he wanted the children to live with him full time. Communication between Mr X and Ms M was difficult throughout, particularly around telephone contact between the children and the other parent.
14. In July 2018, the Council decided the children should be supported using a child protection plan. I investigated the period from September 2018, when we issued a final decision on Mr X’s previous complaint. and late March 2019 when the Council decided to replace the child protection plan with a child in need plan.

What happened

15. In September 2018, officer 1, a social worker, listened to recordings Mr X provided to support his view the children were at risk of emotional harm when living with Ms M. The record shows officer 1 agreed the recordings were difficult to listen to. It was not clear when the recordings were made. Officer 1 confirmed that, as part of the child protection plan there would be unannounced visits and direct work with the family to address concerns. Records show Officer 1 shared their concerns about the recordings with Ms M who accepted she sometimes struggled to manage her emotions. As part of the child protection plan, Ms M attended sessions on healthy relationships to help her work through past experiences and understand how her emotions might impact on the children. Ms M also engaged with support for her mental health.
16. Also in September 2018, Mr X reported a concern about contact between the children and Mr A, the husband of a friend of Ms M’s. Council records show it considered this and decided the children should not have unsupervised contact with Mr A. Mr X raised a further concern about contact with Mr A in January 2019. Officer 1 explored this with Mrs A, who said Mr A had not been alone with the children and provided video evidence to support this.
17. Mr X also reported concerns that Ms M had told the children to lie and had punished one of the children for telling him about this. Mr X also reported the children had been bitten by fleas. Council records show it considered these concerns at the core group meeting in October 2018. It gave Ms M advice about appropriate action to address the issue of fleas.
18. As part of the child protection plan officer 2 met Mr X to carry out work about the impact of parental conflict on the children. At the initial meeting in November 2018 Mr X was able to share his concerns about Ms M’s parenting going back to 2009.
19. In December 2018 Mr X reported further concerns about flea bites that had happened when the children were living with Ms M. This was discussed at the core group meeting in December 2018 and Ms M was given further advice about this. Although the problem was not completely resolved at this point, records show the Council was satisfied Ms X was taking appropriate action, including keeping the cat outside and rehousing the dog.
20. Mr X met officer 2 in early January 2019 and raised further concerns about Ms M’s parenting, including Ms M having told off one of the children on Christmas Day for preferring Mr X’s presents. He said it would be better if the children lived with him.
21. Also in January Mr X reported concerns about Ms M asking the children to say they were unwell when in fact Ms M was unwell and was unable to take them to school. Council records show Officer 1 discussed this with Ms M and the school. The school also spoke to the children, who confirmed they were not sick. The school said the children were not regularly missing school. Officer 2 discussed Mr X’s concerns. He suggested Mr X could assist in such situations by taking the children to school himself, which Mr X was not willing to do when the children were with their mother.
22. Mr X also reported concerns about Mr P, Ms M’s former partner, spending time at Ms M’s house when the children were there, contrary to the safety plan. The records show Officer 1 raised this with Ms M who denied Mr P had been there in the evening or overnight. I have seen a record of a discussion between Officer 1 and the child who reported Mr P had been at the house. The child said they had made a mistake about Mr P being in the house.
23. In February Mr X said he was not happy that Mrs A planned to attend the core group meeting to support Ms M. This was because of his concerns about Mr A. He said he would not attend the meeting if Mrs A was present. Officer 1 said the meeting would not be split because it was important for everyone to work together and the meeting was an opportunity for concerns to be discussed. She asked Mr X to reconsider but the records show he did not attend the meeting.
24. In mid February, Mr X sent a report of his concerns to the independent reviewing officer (IRO), who was to chair the review child protection conference (RCPC) in late March. The IRO replied that Mr X’s concerns would be discussed at the RCPC but in the meantime Mr X should continue to report any concerns to officer 1. The IRO also sent officer 1 Mr X’s email setting out his concerns. Mr X also sent officer 1 a further email setting out his concerns.
25. In late February, officer 1, sent a long email to Mr X which addressed the following concerns:
• Ms M asking the children to say they were unwell when that was not true. Officer 1 and the school had spoken to Ms M about this;
• Problems with telephone contact were not resolved: officer 1 indicated she would like both parents to agree a plan at the next meeting they both attended;
• It was not appropriate to prevent contact between the children and Mrs A. It was unclear what risks Mr A posed but it was agreed he would not have contact with the children on his own, and advice had been given to Mr and Mrs A about future contact;
• Officer 1 had spoken to Ms M who said Mr P had not visited her home and stayed overnight. Officer 1 had also spoken to the child who reported this, who said they were unsure if Mr P had stayed overnight and had not actually seen him. Mr P had not been at the house at any point when unannounced visits were made and there were no further reports of him being there;
• Officer 1 confirmed one child had said they wanted to spend more time with Mr X and understood Mr X was considering seeking legal advice about this;
• Ms M was working with another officer on her communication with the children and officer 1 had also had discussions Ms M about this. Officer 1 said she had visited the home regularly and said there were many positive aspects of Ms M’s relationship with the children;
• Ms M was accessing support for her mental health and the worker supporting her would attend the RCPC in March;
26. In summary, officer 1 said they recognised “vulnerabilities” in Ms M’s parenting, which were being addressed. Officer 1 said the children were feeling caught in the middle of their two parents. Officer 1 suggested both parents should work together, including being honest about worries, and that if both attended meetings a social worker could possibly mediate between them. Officer 1 acknowledged Mr X’s wish for the children to live with him full time but the evidence did not support court action by the Council. Officer 1 also referred to discussions with Mr X about private court action.
27. On the same day, Mr X reported concerns that Ms M was leaving the children to care for their younger sibling whilst she had a bath or a sleep, which he considered was inappropriate.
28. Officer 3 became the allocated social worker on 1 March 2019, replacing officer 1.
29. Mr X sent a further report of his concerns about Ms M’s parenting to the IRO on 17 March 2019, for discussion with the professionals at the RCPC in late March. Mr X later complained his report was not shared with professionals and was not discussed at the RCPC. Mr X also complained the social worker had not included all his concerns in their report for the RCPC.
30. In response to my enquiries the IRO said Mr X had not asked him to share the report with professionals in advance of the RCPC. The IRO provided evidence the report was shared with the new social worker, officer 3, who confirmed Mr X had not raised any new issues. The IRO recollected mentioning the report at the RCPC and was “surprised” this was not recorded in the RCPC records. However, he said the report contained about 20 points for possible discussion and it was not possible to discuss them all at the RCPC. The IRO tried to focus on the essential issues around the children’s safety. The RCPC records show some but not all Mr X’s concerns were discussed in the meeting. The records also show all the professionals agreed a child in need plan was appropriate.
31. Mr X complained in late March and the Council responded at stage 1 of its complaints process in April. Mr X complained at stage 2 in May 2019. He said:
• The chair withheld information that indicated the children were suffering neglect;
• The new social worker had failed to provide an accurate record of his concerns;
• Many of his concerns had not been addressed, some of which were continuing.
32. The Council responded to the complaint in July 2019. It explained why Mr X’s concerns were not all discussed at the RCPC. It said the professionals had noted the children gave different accounts of events to each parent. It confirmed all the professionals involved supported a child in need plan. It went on to address each of the specific concerns Mr X had raised in this complaint.
33. Ms R, representing Mr X with the complaint to us, said they were concerned the Council was not listening to the children.

My findings

34. Where safeguarding concerns are reported to a council, a social worker should consider them and decide what action, if any, is appropriate. Depending on what the Council already knows about the family and what work it is doing with them, it may be the information is simply recorded and the Council decides no specific action is need. We cannot question the merits of each decision made if the Council has taken it correctly. On the basis of the information seen, I am satisfied the Council has considered Mr X’s concerns and taken appropriate steps to respond to Mr X to explain its position and the action it has taken, if any. I have seen no evidence of fault.
35. The records of the core group meeting on 1 March 2019 do not show that Mr X’s concerns about Ms M’s parenting, sent to the IRO and officer 1 in mid February, were discussed. However, the record does not need to record everything that was discussed. Many of the concerns were not new and officer 1 had responded to Mr X at length about his concerns in late February. Further, it was open to Mr X to attend the meeting and raise any concerns he had. Taking all those factors into account I do not consider the Council was at fault.
36. Although Mr X’s report to the IRO in March 2019 was not shared with all professionals involved, it was shared with officer 3, who confirmed it did not raise any new issues. Officer 3’s report did not include all the concerns Mr X had raised but it presents a balanced picture of the case, based on the records seen. I have not seen evidence of fault.
37. At the RCPC the IRO gave both parents an opportunity to share any concerns they had and some of Mr X’s concerns were discussed. Although Mr X’s report was not shared with professionals before the meeting, the IRO had checked that it did not raise any new issues not already considered by social workers. I do not consider this amounted to fault.
38. The RCPC record shows all the professionals agreed the children could be supported through a child in need plan. It is not my role to say whether this decision was correct. There was no fault in the decision-making process and so I cannot comment on the decision itself.
39. The records show the professionals met the children regularly to ascertain their wishes and feelings. The children reported they felt caught between their parents. Professionals responded by trying to improve communication between the parents, especially around telephone contact. Throughout the period I have investigated the Council explored ways to support the telephone contact, although with mixed results. I am satisfied the Council did seek the children’s wishes and feelings and responded to what the children said. I am also satisfied the Council took appropriate action to deal with the issues around telephone contact. The Council was not at fault.
40. The telephone contact was set out in a court order and it is open to Mr X to consider further legal action.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I have not found evidence of fault.
42. 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

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman