Surrey County Council (19 007 792)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 26 May 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of a child protection investigation concerning his children. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in that it failed to keep Mr B informed, delayed in transferring the case to a social worker after the initial child protection conference and delayed in acting on his request that it contact his parents for information. It also failed to adequately respond to Mr B’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and pay him £550 in recognition of the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of a child protection investigation concerning his children. In particular, he says the Council:
    • was not proactive in responding to concerns he raised about his children who are in the care of their mother;
    • delayed in allocating a social worker to the case following concerns raised by the children’s school;
    • failed to contact him or keep him informed about the action taken;
    • failed to contact the paternal grandparents until shortly before ending its involvement with the family;
    • invited the maternal family to meetings but not the paternal family;
    • removed the children from child protection plans too early;
    • removed the children from child in need plans and ceased its involvement with the family too early; and
    • failed to fully respond to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
  2. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Child protection

  1. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 states that a local authority has a duty to investigate where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.
  2. The Children Act 1989 defines ‘harm’ as “ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development”. ‘Development’ means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development. ‘Health’ means physical or mental health.
  3. According to Working Together To Safeguard Children, ‘significant harm’ refers to “the threshold that justifies compulsory intervention in family life in the best interests of children, and gives local authorities a duty to make enquiries to decide whether they should take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child who is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm”.
  4. Following a referral and an initial assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting may be held. If it decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the Council will convene a child protection conference to decide what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include making a recommendation that the child should be subject to a child protection plan.
  5. After the initial child protection conference, there will be one or more review child protection conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, discontinued or reduced to a Child in Need (CIN) plan.

Child Arrangements Order

  1. If separated parents cannot agree arrangements between themselves in respect of their children, they can apply to the Court to decide residence and contact issues. The Court can make a Child Arrangements Order. It may ask the council to prepare a Section 7 report to provide background information and advise on the children’s best interests.

Key facts

  1. In November 2017 Mr B contacted the multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) because his former partner, Ms C, had stopped his contact with his children and he was concerned about her mental health. MASH spoke to Ms C and decided there was no need for further action.
  2. Mr B contacted MASH again in February 2018 asking for the children’s records. The request was passed to the Information Governance team but Mr B received no response.
  3. In April 2018, Ms C contacted MASH about contact. A coordinator spoke to Mr B who explained the ongoing issues. The coordinator gave him some advice. MASH contacted the children’s schools which had no concerns.
  4. In June 2018 Mr B contacted Children’s Services raising concerns that the children were suffering emotional harm in Ms C’s care.
  5. On 4 July 2018 the children’s school made a referral due to concerns that Ms C may have been intoxicated at an annual review meeting. MASH spoke to Mr B and decided to complete a social work assessment because the school now had concerns whereas previously it had not.
  6. The case was allocated to a social worker to complete a child and family assessment on 10 July 2018. The delay in allocation was caused by the fact that access to the children’s files was restricted. Mr B telephoned the social worker the same day. She explained she would need to meet the children and their mother before meeting him.
  7. The same day Mr B made a formal complaint that MASH had not been proactive in responding to his concerns and that Children’s Services had not acted on information he provided that the children were at risk of harm and had failed to keep him informed. The service manager of MASH responded on 10 August 2018.
  8. Mr B had made an application to court for contact with his children. There was a court hearing in September 2018 and the court ordered the Council to file a Section 7 report.
  9. The case was transferred to a new social worker who telephoned Mr B on 14 September 2018 confirming he had met his daughter at school. He said he had not been able to see his son but would try again on Monday. He said he would update Mr B on Monday and arrange a time to meet him.
  10. There was some delay in completing the child and family assessment because Ms C failed to cooperate with Children’s Services.
  11. A strategy discussion was held on 21 September 2018 which decided the children were at risk of harm so section 47 enquiries would be carried out and the case would progress to a child protection conference. On 24 September 2018 the social worker telephoned Mr B to advise him of the outcome of the strategy discussion.
  12. Section 47 enquiries were carried out and the report for the initial child protection conference (ICPC) was sent to Mr B.
  13. The ICPC was held on 9 October 2018. Mr B attended. Professionals were concerned that the acrimonious relationship between the parents was having a detrimental impact on the children. They agreed the threshold for a child protection plan was met and the children were made subject to child protection plans under the category of emotional abuse.
  14. In November 2018 the social worker visited Mr B at home and also visited him and his partner at her home.
  15. The court proceedings concluded in December 2018 and the court made a child arrangements order for Mr B to have contact with the children.
  16. A review child protection conference (RCPC) was held in January 2019 to decide whether the children were still at risk of harm and whether the threshold was still met for them to remain on a child protection plan. The social worker confirmed the concern about possible alcohol misuse by Ms C was unfounded but she was concerned Ms C was preventing the children seeing their father and that the legal proceedings he had been forced to bring had been stressful for them. The social worker was concerned about managing future contact and considered it would be detrimental for the children not to see their father. The children’s schools had no concerns. Professionals decided the case should be stepped down to a CIN plan.
  17. In March 2019 Council officers met with Mr B as he was unhappy with the initial response to his complaint. He requested separate CIN meetings from Ms C and said he wanted his parents to be included as part of the children’s network.
  18. Monthly CIN review meetings were held between February and June 2019. At the CIN review in June 2019, Children’s Services decided to end its involvement with the family. It explained no progress was being made with the CIN plan, the children were saying they did not want to see their father and did not want further involvement with Children’s Services, and the case no longer met the threshold of child protection. Mr B was not happy with this decision. He said he had not seen his children since January 2019 and, although they were saying they did not wish to see him, he felt they were being influenced by Ms C.

Analysis

The Council’s response to concerns raised by Mr B

  1. In his response to Mr B’s complaint, the MASH service manager accepted it could have done more to investigate the concerns he raised in November 2017. MASH spoke to Ms C and decided there was no need for further action but it should also have contacted the children’s schools to check they had no concerns. He also accepted MASH did not inform Mr B of the actions it had taken or the outcome.
  2. The service manager accepted that when Mr B contacted MASH again in February 2018 to request the children’s records there was no evidence that the Council contacted Mr B about this again. He also accepted that, in April 2018, MASH contacted the children’s schools for information but did not tell Mr B the outcome of its enquiries.
  3. I find MASH was at fault in failing to contact the children’s school in November 2017. But it is unlikely that, if it had done so, this would have made any difference to the outcome because, when it did contact the schools in April 2018, they had no concerns. I also find MASH was at fault in failing to keep Mr B informed between November and April 2018. The service manager apologised for these failings which caused Mr B avoidable distress, uncertainty and frustration.
  4. Between June and August 2018 Mr B appears to have had to chase the Council for information. The evidence shows he contacted the out of hours social worker on 13 July 2018 when he received conflicting information from Ms C about collecting the children from school. The Council’s note of the telephone conversation states that Mr B said Ms C had sent him a message at midnight saying he could have the children for the weekend but then sent numerous conflicting messages as a result of which he was concerned about the children’s welfare and Ms C’s mental well-being. The social worker said she would try to contact Ms C and advised Mr B to contact the allocated worker to follow this up. Mr B telephoned the allocated social worker who explained there was nothing she could do about contact and an assessment was being carried out which would address his concerns about the children’s welfare. Mr B requested her manager’s telephone number which she provided. Mr B says he contacted the manager and was assured he would call him back the same day but it was over a week later when Mr B finally spoke to him. Mr B says the Council ignored his concerns and it was left to him to liaise with the school to ensure the children were safe.
  5. I find the social worker correctly advised Mr B that she could not intervene in relation to contact and acted appropriately by contacting Ms C about his concerns. Having done so, she was satisfied there was no immediate cause for concern. However, she should have informed Mr B of this. I have not been able to find notes of Mr B’s conversations with the manager and so cannot comment on his response.
  6. The social worker spoke to Mr B again on 1 August 2018 after he requested an update. On 13 September 2018 Mr B telephoned Children’s Services raising concerns about lack of action. The following day the new social worker telephoned him and explained he had met his daughter but not his son. He said he would update him further in a few days’ time and make a date and time to meet him. This did not happen.
  7. I find the Council failed to keep Mr B properly informed between June and August 2018.
  8. Mr B says the first social worker refused to meet him to discuss his concerns or communicate with him. She spoke to Mr B on several occasions and explained she needed to meet the children before she met him. I find no grounds to criticise this. The social worker’s priority was to meet with the children and she made every effort to do so but the case was transferred to a new social worker before she could meet with them.
  9. I am satisfied that, once the Council decided to proceed to section 47 enquiries, it kept Mr B informed. The social worker telephoned him on 24 September 2018 to advise him of the escalation to a section 47 investigation and Mr B was present at the ICPC on 9 October 2018. The social worker visited him in November 2018 when preparing the report for the court. Mr B was also present at the core group meetings in November and December 2018 and the RCPC in January 2019. He also attended the monthly CIN meetings between February and June 2019.

Delay in allocating a social worker to the case following concerns raised by the school

  1. The School raised concerns on 4 July 2018. There was a delay in proceeding to an ICPC because of Ms C’s lack of engagement in the assessment process. I find no fault on the Council’s part in relation to this. It was proactive in trying to meet with Ms C and the children.
  2. The children were made subject to child protection plans at the ICPC on 9 October 2018. The case should have been transferred to the child protection team following the ICPC but this was not done until 5 November 2018 because of lack of available staff. The social worker first met the family on 15 November 2018.
  3. The delay of a month in transferring the case to the child protection team was fault.

Inviting the maternal family to meetings but not the paternal family/ Failure to contact the paternal grandparents

  1. The Council says Ms C requested that her parents were invited to meetings for support. It says there is no evidence Mr B objected to this until the CIN meeting in May 2019. This is incorrect. On 15 March 2019 at a meeting with the social worker, and in a follow-up email, Mr B said he did not think it fair that he sat alone outnumbered by Ms C and her family during the meetings. He also said he was disappointed no-one had spoken to his parents and wanted the social worker to speak to them. He was concerned that Children’s Services had only contacted the maternal grandparents.
  2. At the meeting on 26 March 2019 to discuss his complaint, Mr B again said he wanted his parents included as part of the children’s network. He said his mother would be unable to attend meetings but could speak to the social worker by telephone. He also asked for separate CIN meetings from Ms C.
  3. Mr B raised this issue again at the CIN meeting in May 2019. He provided his parents’ contact details and the social worker telephoned them on 4 June 2019 to give them an opportunity to put forward their views.
  4. I find no fault in the Council agreeing to Ms C’s request for her family members to attend the meetings. But it should have acted on Mr B’s request to involve his family sooner. The social worker should have done this after Mr B first requested it on 15 March 2019. I do not consider the delay in doing so affected the outcome, but it caused Mr B additional distress.
  5. The Council should also have acted on Mr B’s request for separate CIN meetings sooner. He requested this on 26 March 2019 but the next two meetings were attended by Ms C’s family. It was not until June 2019 that separate CIN meetings were held. Mr B suffered distress and anxiety as a result of the Council’s failure to act on his request.

Removal of the children from child protection plans

  1. The RCPC in January 2019 was the first review for the children since being made subject of a child protection plan in October 2018. The meeting was to decide whether they were still at risk of harm and whether the threshold was still met for them to remain on a child protection plan. Professionals all agreed the threshold was no longer met and the case would be stepped down to a CIN plan. CIN meetings would take place to help progress contact arrangements.
  2. Mr B disagrees with this decision. However, it is a matter for the multi-agency meeting to reach a decision as to whether the child protection plan should remain in place or be replaced by a CIN plan. In the absence of administrative fault, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the merits of the decision.

Removal of the children from child in need plans

  1. At the CIN review meeting in June 2018 Children’s Services decided the case should be closed as there had been little progress despite the children being on a CIN plan for six months. It had unsuccessfully attempted to improve communication between the parents and CIN meetings had to be split as Mr B felt uncomfortable in the same room as Ms C and her parents. It had also attempted to work with the children regarding their relationship with their parents but they were insistent they did not want to see their father and wanted social work involvement to end. The children’s schools agreed the case should be closed.
  2. Mr B says the children should not have been removed from the CIN plan as Ms C was failing to comply with the court order and was influencing the children’s views.
  3. Whether it was appropriate to close the case was a matter for professionals’ judgement. This was a unanimous decision. As there is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached, there are no grounds to question it. The fact that contact issues were not resolved was not a reason for the Council’s continuing involvement. It is not the Council’s role to resolve contact issues. This is a matter for the court.
  4. Mr B says he made a 100 mile round trip to attend the final CIN meeting which only lasted five minutes because the Council had already decided to remove the children from the CIN plans. He says officers showed a lack of understanding and could have communicated the decision to him by telephone. I agree the Council could have handled this better.

Response to Mr B’s complaint

  1. Mr B complained about MASH and Children’s Services on 10 July 2018. The service manager at MASH responded to Mr B’s complaint on 10 August 2018. The Council accepts the response was inadequate in that it did not cover all elements of Mr B’s complaint nor did it explain how to escalate the complaint.
  2. Mr B was dissatisfied with the response and, on 18 March 2019, he requested a meeting to discuss his complaint. A meeting was held on 26 March 2019 attended by the social worker and her manager. Mr B says there was no follow-up after the meeting despite him chasing by phone and email. He says he was constantly assured that he would receive a reply but did not do so.
  3. I find the Council was at fault in failing to fully respond to Mr B’s complaint and in failing to explain how he could escalate the complaint if he was not happy with the response. This caused Mr B additional frustration and put him to time and trouble in complaining to the Ombudsman.

Injustice and remedy

  1. The Council’s faults caused Mr B significant avoidable distress and frustration.
  2. The Ombudsman expects councils to treat people fairly and with respect, and not to expose them to unnecessary distress as a result of actions or inactions. Such injustice cannot generally be remedied by a payment, so the Ombudsman usually recommends a symbolic amount to acknowledge the impact of fault. A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300 but where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1000 may be justified. LGO guidance on good practice: remedies (January 2016)

Agreed action

  1. The Council has agreed that, within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, it will:
    • apologise to Mr B for its failings; and
    • pay him £300 in recognition of the distress and frustration he suffered together with a further £250 in recognition of the failings in its complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I find the Council was at fault in that it:
    • failed to contact the children’s schools in November 2017;
    • failed to inform Mr B of the outcome of its enquiries between November 2017 and April 2018;
    • failed to keep Mr B fully informed of progress between June 2018 and August 2018;
    • delayed in transferring the case to a social worker after the ICPC;
    • delayed in contacting the paternal grandparents;
    • delayed in arranging separate CIN meetings; and
    • failed to adequately respond to Mr B’s complaint and explain how he could escalate it.
  2. I do not uphold Mr B’s other complaints.
  3. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

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