Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to place all four of her and her wife, Mrs Y’s children on a child protection plan. She also complains the Council gave false information to her and her wife’s employers and lacked impartiality, favouring one child’s views over the wishes and feelings of the other three children. We cannot question the merits of the decisions the Council has made there is no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called Mrs X, complains the Council failed to take account of evidence when deciding to recommend her and her wife’s children be placed on a child protection plan. The Council also failed to ensure actions from the child protection process were carried out and told their employers Mrs X and her wife were not engaging with the plan, which was untrue and has led to Mrs X’s wife, Mrs Y losing her job. Mrs X and Mrs Y feel the Council has lacked impartiality in its handling and was biased in favour of one child’s account, view and wishes over the other three children.
2. Mrs X has also said that address details of Mrs Y’s children’s father were shared with Mrs Y when they should not have been.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I am investigating the complaints in paragraph 1 above and explained the reasons for not investigating the complaint in paragraph 2 at the end of this statement.

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 normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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)
7. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have spoken to Mrs X and Mrs Y, and considered the information they have provided in support of their complaint.
9. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries. I have also considered the statutory guidance in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018.
10. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

11. The Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. If a local authority receives a report of concern about a child, it must decide what response is required. This includes determining whether:

• the child requires immediate protection, or
• the child is in need and should be assessed under section 17 of the Act, or
• there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm

12. If the initial assessment suggests the child may be suffering, or be likely to suffer, significant harm, the council should hold a multi-agency strategy discussion to enable it to decide whether to initiate safeguarding enquiries under section 47 of the Act.
13. Every assessment should reflect the unique characteristics of the child within their family and community context. Each child whose referral has been accepted by the council should have their individual needs assessed, including an analysis of the parental capacity to meet those needs whether they arise from issues within the family or the wider community. Frequently, more than one child from the same family is referred and siblings within the family should always be considered. Family assessments that include all members of the family should always ensure the needs of the individual children are distinct considerations.
14. Assessment is a dynamic and continuous process that should build upon the history of every individual case, responding to the impact of any previous services and analysing what further action might be needed. Social workers should build on this with help from other practitioners from the moment a need is identified. A high-quality assessment is one in which evidence is built and revised throughout the process and takes account of the family history and the child’s experience of cumulative abuse.
15. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for the management and oversight of investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children. The LADO must convene at least one safeguarding strategy meeting and must ensure that actions are agreed to manage risk and protect children. It is not the LADO’s role to decide whether someone has harmed a child or committed an offence.
16. The Council’s procedures for LADO investigations set out the following potential outcomes:

• Founded: There is sufficient identifiable evidence to prove the allegation;
• Malicious: There is clear evidence to prove there has been a deliberate act to deceive and the allegation is entirely false;
• Unfounded: There is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation or there is no evidence or proper basis which supports the allegation being made. It might also indicate that the person making the allegation misinterpreted the incident or was mistaken about what they saw. Alternatively they may not have been aware of all the circumstances;
• Unsubstantiated: This is not the same as a false allegation. It means that there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation; the term therefore does not imply guilt or innocence.

17. The LADO is not responsible for deciding what action an employer should take in respect of an allegation but will provide advice. The employer is responsible for conducting its own enquiries/investigation into the matter and for determining the outcome of any disciplinary procedure/investigation.

What happened

Background

18. This is a summary of key events and does not cover everything that happened.
19. Mrs X has two children, Child A (aged 14) and Child B (aged 12). Mrs Y has two children, Child C (aged 16) and Child D (aged 14). Mrs X and Mrs Y had lived together with all four of their children at the start of this matter. Mrs X’s ex-partner, Ms Z is Child A and Child B’s adoptive mother and shares parental responsibility for both children with Mrs X. Until July 2019, Ms Z had very limited contact with Child A and Child B since 2017.
20. Between April and October 2018, Mrs X contacted the Council about Child A’s behaviour. The police and Child A’s school are also involved but no safeguarding concerns were identified. The Council offered support to Mrs X through Early Help and Team Around the Family. Child A’s school also offered to provide support to Mrs X and her family.
21. In November 2019, Child A moved to another country in Europe to live with her biological father and his partner. On 1 May 2019, Mrs X contacted the Council for help as Child A was returning from her father’s care. Mrs X asked the Council if Child A could be placed in care temporarily while permanent arrangements are made for her as it was not possible for Child A to move back into the family home. Mrs X told the Council she had concerns about the impact on the other three children if Child A were to return to the family home.
22. The Council explained it did not provide temporary placements of this nature for Child A. The Council offered to complete an assessment to establish the ways in which it could help Mrs X, Child A and the rest of family. The Council undertook a partial assessment but could not complete this as Mrs X withdrew her consent for social care involvement and support.
23. At the end of May 2019, Child A’s school contacted the Council about Mrs X and Child A’s relationship. The school also reported concerns about Mrs X’s presentation at school. No immediate safeguarding concerns were identified and the Council provided advice to the school.
24. On1 July 2019, Child A’s school made a safeguarding referral to the Council following an allegation from Child A of physical abuse by Mrs Y during an incident at home the night before. A strategy meeting was held on 10 July 2019 and the decision was made to conduct enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act (child protection).
25. The Council completed its initial child protection enquiries on 15 July 2019. The Council concluded Child A was at risk of significant harm and the case would be presented to an Initial Child Protection Case Conference (ICPCC) once a Child and Family Assessment had been completed.
26. The Council completed the Child and Family Assessment on 24 July 2019. A Social Worker spoke to all four children alone and was able to obtain and record information about their individual views, wishes and feelings. The Social Worker also spoke to Mrs X and Mrs Y to record their views.
27. The ICPCC meeting was held on 31 July 2019. Mrs X, Mrs Y and Ms Z attended the meeting, as did the Social Worker who had completed the Child and Family Assessment, the police and the school nurse. The schools the children attended provided reports about the children which were read out in full by the Chair of the ICPCC. Mrs X and Mrs Y were able to contribute to the discussions and their comments, including their points of dispute with the Social Worker’s assessment, were recorded. All professionals at the ICPCC made the unanimous decision that all four children should be placed on a child protection plan under the category of emotional abuse. The Council also made a LADO referral as Mrs X and Mrs Y both worked with children. By this point, Child A was living with Ms Z.
28. The Social Worker continued to meet and speak alone with all four children every three weeks until 26 September 2019. Core Group Meetings took place every month from the end of August 2019 to June 2020 to discuss the family’s progress against the child protection plan, which Mrs X, Mrs Y and Ms Z attended.
29. A Review Child Protection Conference (RCPC) took place on 26 September 2019. Mrs X, Mrs Y and Ms Z attended the conference, as did the Social Worker, the school nurse and representatives from both the schools the children attended. Updates were given on the family’s progress against the child protection plan, as well as how each of the children were doing at school. The unanimous decision was made for Child A and Child B to remain on a child protection plan, and for Child C and Child D’s involvement in the plan to cease. All professionals were satisfied Child C and Child D were not at risk of significant harm, while they all also felt issues relating to Child A and Child B showed a continued risk of significant harm that needed to be explored further.
30. The Council undertook further work with Child B. At the end of February 2020, the Review Child Protection Conference (RCPC) reconvened to discuss Child A and Child B. Mrs X, Mrs Y and Ms Z attended and gave their views at the conference. A unanimous decision was made the threshold of a significant risk of harm was no longer met for Child B and her involvement in the child protection plan should cease. A majority decision was also made that Child A would remain on an extended child protection plan but that the risk category should be amended to reflect the current concerns. Child A remained on a child protection plan until July 2020.

Child protection conference appeals and complaints

31. On 1 August 2019, Mrs X and Mrs Y made an appeal against the decision of the ICPCC to place all four children on a child protection plan. They expressed concerns that their comments about Child A now living with Ms Z and the lack of emotional impact on the other children as a result, were not recorded or properly explored. Mrs X and Mrs Y questioned the decision to place all four children on a child protection plan and requested a review of this outcome.
32. The Head of Safeguarding undertook a stage one appeal review and wrote to Mrs X and Mrs Y on 15 August 2019. The Head of Safeguarding explained they had reviewed the conference minutes, spoken to the conference chair and examined the case records before reaching their view. They also confirmed that procedures had been correctly followed in reaching the unanimous decision to place all four children on a child protection plan. The Head of Safeguarding explained that while Child A might now be living elsewhere, the other children in the household had been exposed to conflict between Child A, Mrs X and Mrs Y and the impact of this on their emotional wellbeing needed to be examined further. The Head of Safeguarding upheld the ICPCC’s decision to place all four children on a child protection plan.
33. Mrs X and Mrs Y made a complaint about the Social Worker’s handling and assessment on 15 August 2019. They complained that the Social Worker had been unsupportive, negative, biased, breached confidentiality and kept false and inaccurate records to present an unfavourable picture of Mrs X and Mrs Y to the ICPCC. Mrs X and Mrs Y felt the outcome of the ICPCC might have been different if the Social Worker had not ‘cherry picked’ the evidence presented.
34. The Social Worker’s Manager responded to the complaint on 30 August 2019. The Manager confirmed their recollection of discussions with Mrs X prior to Child A’s return from her father’s care, which corroborated the information recorded by the Social Worker. The Manager asked Mrs X to provide details of the information she believed the Social Worker had ‘cherry picked’ so they could consider this further. The Manager acknowledged this was a difficult time for Mrs X, and her family, and encouraged her to engage in the process as best she could to achieve the right outcomes for the children.
35. Mrs X and Mrs Y submitted a stage two appeal against the decision of the ICPCC and stage one review on 29 August 2019. The appeal hearing was held on 3 September 2019. The appeal panel consisted of three senior managers. Mrs X, Mrs Y and their support person attended to present their appeal and supporting evidence and to answer any questions from the panel. The Chair of the ICPCC and the Manager who undertook the stage one review also attended to comment on the rationale for placing all four children on a child protection plan.
36. The Council confirmed the outcome of the stage two review panel to uphold the original ICPCC’s decision in a letter to Mrs X and Mrs Y on 9 September 2019. The Council confirmed the panel had considered the further information Mrs X and Mrs Y had provided after the appeal hearing. The stage two review panel concluded:

• the original ICPCC was managed in line with procedures and statutory guidance. It was also able to consider all the relevant information available at the time.
• All parties had the chance to speak at the conference, question information and contribute to the process.
• The original ICPCC’s decision making was sound and supported by the stage two review panel.
• No information was presented at the review that would justify overturning the original decision made by the ICPCC.

LADO process

37. The Council made a LADO referral at the same time as the decision was made to place all four children on a child protection plan (31 July 2019). The first Managing Allegations Meeting was held on 15 August 2019. Further meetings were held in late August, October, and November 2019. The meetings were attended by representatives from Mrs X and Mrs Y’s employers and key safeguarding professionals. The Social Worker that completed the original assessment of the children attended the first two meetings in August 2019 to provide updates on the family’s progress at Core Group Meetings. Another Social Worker attended the meeting in November 2019 as the original Social Worker was absent from work and the case had been reassigned.
38. The Service Manager for Safeguarding acted as Chair for these meetings and provided updates to Mrs X and Mrs Y. All parties attending were able to provide their comments and views. The LADO investigation concluded in mid-November 2019 with the conclusion that the allegation was founded. Mrs X and Mrs Y’s employers undertook their own action following this outcome to determine what they needed to do in relation to the respective positions held by Mrs X and Mrs Y.

Analysis

39. Mrs X and Mrs Y have complained the Council has failed to take account of evidence in making its decision to place all four of their children on a child protection plan. The Council’s records show it has undertaken all the enquiries I would expect. All four children have been spoken to alone, as is appropriate given their ages, and their views, wishes and feelings have been clearly recorded. This is in line with the statutory guidance which places the child(ren) at the heart of all child protection enquiries.
40. The Council’s decision making was based on its knowledge of the family prior to the safeguarding referral from Child A’s school in July 2019, together with information obtained during the child protection enquiries. This provided key information about Mrs X’s previous interaction with the Council in respect of her children, which was relevant to its assessment. The records made by more than one Council employee and team appears to corroborate the views of the original Social Worker in their assessment for the ICPCC and beyond. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling or decision making in this respect.
41. Mrs X and Mrs Y are concerned the Council has favoured Child A’s account and views over those of the other three children. Child A was the source of the safeguarding referral and the Council therefore had a duty to ensure it took full account of their views, wishes and feelings. The fact that the Council decided Child A should remain on a child protection plan for significantly longer than the other three children demonstrates it continued to have concerns about the risk of significant harm Child A was exposed to. While the Council’s focus was on Child A, there is no evidence this compromised the quality or extent of its assessments of the other three children. The frequency of the Social Worker’s visits to all four children was the same at the start of the child protection plan. This demonstrates it was placing equal value on the views, wishes and feelings of those children, although Mrs X and Mrs Y dispute this.
42. Mrs X and Mrs Y strongly disagreed with the approach the original Social Worker adopted. Their disagreement with the Social Worker’s professional opinion is not however evidence of fault. The Social Worker was entitled to give their professional view of the situation to the ICPCC – it was for the conference panel to determine what weight it placed on the information the Social Worker provided. The Council undertook the process in line with statutory guidance and local procedure. Mrs X and Mrs Y were able to fully participate in the process and their representations were recorded. Mrs X and Mrs Y were also able to fully exercise their rights to challenge the outcome of the ICPCC. Where there is no fault in the way a Council makes a decision, we cannot question the merits of the decision simply because Mrs X and Mrs Y feel it is unfair.
43. Mrs X and Mrs Y are understandably upset at the impact of this process on their professional careers. The information presented by the Council during the LADO process mirrors that which it recorded and presented during the ICPCC and beyond. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. Mrs X and Mrs Y will no doubt have had the opportunity to participate in any resulting action their employers have taken, and such matters fall outside our remit.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault in the Council’s handling of this case.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint described in paragraph 2 of this decision statement. This is because I consider this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman