• The complaint
• What I have investigated
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Analysis
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his request to care for his sibling, Child A, and for not keeping him informed of its actions while Child A was on a child protection plan. The Council could have done more to keep Mr X informed but was not at fault for not progressing his request to care for Child A. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and review its procedures for keeping wider family members informed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr X, complains that:

• he asked to care for his sister in October 2018, but this has not been progressed;
• the Council ‘tried to keep him in the dark’ about meetings in relation to his sister; and;
• he has lost contact with his siblings because of the Council’s actions.

2. Mr X says this has caused him and his family considerable distress and anguish. He would like the Council to review its practices and to apologise to him and his family.
3. Mr X says the Council told him his stepmother held parental responsibility for his sister, when this is not the case according to the courts.
4. Mr X wanted us to focus on the actions of one particular Social Worker, who Mr X considers acted inappropriately in their dealings with him.

Back to top

What I have investigated

5. I have investigated the complaints Mr X has made set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
6. I have not investigated the complaint in paragraph 3 as this is not a complaint for Mr X to make. I understand Mr X’s father has (or will be) making a complaint about this issue.
7. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about the Council corporately rather than in respect of the actions of an individual employee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
9. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
10. 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)
11. 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

12. I have considered the information Mr X has provided in support of his complaints and the notes made by a colleague who spoke to him.
13. I have considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I am however limited in the information I can share with Mr X about this, given he does not have parental responsibility for his sister and some of the information I have considered is confidential to other parties.
14. 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.
15. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance

16. The Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children sets out the council’s responsibilities to safeguard children.
17. The Children Act 1989 says that, “where a local authority…have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, the authority shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.” (The Children Act 47(1)).
18. Councils should hold a strategy meeting when they are concerned the threshold for child protection enquiries is met. If the threshold is met, an initial child protection conference must take place within 15 working days of the strategy meeting. The core group should meet within 10 days of the initial child protection conference and then, at a minimum of every 6 weeks. The Council should hold the first child protection review within 3 months of the initial conference. The Council should hold further reviews at intervals of no more than 6 months for as long as the child remains subject of a child protection plan. (Working Together to Safeguard Children)
19. Membership of the core group will have been identified at the initial child protection conference and must include:

• the lead social worker/first line manager;
• the child if appropriate;
• parents and relevant family members;
• professionals involved with the child and/or parent(s); and,
• foster carers or residential care staff who will have direct contact with the family.

20. Core groups are an important forum for working with parents, wider family members, and children of sufficient age and understanding. Where there are conflicts of interest between family members in the work of the core group, the child's best interests should always take precedence. Any minutes of core group meetings will be shared only with those attending.
21. It is the duty of every council to ensure that the welfare of children who are privately fostered within their area is being satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted. The council must also arrange to visit privately fostered children at regular intervals.

Background

22. The Council became involved with the family in 2017 when Mr X’s sister, Child A, made a disclosure about her and Mr X’s biological father, Mr Y. Child A at the time shared her time living with Mr Y and her stepmother (Mrs Z), who had separated. Mr Y and Mrs Z had two younger children, Child B and Child C, who lived with Mrs Z. Mr Y was to have no direct or indirect contact with Child A following her disclosure and she remained in Mrs Z’s care. Child A was 14 at the time of this disclosure. The Council assessed Child B and Child C and decided there was no risk of harm in them both remaining in Mrs Z’s care.
23. In September 2018, Child A’s school made a safeguarding referral following her disclosure about an incident between her and Mrs Z. Mrs Z had arranged for Child A to stay with a family friend following the incident. The Council placed Child A on a child protection plan following a strategy meeting that found she was at significant risk of harm if she returned to Mrs Z’s care. The placement with the family friend was a private fostering arrangement.
24. On 16 October 2018, Mr X indicated that he and his wife would like to care for Child A. The Council completed police checks on 25 October 2018. In February 2019, Child A agreed for the Council to invite Mr X to attend meetings about her care. Mr X attended family group conferences, core group meetings from this point. The Council also shared minutes of meetings or plans emerging from meeting discussions with Mr X. These plans included details of where Child A wished to live.
25. On 17 June 2019, the lead Social Worker visited Mr X’s home with the intention of completing a home visit to check arrangements for Child A to stay with Mr X and his wife overnight. The Social Worker left without completing the home visit as Mr X said the appointment had not been made with him.
26. Child A remained in her private foster placement with the family friend until July 2019, when she moved to live with her maternal uncle, who lived outside of the Council’s area. Child A remained on a Child in Need Plan with the Council until September 2019, when it completed the transfer to the council where Child A now lives.

Back to top

Analysis

27. The Council’s records show it took steps to assess Mr X and his wife’s suitability to care for Child A. It undertook police checks and sought to complete a home visit as part of the process to check Mr X and his wife’s home was suitable for meeting Child A’s needs. The Council sought the views of all those concerned and involved in the care of Child A in deciding what was appropriate and in her best interests. More importantly, the Council sought and focussed on Child A’s views and wishes about where she wanted to live. This was the correct approach given Child A’s age and was in line with statutory guidance. I do not consider the Council was at fault for not progressing its assessment of Mr X and his wife. The Council’s records show it prioritised Child A wishes and interests.
28. Mr X was unhappy the Council had not given him copies of notes or minutes of previous meetings about Child A’s care. The Council was not at fault as such minutes should only be shared with those who attended. From the point when Child A agreed for Mr X to attend meetings, the Council says it has provided him with copies of meeting notes or plans that emerged. There was no injustice caused to Mr X here.
29. Mr X complained the Council did not invite him to meetings about Child A, once she had agreed to his attendance. The Council says it does not send invites to core group meetings. It explained that any member of a core group that has missed a meeting can ask the lead Social Worker for the time and date of the next meeting. The Council also explained that in this case, Mr X was in contact with Child A and her foster carer, and therefore would have been able to obtain details of upcoming meetings from them.
30. I am not convinced the Council’s current approach is helpful. Mr X has indicated and complained to the Council about the difficulties he experienced in his interactions with the lead Social Worker in Child A’s case. Provided Child A continued to want Mr X to attend meetings with her, the Council in my view should have sought to invite him to all the core group meetings Child A attended. Not to do so was fault as it was not in accordance with Child A’s wishes. The lack of invites caused Mr X frustration, which my recommended action seeks to address.
31. Mr X has also complained to the Council about the home visit the Social Worker attempted to make in July 2019. While the Council says it discussed and arranged for the visit with Mr X at the Review Child Protection Conference on 13 June 2019, its records do not include details of this. In the absence of clear evidence, it is not possible to determine whether the home visit was discussed or agreed by Mr X. While this was fault, I am not persuaded it caused Mr X significant injustice to warrant recommending a personal remedy.
32. While there is no doubt Mr X was upset by what happened, the Social Worker respected Mr X’s wishes by not proceeding with the visit. Ultimately, the home visit was required to progress Child A’s wish to stay overnight with Mr X, which he also wanted. I do not therefore agree that the Council’s actions caused Mr X significant injustice. I have however recommended action for the Council to take to avoid recurrence of this issue.
33. Mr X has complained that his access to Child B and Child C has been hindered by the Council’s actions. The Council undertook appropriate assessments for these children and determined they were not at risk of harm in Mrs Z’s care. As these children are not the subject of child protection or child in need plans, the Council was not involved in their care or who they have contact with. Mr X will need to pursue action in court if he wishes to have access and contact with Child B and Child C.

Agreed action

34. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by not formally inviting him to meetings about Child A (following her agreement).
35. Within three months, the Council will also:

• review its procedures with a view to issuing invitations to core group members where they may have missed the previous meeting (and are required or expected to attend); and,
• review record keeping procedures to ensure key actions, such as appointments for announced home visits, are recorded and written confirmation is sent to the person being visited.

36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has completed the above recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. Mr X has been caused injustice by the actions of the Council and it has agreed to take action to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page