Gloucestershire County Council (19 011 450)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 27 Nov 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss B complains about how the Council dealt with her when it took child protection and safeguarding action. The Council has responded to the issues to make contact arrangements clearer and has apologised if there were misunderstandings. Overall, there is no clear fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. Miss B complains that:
    • The Council left her children unsupervised with her on several occasions from 17 May 2019 onwards, despite saying this should not happen;
    • The accommodation that Miss B and her partner were found by the Council was poor and they had frequent moves;
    • A social worker signed a contract of expectations on her mother’s behalf without her permission;
    • Social workers were rude to her and her family;
    • Gave too little notice of a court hearing, cancelled meetings, and changed contact arrangements;
    • A social worker did not attend a Looked After Child review meeting and the Council took too long to send on the notes of that meeting;
    • The social workers only saw Miss B’s children once in three months and failed to explore their wishes; and
    • The Council sent a What’s app message that was a data breach.
  2. Miss B says that as a result her children were left at risk and she was left frustrated and distressed at her contact with the Council.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated Miss B’s complaints about how the Council handled its communication and the accommodation issues.
  2. For the reasons set out below, I have not investigated the complaints about a data breach or any issues considered in court such as contact or the care orders.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information provided by Miss B. I considered the information provided by the Council including the file documents. Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Overview of child protection

  1. The Children Act 1989 says the child’s needs and welfare are paramount and the needs and wishes of the child should be put first. This is so the child receives the support they need before a problem escalates. Safeguarding children is everyone’s responsibility.
  2. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and to determine whether protective action is required (Children Act 1989, section 47). Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
  3. Where a court believes there is a risk of significant harm, the court can make an interim care order. This allows the court and the council to make arrangement about a child until the court can hear all the evidence and decide whether to make a care order.
  4. The child becomes a looked after child which means the Council has duties towards him or her. Amongst these, the Council must visit the child, develop a care plan, and carry out reviews to make sure the plan is being implemented and meets the child’s needs.

Background

  1. Miss B lives with her partner and her children. On 15 May 2019, Miss B took her young son, M to hospital with pain in his arm. The hospital found that M had fractured his arm around two weeks earlier. A safeguarding referral was made.
  2. The Council visited Miss B and her partner at the hospital. There were no previous child protection concerns about the children, but because the Council had not been able to establish what had caused M’s injury, it made arrangements for Miss B’s mother to support and supervise the other children while the youngest was in hospital.
  3. Following the strategy discussion that same day, the safeguarding investigation commenced. Miss B’s mother agreed to stay with the children while the investigation was ongoing.

Parents left unsupervised with the children

  1. M was discharged from hospital on Friday 17 May, it was agreed that Miss B’s mother would remain at the home to supervise the children. Miss B’s mother went to work on the Monday evening 21 May as it was not clear to her she was to continue supervising. Miss B asked for clarification, and the Council confirmed that Miss B’s mother needed to supervise all contact between the children and parents. She had not realised this was ongoing and thought it was just on the first night.
  2. Miss B complained to the Council that it had allowed them unsupervised access to the children when it had said this was not allowed. The Council concluded there had been a misunderstanding and its social worker thought she had made it clear that Miss B’s mother was to continue to supervise contact with the children. The Council apologised to Miss B and her partner for the misunderstanding here. There was no harm or other injustice to the children or Miss B as a result of the misunderstanding. The Council’s apology is a reasonable way to settle this issue and there is no merit in me investigating this further.

The Council’s provision of accommodation

  1. Following the safeguarding investigation, the Council obtained an interim care order in respect of all the children. The children would stay in the care of Miss B’s mother in the family home, Miss B and her partner would move out for the time being.
  2. The Council decided that it would fund accommodation for the parents to allow them to stay nearby and have contact with the children until the court could consider more permanent arrangements. Miss B said the Council delayed in extending the agreement to fund accommodation and they did not know where this would be.
  3. The Council’s position is that it is not under a duty to provide accommodation but did so to allow the children to stay in the family home. It says it always commissioned accommodation through recognised providers and it was always adequate.
  4. Between 24 May and the present, the Council provided five places of accommodation. One of these was a month long stay in a hotel without cooking facilities. Miss B told the Council this was not suitable and it was too far away from the family home. The Council moved Miss B and her partner from the hotel to a holiday cottage, where they stayed for six weeks. However, this was also too far from the family home, which they were travelling to daily. The Council moved them to another cottage, and when this was no longer available the Council provided an apartment and continue to do so.
  5. I can see that not having cooking facilities is not ideal medium to long term. However, there is nothing to suggest that the accommodation funded by the Council was not adequate. The aim of providing accommodation was to allow the children contact with the parents, and although its location or facilities were not always ideal, they were adequate. There was no fault by the Council.

That a social worker signed a contract on behalf of Miss B’s mother without her permission

  1. The contract is a written statement of the Council’s expectations to be signed by key people to say they agree to do, or not do certain things. For example, in this case, one term of the contract was that Miss B’s mother would provide care for the children and support the supervision of contact between the children and Miss B. The Council’s files show the first contract of expectations was signed by Miss B and her partner. There is no signature next to Miss B’s mother’s name. Based on the information I have to date, there is no fault by the Council.

Social workers were rude to her and her family

  1. Miss B says the Council’s social worker was rude to her on 21 May and later blamed her for M’s injuries. Essentially, Miss B says that the social worker told her that unless she agreed to moving out of the family home and allowing only supervised access to her children, they would be taken into care. She also says the social worker indicated to Miss B’s mother that Miss B and her partner were to blame.
  2. It is difficult to investigate this and to arrive at a safe conclusion. There is nothing to indicate the social worker being rude in the care records, but that does not mean it did not happen. We would usually come to a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities; in other words, is it more likely than not that the social worker was rude based on the evidence we have. However, there is little evidence submitted to me, or that I might be able to gather to say what might have happened.
  3. The Council has apologised to Miss B if she felt that some of its staff were rude to her. This is sufficient and there is little merit in me investigating further given the lack of evidence available on either side.

Gave too little notice of a court hearing, cancelled meetings, and changed contact arrangements

  1. The Ombudsman has no remit to investigate matters dealt with by the court. So, I cannot investigate whether the court gave too little notice about hearings.
  2. The Council says it did not cancel any meetings and has invited Miss B to give more details of this so it can investigate the problem further.
  3. The Council agrees that contact arrangements were altered often to meet the needs of the children. In September 2019, and in response to Miss B’s complaint to it, the Council agreed that the contact arrangements needed to be clearer. It apologised for the lack of clarity and said it would send a clear contact schedule.
  4. In December, the Council’s contact schedule was considered and approved by the court and so again, I cannot investigate this.
  5. It is not clear from the information I have to date, that the family lost time together or that arrangements were changed other than to meet the needs of the children. I cannot criticise the Council if it altered arrangements to meet the children’s needs.
  6. However, the Council accepted that greater clarity about contact was needed, and apologised to Miss B. This is a reasonable way to settle this issue.

A social worker did not attend a Looked After Child review meeting and the Council took too long to send on the notes of that meeting

  1. The Council has confirmed that a social worker attended every review. However, this was not always the allocated social worker. On one occasion, the social worker was represented by an advanced practitioner who had knowledge of the case. On another occasion, a social worker who had been co-working the case attended the review. Following this, the Council decided that only one social worker would be allocated to the case and would attend reviews.
  2. I can see that ideally the allocated social worker that had been in contact with the children, would attend reviews. However, the officers attending the reviews had knowledge of the case and the Council has now taken steps to ensure that there is one allocated social worker rather than two. There was no fault by the Council here.

The social workers only saw Miss B’s children once in three months and failed to explore their wishes

  1. The children were made subject to interim care orders which means the Council had a duty to undertake statutory visits. The files show that these regular visits were made at approximately monthly intervals, with other contact in between visits. There was no fault by the Council.
  2. As the children are subject to court proceedings, it is for the court to ensure that the children’s views are taken into account. As such I cannot investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. The Council has taken steps to deal with the issues raised. There is no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
  2. There is no reason that Miss B could not complain to the Information Commissioner that the Council had breached data protection with a whats app message. The Commissioner is best placed to deal with this and so I have not investigated it.
  3. 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)
  4. Miss B’s complaint about whether the Council is exploring the children’s wishes is part of the court proceedings. I cannot investigate this or whether the court gave sufficient notice of any changes to the hearing arrangements.

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