Summary: the Council failed to provide Ms Q with updates at the frequency agreed by the court and that this amounts to fault that has caused Ms Q injustice for which the Council will apologise. There is no fault in relation to the other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms F, complains about actions taken by Cornwall Council in relation to her granddaughter, Y. She complains on her own behalf and that of her daughter, Ms Q. In particular, she complains the Council:
1. social worker failed to deal appropriately with concerns she raised after being told Y was in hospital and had moved to a different foster placement;
2. social worker spoke negatively about her in front of a solicitor and another witness;
3. required the family to continue with the legal process even though Ms F’s mother died shortly before the first court hearing;
4. failed to complete a PAMS assessment;
5. failed to provide her with agreed updates regarding Y; and
6. has not provided Ms Q with updates about Y in a timely manner.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have considered the complaint as summarised with the exception of part b). The final part of this draft decision statement provides the reason for this.

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 investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, 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 considered the written information that Ms F provided with the complaint and discussed the complaint with her. I have also taken account of documentary evidence of the Council’s handling and investigation of the complaint before it was submitted to this office.
7. I gave the Council and Ms F the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and took account of the responses I received before reaching my final decision on the complaint.
8. 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

What I found

What should have happened

9. The law sets out a three stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at certain complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers the investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
10. A Special Guardianship Order (SGO) is a legal order made by a court that appoints one or more individuals to be a child’s ‘special guardian’. It is often applied for by a relative of the child and is intended to provide a child with a legally secure placement when a child cannot live with a birth parent.
11. A Placement Order is an order issued by a court which gives a council permission to proceed with an adoption plan for a child.
12. A PAMS assessment is a specific type of assessment used by social workers to assess parents where there are child protection concerns. It is considered highly suitable for parents who are vulnerable or who have learning difficulties.

Background

13. Ms Q gave birth to a baby in 2015. There were concerns about her ability to understand the needs of a baby/child and how to meet these needs before the baby was born. Ms Q has what is described as a borderline learning difficulty. Children’s social care provided support before and after the baby’s birth but when the baby was around 2 ½ further concerns were raised which led to Y being placed with a relative who obtained a Special Guardianship Order. Unfortunately, the relative felt unable to manage and the SGO arrangement broke down after a few months and Y was placed with foster carers. After this Ms F and her husband put themselves forward for consideration for an SGO for Y. An assessment did not support their application however and the Council then applied to the court for a Placement Order which was granted in late 2018.
14. Ms F complained to the Council about a number of aspects of this process both on her own behalf and that of Ms Q. As I understand it, the Council did not consider Ms F’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure. However, the stage 2 investigation was completed by an independent person and is very thorough and similar to those completed at stage 2 under the statutory procedure. I have therefore decided to treat this stage 2 investigation as we would if it had been investigated under the statutory process.
15. As I have said above, if a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers the investigation was flawed. I have carefully considered the report completed by the investigator at stage 2 of the non-statutory process used here and am satisfied it was a very thorough investigation of the evidence and matters raised in Ms F’s complaint. I am not therefore re-investigating these matters now. I will however consider the findings reached on the complaints summarised in a), c), d), e) and f) above.

Complaint a)

16. The stage two investigator confirmed that this complaint relates to two separate incidents. He interviewed the social worker who said that the information Ms F had was wrong. The investigator confirmed that the case notes she did not know where Ms F was getting the information. The investigator confirmed that on each occasion, the social worker responded swiftly to Ms F’s enquiries. He concluded the social worker checked the records on both occasions and was able to say authoritatively that the information was inaccurate. Ms F says she was given the information by her solicitor but the investigator concluded that the solicitor was in receipt of incorrect information from an unknown source. The investigator decided the Council could not have shared information which it did not possess and did not uphold the complaint.

Complaint c)

17. The stage 2 investigator confirmed that the Council had apologised in its response to the complaint at stage one of the complaints procedure for the apparent lack of sympathy given to the family regarding the death of Ms F’s mother. He went on to say however, that the decision to seek an Interim Care Order was taken before her death and so the court process had begun and it was not for the social worker to change this at that stage and needed to proceed in order to properly safeguard Y’s welfare.

Complaint d)

18. The investigator found that in 2015 a parenting assessment was completed by a specialist service and this shows that a PAMS evidence-based tool was used to complete that assessment. The investigator went on to say that when the court ordered a parenting assessment in late 2017 a PAMS assessment was not used. The investigator interviewed the senior social worker involved with the case who told him that the PAMS parenting assessment tool was not one in which the social work team was trained and that, in their professional judgement, was an unnecessary one in this case. She told the investigator that psychological reports were sought with regard to Ms Q and advice was provided in these on how best to deal with her limited cognitive ability. She said the social workers involved relied on this advice when dealing with Ms Q. The investigator found that “…great efforts were made to ensure that the actions and communications with Ms Q were carried out in ways which those reports recommended”. He found that the decision to not use a PAMS Assessment was a professional judgement but noted that it had been used in completing the earlier assessment which was used to inform future communications with Ms Q. He did not uphold the complaint.

Complaint e)

19. No specific arrangements were made for children’s services to provide Ms F with updates about Y. The stage 2 investigation report notes that Ms Q asked the Council to send Ms F an update about Y too. Having advised Ms Q that this was not agreed in court, the stage 2 investigator looked into this further and spoke to a social work manager who said that “…it was extremely unusual for grandparents to receive updates and communications for a grandchild because they do not have parental responsibility and that there are data protection issues with the sharing of such information”.

Complaint f)

20. The stage two report says that the final court hearing in November 2018 ordered that after Ms Q’s contact with Y was suspended (in effect stopped) Ms Q would be provided with monthly telephone updates by the social worker. Difficulties in providing a telephone update meant the Council decided instead to send written updates. The investigator found that a letter giving brief details of Y’s progress was sent to Ms Q in January 2019 by recorded delivery but was returned to the Council’s offices having not been signed for and so was undelivered. The reason for this was that Ms Q was out of the country for around four weeks in December and January so was unable to sign for the letter. He said two further letters were sent in March and May 2019 and went on to say the court order says that monthly updates will be provided and that whilst three updates had been provided in January, March and May this did not amount to one a month as specified. He therefore upheld the complaint.

Was the Council at fault and did this cause injustice?

21. I am satisfied that the stage 2 report thoroughly and clearly addressed Ms F’s complaint that the social worker failed to deal appropriately with concerns she raised after being told Y was in hospital and had moved to a different foster placement. The investigator considered the written records and interviewed the relevant council officers and there is nothing further I can add to the findings the investigator reached on this complaint. There are therefore no grounds for me to consider the Council was at fault in relation to the matters raised in this part of the complaint.
22. Again the stage 2 investigator thoroughly considered the complaint that the Council had failed to complete a PAMS assessment. He concluded that it was for the social work team to decide on the most appropriate assessment and the decision that a PAMS assessment was not necessary for the assessment within the legal proceedings was for the Council to make and was therefore a professional judgement. He pointed out also that the PAMS structure had been used previously and had been used to underpin social work contact with Ms Q. I do not consider there is fault in the Council’s later decision not to complete a PAMS assessment. In addition, if the Court had considered a PAMS assessment was necessary it could have directed the Council to do so. The fact that it apparently did not would indicate it did not consider this necessary.
23. I accept that the court process had begun before Ms F’s mother died and that the Council needed to take action to safeguard Y properly and so it continued with the court process. I recognise that the Council apologised if its actions seemed unsympathetic at the time. I do not consider that the Council’s decision to pursue the legal proceedings can be considered fault.
24. There was no requirement for the Council to provide Ms F with updates regarding Y and therefore I do not consider the Council is at fault in failing to do so. I would consider that Ms Q could provide Ms F with updates if she wishes to and it is not for the Council to do this.
25. The stage 2 investigator found that the social worker had not provided Ms Q with updates about Y monthly following the suspension of her contact after the Placement Order was made in late 2018 and provided updates in January, March and May. The failure to provide these updates as required in the January to May period amounts to fault and I consider this caused Ms Q injustice as she missed out on having the updates at the frequency decided by the court. The Council has confirmed the dates that it has provided Ms Q with updates since September 2019 and these verify that the updates have been provided at least monthly since that time so I am satisfied that this issue has now been effectively resolved. The Council confirms that it will continue to provide these updates as required until or unless there is any change to Y’s care plan which will be decided within the court process.

Agreed action

26. The Council will apologise to Ms Q for the missed monthly updates in the first half of 2019. It will issue this apology within one month of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

27. The Council failed to provide Ms Q with updates at the frequency agreed by the court and that this amounts to fault that has caused Ms Q injustice. There is no fault in relation to the other parts of the complaint I have considered.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

28. I did not consider part b) of the complaint as Ms F says the matter was addressed within legal proceedings. As we cannot consider court action or what happened in court I cannot address this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman