Summary: Mrs C says the Council failed to communicate with her or provide her with support when it placed some of her grandchildren in her care and failed to share with her daughter the information the Council held about the risk posed by her partner. The Council failed to properly consider and discuss with Mrs C support she might need when the children first moved into her care and during a transition period for one of the children. The Council discussed its concerns about the partner with Mrs C’s daughter. Failure to provide Mrs C with enough support meant she had to manage the children on her own at a distressing point in their lives, caused her avoidable distress and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. An apology and payment to Mrs C, alongside training for social workers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complained the Council
• failed to communicate with her or provide her with support when it placed some of her grandchildren with her; and
• failed to share with her daughter the information it held about the risk posed by her partner.

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. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Mrs C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
6. 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

Chronology of the main events

7. The Council became involved in Mrs C’s daughter’s case in January 2018 when it became aware of her being in a relationship with a person with a history of violent offending, including domestic violence. At that point Mrs C’s daughter had three children and was pregnant.
8. A Council social worker visited Mrs C’s daughter in March 2018. During that visit Mrs C’s daughter told the Council she knew about her partner’s past and believed his ex-girlfriend had contributed towards the issues in their relationship. The social worker asked Mrs C’s daughter what she thought was different in her relationship with her partner and why he would not be violent towards her. Mrs C’s daughter explained her partner was no longer drinking alcohol and there were no significant arguments between them. Following a further visit the Council completed its assessment and identified no immediate safety concerns.
9. Mrs C’s daughter gave birth to her child in May 2018. The Council continued to carry out child in need visits.
10. The probation service contacted the Council in June 2018 to advise it of the partner’s supervision period ending. Probation told the Council things appeared to be going well at home.
11. In August 2018 police attended Mrs C’s daughter’s property due to reports of people fighting in the street. There were three adult victims, including Mrs C’s daughter. Nonaccidental injuries were also noted to the baby. The partner was the suspect for the assault. At this point Mrs C moved into her daughter’s property and began looking after three of the children. The Council became aware of that on 21 August.
12. The Council held a strategy meeting and decided to begin a section 47 enquiry. On 24 August an interim care order hearing took place at which the baby was made subject to an interim care order and placed in foster care. Two of the other children were made subject to an interim child arrangements order in Mrs C’s care. Mrs C already had care of one other child under a previous child arrangements order. The father of the youngest child placed with Mrs C put himself forward as a carer for his daughter.
13. A permanency planning meeting took place in August 2018.
14. The Council continued to carry out child in need visits in September.
15. Mrs C’s solicitor contacted the Council in September 2018 to tell it Mrs C had decided not to apply to care for the three children under a special guardianship order. The solicitor explained Mrs C and her husband believed it would be too much for them as they were retired.
16. The youngest child in Mrs C’s care began weekly contact with her father in September 2018. The Council began viability assessments of family members.
17. On 24 September the Guardian raised concerns about Mrs C’s ability to cope with the care of the youngest child. The Council agreed to complete a viability assessment for the paternal grandmother for consideration of interim care.
18. The Council assigned Mrs C a new social worker in October 2018. The new social worker discussed the possibility of a family aide. Mrs C explained as things had settled down she did not need that any longer. Mrs C said her main issue was not having any respite and no support in the first few weeks as she had been with the children constantly since 17 August and needed time out. Mrs C said she had secured funding for the youngest child to attend nursery. Mrs C said she did not need any further support now the youngest child was in nursery, except for respite. The Council said it was carrying out assessments of various family members which might result in some respite options.
19. At a meeting with the social worker later in October Mrs C agreed to work with the paternal grandmother which could provide her with some respite. The Council also arranged for Mrs C to receive a financial allowance. Mrs C told the social worker she did not know what to tell the youngest child about the situation.
20. The social worker facilitated a meeting between Mrs C and the paternal grandmother in November 2018. The two arranged for the paternal grandmother to take the youngest child to the park the following week.
21. Child in need visits continued in November.
22. Later in November 2018 Mrs C referred to the youngest child displaying worrying behaviours. Mrs C said the nursery had suggested age-related play therapy.
23. In December 2018 the Council completed its assessment of the father of the youngest child placed with Mrs C. That recommended he have contact with his daughter in his home with one overnight stay per week if the visits went well. An assessment of Mrs C’s daughter decided she could not effectively safeguard her children or meet their needs.
24. At a visit in December 2018 Mrs C mentioned the possibility of play therapy for the youngest child placed with her.
25. Social work visits continued throughout December 2018 and January 2019.
26. A review permanency planning meeting took place in February 2019. The plan was for separate child arrangements orders for two of the children and adoption for the baby.
27. Social work visits to Mrs C continued between February and May 2019.
28. On 15 May 2019 the court granted a child arrangement order for the father of the youngest child placed with Mrs C. The Council drew up a plan for a two-week transition. I understand the youngest child moved to live with her father on 1 June 2019.

Analysis

29. Mrs C says the Council failed to properly communicate with her or provide her with support when three of her grandchildren moved in with her. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mrs C took on responsibility for three of her grandchildren following a violent incident between her daughter and her daughter’s partner in August 2018. The documentary records do not suggest the impetus for Mrs C moving into her daughter’s property to look after the children came from the Council. It is clear however the Council knew of the arrangement shortly after the incident. Given Mrs C was at that point looking after three children on her own I would have expected the Council to arrange for a social worker to meet with her to discuss her expectations and any support she would need. That is especially the case as Mrs C was reporting difficulties. I have found little evidence of the Council offering Mrs C any support until the youngest child started attending nursery in October 2018. That is fault. Given this was a period when three children were separated from their mother it is likely this placed a significant strain on Mrs C as the person then responsible for trying to explain to them why they could not live with their mother. It is also clear from Mrs C’s communications with the Council the separation resulted in significant upset, particularly for the youngest child. I consider the Council should have worked with both Mrs C and the children to ease that transition and there is no evidence it did so until October 2018 when the Council put some services and financial support into place. Failure to provide support and guidance between August and October 2018 is fault and is likely to have caused Mrs C significant distress.
30. I am satisfied though following October 2018 the Council put in support which included regular visits by social workers, nursery provision for the youngest child, financial support and work with the paternal family to provide some respite support for Mrs C. The documentary records from October 2018 show Mrs C reporting to the Council that matters had settled down, which suggests the support was working. I therefore do not criticise the Council for the period between October 2018 and May 2019.
31. Mrs C says the Council failed to provide any narrative work for the youngest child or provide her with any help to understand why she had been separated from her mother and siblings. There is no evidence in any of the documentary records the Council carried out any meaningful work with the youngest child to help her understand why she could not live with her mother and siblings. That is fault. The Council accepts it failed to provide any narrative work while the youngest child was in Mrs C’s care. That again is fault.
32. Mrs C says though she also asked the Council for some play therapy for the youngest child and the Council failed to respond. The documentary records show Mrs C first raised this with the Council in November 2018. The Council says in its complaint response to Mrs C that it would not normally arrange therapy while court proceedings were continuing. However, I have found no evidence to suggest the Council explained that to Mrs C at the time of her request. That is fault.
33. I turn now to Mrs C’s concern about lack of support during the two week transition period for the youngest child moving into her father’s care. I note the court decided on 15 May 2019 the youngest child should move into the father’s care. The Council then drew up a care plan which provided for a two week transition period. That involved the father collecting the youngest child from nursery and returning her to Mrs C’s care after teatime, a weekend stay with the father followed by the child moving into the father’s care at the end of the two week period. The documentary records suggest the Council put in place those arrangements. As I understand it though, Mrs C’s concern is the Council put in place no support for her to help her explain to the youngest child what was going to happen. The care plan did not include that and I would expect it to. Failure to consider that point or what emotional support Mrs C might need during the two week transition period is fault. It is likely that fault resulted in Mrs C feeling unsupported and on her own with managing the youngest child’s emotions.
34. Mrs C’s final concern is the Council failed to tell her daughter about her partner’s violent past early in 2018 when the Council became involved with the family. Mrs C says if the Council had explained that to her daughter it is possible the injuries to those assaulted in August 2018 and, potentially, the injury to the baby would have been avoided. Having considered the documentary records, I am satisfied the social worker that visited Mrs C’s daughter in March 2018 had some discussion about her relationship with her partner and his previous history. Those documents show Mrs C’s daughter told the social worker she knew all about her partner’s violent past, that her view was his ex-partner had contributed towards that and that it was also fuelled by alcohol. Mrs C’s daughter went on to explain her partner was no longer drinking and there was no violence between them. I am satisfied those discussions took place while the partner was absent from the house.
35. That suggests to me Mrs C’s daughter had some knowledge about her partner’s violent past. However, given the Council had concerns about his history of domestic violence towards women I would have expected the social worker to explore further with Mrs C’s daughter what her understanding was about her partner’s violent past. Had the social worker done that she could have found out whether Mrs C’s daughter really understood what her partner’s violent past involved as it was not just violence towards one partner. I contrast the Council’s approach here with the approach it took when the father of the youngest child placed with Mrs C raised concerns about a new partner later in 2018. On that occasion the Council discussed Mrs C making a Clare’s Law application to get details about her new partner’s past. There is no evidence the Council considered discussing that point with Mrs C in early 2018 when it was visiting due to concerns about her relationship. I consider it would be good practice for the Council to do that when there are concerns about a partner, although as there were some discussions in this case I do not consider it warrants a finding of fault. I could not say though if the Council had done that the incident that occurred in August 2018 could have been avoided. That is because Mrs C’s daughter clearly had some understanding of her partner’s violent past and was clear she believed he would not be violent in their relationship as he was no longer drinking alcohol.
36. So, I have found fault as the Council failed to provide appropriate support to Mrs C when she first took on responsibility for the three children, failed to consider offering support to Mrs C and the youngest child during the transition period in May 2019 and failed to explain to Mrs C why play therapy was not appropriate. I consider an appropriate remedy would be for the Council to apologise to Mrs C and pay her £600 to reflect both her distress and the time and trouble she had to go to pursuing her complaint. As the failings here relate to what should be normal practice for social workers I also recommend the Council carry out appropriate training with social workers on their responsibilities when a child is placed with a family member and during transition periods to alternative care, particularly concentrating on the establishing what support the person taking on care needs or whether any support is required when handing over care to somebody else. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Mrs C and pay her £600 to reflect her distress and the time and trouble she had to go to pursuing the complaint.
38. Within two months of my decision the Council should carry out update training for social workers to remind them of the need to consider whether support is required when a child or children go to live with a family member and for when a child or children are transitioned from a family placement to another family placement.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman