Summary: although the Council has not provided evidence of its attempts to engage with Ms M before holding a strategy discussion, or her refusal to allow social workers to speak to B, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Council’s decisions to begin a child protection investigation or to make B the subject of a child protection plan. I have decided not to investigate the matter further since further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about events which led to the Council making her son, B, subject of a child protection plan. She disputes the allegation she emotionally harmed B by subjecting him to numerous tests for learning disabilities and telling him he had problems he did not. Ms M complains the Council did not have evidence B was suffering emotional harm.
2. Ms M provided the Ombudsman with a substantial amount of evidence to challenge the allegations. She says her family has suffered considerable distress as a result of dealing with the Council, and her fiancé was unable to take up a job because of the Council’s involvement with her son.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. The Ombudsman is an administrative review, not an appeal. We do not decide whether B was at risk of emotional harm. My job is to check the Council followed the correct procedures when responding to concerns for B’s welfare.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered:
• information provided by Ms M;
• information provided by the Council;
• the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children Partnerships Procedures Manual; and
• Working Together to Safeguard Children published in July 2018.
7. I invited Ms M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Protecting children from harm

8. Anyone who is concerned that a child is suffering or at risk of harm should inform the Council. Harm includes both physical and emotional harm.
9. Councils have a duty to conduct an investigation if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. (Children Act 1989, section 47(1))
10. The government has issued guidance to Councils managing cases where there are concerns about a child’s safety or welfare. (Working Together to Safeguard Children)
11. Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Children Board also has its own safeguarding children procedures.
12. Following a referral, the Council must decide whether it is going to begin an investigation. Before starting an investigation, the Council must hold a strategy discussion with the Police to decide what action to take.
13. If the Council decides to conduct an investigation, it must complete an assessment within 45 working days. The assessment will help the Council decide whether the child and his family need help to keep the child safe.
14. While the Ombudsman may check to ensure the Council followed the correct procedures before making a decision that a child may be at risk of significant harm, we cannot question the Council’s decision if the Council has followed the correct procedure. The Courts have made it clear that the well-being of children depends upon social workers being subjected to a single duty to safeguard the welfare of children. The safety of children takes precedence over the interests of the adults caring for them. The Ombudsman would not want to discourage a council from taking any action it thought necessary to protect a child.

What happened

15. B’s school made a safeguarding referral to the Council on 12 June 2019. The school was concerned about B’s emotional wellbeing. The school reported having a difficult relationship with Ms M, primarily in relation to special educational provision for B. The school was concerned about the impact this was having on B. The school said it was not aware B had any special educational needs, other than a condition for which he sometimes wore glasses, and possible moderate dyslexia. The school reported that B was making age-expected progress. The school was concerned about B’s persistent absence. The school also reported concerns raised by other parents.
16. The Council held a strategy discussion on 10 July 2019. The meeting was chaired by a manager from Children’s Services. Representatives from Children’s Social Care, the Special Educational Needs service, the school, and the Police attended. The meeting received information from B’s primary school and GP. The meeting noted previous social care involvement in relation to contact with B’s father.
17. I queried why the strategy discussion was held so long after the school’s referral. A strategy discussion would normally be held soon after a referral to consider whether a child is at risk of serious harm, although one can be held at any time if the Council has sufficient cause for concern.
18. The Council said it decided to hold a strategy discussion because Ms M refused to allow social workers to speak to B and attempts to engage with her were unsuccessful.
19. Ms M disputes this. She says social workers never asked to speak to B. She says she only had one conversation with a social worker, on 12 June 2019, when she believed the social worker was offering support in her dealings with the school which she felt she did not need.
20. The Council has not provided any evidence of its attempts to engage Ms M or her refusal to allow access to B. Ms M is adamant this did not happen. This is a concern. However, I have decided not to investigate the matter further since further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome for the reasons I will set out below. While Ms M understandably wants to ‘clear her name’ by demonstrating the Council has not followed the correct procedures, this is not an outcome I can achieve.
21. After a lengthy discussion, the strategy discussion meeting made a unanimous recommendation the Council should conduct a child protection investigation. The Council began a child protection investigation and appointed a social worker to carry out an assessment. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.
22. Following the investigation, the Council convened a child protection conference to consider the evidence and decide what action to take. Ms M attended the conference with a friend, and although the Chair declined Ms M’s request her friend read out a pre-prepared statement, I am satisfied Ms M had an opportunity to give her views.
23. The conference recommended a child protection plan for B. The Council made a child protection plan and began work to support B’s school and to support B’s relationship with his father.
24. There is no fault in the child protection investigation or conference. The decision B should have a child protection plan is a decision the Council is entitled to take and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.
25. The Council, Ms M and the school held a meeting at the beginning of term to agree plans to meet B’s educational needs. The Council described the meeting as productive and says that all parties reached an agreement about how the school would support B. The following day, however, Ms M moved B to a different school.
26. Following a detailed and careful review of progress by the social worker, a review child protection conference in October 2019 decided to end the child protection plan. This is a decision the conference is entitled to take and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.

Conclusions

27. Although the Council has not provided evidence of its attempts to engage with Ms M before the strategy discussion, or her refusal to allow social workers to speak to B, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Council’s decisions to begin the child protection investigation or to make B the subject of a chid protection plan. I have decided, therefore, not to investigate the matter further since further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. In any event, investigation by the Ombudsman will not achieve the outcome Ms M wants: I could not say the investigation should not have happened.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have ended my investigation since further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome, and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman