Summary: Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his reports of domestic abuse/neglect involving the mother of his children. He also says the officers who handled the matter and his subsequent complaint were racially biased against him. There was fault in the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s complaint of racial bias. The Council agreed a financial remedy to address the injustice suffered by Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his reports of domestic abuse/neglect involving the mother of his children. Mr X also says the officers who handled the matter as well as his subsequent complaint to the Council were racially biased against him.

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. I considered Mr X’s complaint and background information he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response to the complaint and background information it provided. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council. I considered the Council’s comments on it.
5. 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

6. Mr X made a complaint to the Council in May 2019 about three matters. First, he said he had recently seen a report from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) in the course of private court proceedings. Mr X said the report showed the Council had conducted assessments of his children without requesting any contribution from him, the children’s father. Mr X wondered whether he was excluded from the assessments because of unconscious racial bias. Mr X queried the outcome of the assessments.
7. Second, Mr X said there was a recent domestic abuse/violent incident involving the children’s mother and her partner. Mr X reported his children as saying there was a massive argument which led to the end of the relationship. Mr X said his children were scared and emotionally distraught. He said one of his children was subsequently excluded from school and the incident directly led to his exclusion. Mr X wanted the Council to investigate the incident.
8. Third, Mr X said the Cafcass report mentioned a complaint of the children’s mother making racially aggravated threats to kill and using racially abusive words. Mr X said the Council should monitor whether the children’s mother used racially abusive words in their presence.
9. The Council set out the history of referrals it had received involving Mr X’s children in its response to the complaint. It noted he had not been involved in an assessment in February 2017. It said Mr X was not excluded on the basis of race. Its focus was on the behaviour of his children and so the assessment was based on their home environment. It apologised because it did not contact Mr X at the time to gain his views. The Council said it did not have sight of the Cafcass report Mr X referred to and so could not comment on information contained in the report on the children’s mother using racially aggravated language. It said it had no record of the alleged domestic abuse incident between the children’s mother and her partner.
10. Mr X was dissatisfied with the complaint response. He said the children’s school made a referral to the Council in February 2019 but the Council had not put the children on a Child in Need Plan despite the evidence of neglect.
11. Mr X queried how the complaint response could conclude the decision not to involve him in the February 2017 assessment was not based on racial bias. Mr X said a case officer had recently informed him that she had to seek consent from the children’s mother before writing to him. Mr X said this proved there was racial bias as he is black and the children’s mother is white.
12. Mr X said he provided information on the domestic abuse incident between the children’s mother and her partner. He expected the Council to investigate the incident.
13. Mr X also wrote separately to the case worker. In addition to the queries raised in the complaint he wanted the Council to address why the children appeared tired and withdrawn at school. This harked back to the referral made by the children’s school in February 2019.
14. The second complaint response acknowledged the Early Help service had asked the children’s mother whether the service should keep Mr X informed of its involvement with the children. The children’s mother refused consent. The Council now accepts the service agreed not to involve Mr X because of domestic abuse perpetrated by him.
15. The complaint response said the case worker had since contacted the children’s mother and agreed that Mr X would be made aware of work done by the service.
16. The Council explained the concerns raised in the February 2019 referral by the children’s school had been addressed during the assessment process which was ongoing. It said the case worker had consulted with the children’s school since the referral and the school had not raised any further concerns about the children’s attendance, their dress while at school and their breakfasts. The Council stressed it would consider escalation of the case to social services if any further concerns were raised. It said wellbeing goals for the children could be added when the case was reviewed which could address Mr X’s concerns about the outcome of the assessments. It informed Mr X of the specialist support arranged for his children with regard to the impact of domestic abuse. The Council offered to meet with Mr X.
17. Mr X declined the offer of a meeting as he said it would not be beneficial. Mr X felt the Council had chosen to protect the children’s mother. Mr X said the Council should have made a Police check of the children’s mother which would show she had previously been arrested for domestic violence. He said the Council had not taken steps to establish the level of risk he posed whereas the children’s mother’s wish that he was not to be involved came about because she wanted to conceal her neglect of the children. Mr X iterated that his children were being abused because they witnessed violent arguments and fights between their mother and her partner. Mr X said the Council’s letter did not address his concerns.
18. Mr X subsequently claimed the case worker breached confidentiality by informing the children’s mother of his complaint and his allegation about the case worker’s behaviour towards him. He said the children’s mother had taunted him during a recent conversation. Mr X asked the Council to replace the case worker.
19. The Council explained it had no concerns about the children’s mother’s ability to look after the children. It iterated it worked closely with the children’s schools which had not reported any new concerns. It repeated it had no record of the domestic abuse incident Mr X referred to in his complaint. It said the children had not reported any concerns about their mother’s relationship.
20. The Council provided a summary of actions it had recently taken with regard to the children. It also provided a summary of an action plan agreed with their mother.
21. The Council said it had no evidence to conclude the case work shared Mr X’s complaint with the children’s mother.
22. Mr X was, again, dissatisfied with the response. He asked for a review of the complaint. Mr X iterated that there had been racism by the children’s mother and the Council had not acted to prevent her using racially biased or offensive language when referring to him.
23. The final complaint response acknowledged the previous response was out of the Council’s published timescales and apologised for the failing.
24. The Council said it had not witnessed any racist language or behaviour and had not been given evidence of this. It said it would address any racist language or behaviour with the children’s mother if this was the case.
25. As to whether Mr X was the subject of racial disadvantage by the Council’s children’s services and whether his complaint about discrimination was ignored, the Council said investigations by its officers had found no evidence of racism or racial bias. It explained again that Mr X was initially excluded from the work it had completed because the case was categorised by serious domestic abuse.
26. As to alleged bias by the case worker and sharing of details with the children’s mother, the Council iterated the case worker did not share any information on the complaint with the children’s mother.
27. The Council’s response on the domestic violence incident reported by Mr X remained the same.
28. Mr X’s children have since been made subject to child protection plans. Mr X was made aware of the processes and was able to contribute his views.

Finding

29. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether there was racism or racial bias by any of the Council’s officers. This is because only a court can determine whether a body has unlawfully discriminated against an individual on the basis of his race.
30. The Ombudsman can, however, decide whether a council has acted with fault when investigating a complaint about racism or racial bias.
31. In this case, I find fault with the Council’s investigation because it did not seek to speak to or meet with Mr X before concluding its investigation of his claim of racial bias. Procedurally, it should have contacted Mr X in order to ensure it fully understood his views and could obtain any evidence he had to support the claim of racial bias.
32. And the consequence of this failing? It is uncertain whether the outcome of the Council’s investigation would have been different had officers met or spoken with Mr X. However, Mr X was caused avoidable distress. I recommended a payment of £150 to Mr X as a remedy for the injustice he was caused. The Council accepted the recommendation.
33. I find the Council’s handling of Mr X’s children’s cases was, on the whole, procedurally correct. I note the Council already acknowledged it did not initially keep Mr X informed of actions or interventions involving his children and apologised for not doing so. I note this failing has been rectified because he has since been kept informed and involved with his children’s cases.

Back to top

Final decision

34. There was fault in the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s complaint of racial bias. The Council accepted the fault and proposed remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman