Summary: Mrs X complains of fault by social workers in deciding her children were at risk of significant harm. The records show there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains:
1. A social worker (Officer A) collaborated with corrupt staff at a school (School Q);
2. The school sent a referral through to children’s social care around September 2018 that was all made up of lies;
3. Mrs X wrote to Officer A with regards to the inaccuracies, but she did not receive a response to this;
4. There was/ is no reason for Mrs X’s children to be on a Child Protection Plan; and
5. The chair of a child protection conference held on 15 January 2019 was late and bullied Mrs X, not allowing her to speak and eventually asking her to leave.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated complaints a) and c) to e). I give my reason for not investigating complaint b) at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her on the telephone. I spoke to the Council on the telephone and made written enquiries of it. I considered the Council’s duties under the Children Act 1989 and the documents it provided. Most of these contain third party information, so I could only share a minority of them with Mrs X when I sent a draft of this decision to both parties for their comments. I considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Context

The evidence in the documents I have from appropriate professionals is that Mrs X suffers from poor mental health, but that she does not accept this. Mrs X says professionals have been motivated by bias against her faith/ethnicity. I have found no evidence to support this view. In her response to the draft decision, Mrs X took the view I was lying in my conclusions below.

Complaint a): A social worker (Officer A) collaborated with corrupt staff at a school (School Q)

8. Under s.47 of the Children At 1989, councils with social care duties must consider referrals made that suggest a child is at risk of significant harm. They must take whatever action they deem necessary to protect the child if they decide there is a risk. I have seen School Q’s referral and the Council’s actions. The evidence from various sources was such that the Council’s actions in response were appropriate. I do not find the Council at fault.

Complaint c): Mrs X wrote to Officer A with regards to the inaccuracies, but she did not receive a response to this

9. The Council provided its correspondence with Mrs Z from the time around the referral. It was a single email that did not concern inaccuracies. I do not therefore find the Council at fault.
10. In her response to the draft decision, Mrs X provided copies of emails sent to the Council. Those from the time of the referral related to a meeting at school, appeared to have been written by Mrs X’s husband and were basically administrative in nature. There was a second group, sent by Mrs X, the following month. They show Mrs X generally disputed the Council’s view of the risk to her children and sought to justify her parenting.
11. I note Mrs X said she was not a national of the country claimed in the Council’s assessment. This would have had no impact on the Council’s decision. While it would be appropriate for the Council to correct any minor factual errors that can be established, I take note of the manner of Mrs X’s communications, which frequently change subject and can be difficult to follow. I also take note that some of Mrs X’s claims do not accord with facts. Therefore, I do not find the Council at fault.

Complaint d): There was/ is no reason for Mrs X’s children to be on a Child Protection Plan

12. The risk to children identified by a range of professionals was of emotional harm from witnessing domestic violence, and also from Mrs X’s actions flowing from her unwillingness to acknowledge her mental health needs. Mrs X’s unwillingness to accept her own mental health needs was acknowledged by family members in the evidence I have seen, which was based on multiple examples.

Complaint e): The chair of a child protection conference held on 15 January 2019 was late and bullied Mrs X, not allowing her to speak and eventually asking her to leave

13. I have seen an explanation of the time of the meeting. I am satisfied the chair of the meeting was not late. Notes of the meeting recorded Mrs X became confused and distressed when challenged. This accords with the reports of others from other occasions in the records I have seen. On the balance of probabilities, I do not find the chair of the conference acted as claimed. I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have not upheld the complaint as the Council acted without fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

15. I did not investigate complaint b). The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of school staff.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman