Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s response to her request for a change of social worker and other failings in the child protection process. We do not find the Council at fault in at first refusing a change of social worker, but there was some fault in the way it dealt with Ms X’s complaint about the matter. There was some delay in sending out minutes of at least one meeting. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and a remind staff of relevant timescales.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to deal properly with her request for a change of social worker, failed to send her minutes of Core Group meetings in time, and failed to arrange home visits by the social worker as required.
2. As a result she says she did not receive the full support she needed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, sections 26(1), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I considered relevant law, policy and guidance on councils’ child protection duties. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. 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

Councils’ duties towards children

7. Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need by providing services appropriate to the child’s needs. (Children Act 1989, section 17)
8. Local authorities have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
9. These duties are set out in Statutory Guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children’.
• When a council receives a referral about a child who may be at risk it makes initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family and assesses the information.
• Where the initial assessment shows a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm the council must hold a strategy discussion or meeting, jointly with the police where appropriate.
• If the strategy meeting decides to start a child protection enquiry, a social worker carries out a child and family assessment.
• The assessment may result in a decision to hold a multi-agency Child Protection Conference, which may agree a Child Protection Plan. The Council keeps the Plan under review and will end the Plan when a Child Protection Review Conference considers it is no longer needed to keep the children safe.
• A multi-agency Core Group is set up to be responsible for ensuring the Child Protection Plan is carried out and reviewed through regular meetings.
10. The ‘Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership Procedures Manual’ sets out the duties of the Lead Social Worker in implementing a Child Protection Plan. These include:
• The Lead Social Worker will be expected to have face to face contact with the child at least every ten working days to monitor the child’s well-being and understand their wishes and feelings. It could be more often if specified in the Child Protection Plan. It must include seeing the child alone (with the parent’s agreement).
• Ensuring that where appropriate the child has the opportunity to be seen alone regularly by a member of Children’s Services as well as with other members of the household and carers.
• Ensuring that those with parental responsibility, other family members and carers are interviewed at appropriate intervals.
11. In relation to Core Group meetings the Procedures Manual says:
• membership of the Core Group must include the social worker, parents and relevant family members and professionals involved with the child
• copies of the notes of Core Group meetings must be circulated by the Lead Social Worker to all Core Group members, the Lead Social Worker's manager and the Conference Chair within 5 working days of the Core Group meeting.

Statutory children’s social care complaints procedure

12. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. This involves an investigation by an Independent Investigator at stage 2, overseen by an Independent Person. There is statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, which sets out who may complain, about what and how the process works. This confirms that the law does not require councils to consider complaints about child protection under this complaints process.

Council’s complaints procedure

13. The Council has its own two-stage complaints procedure as follows.
• Stage 1 – Local resolution. The service area complained about aims to provide a response within ten working days. If it is likely to take longer it will let the complainant know.
• Stage 2 – Investigation. This is for complaints that have not been resolved at stage 1 and more complex complaints that need detailed investigation. A Customer Relations Investigator from another service area reviews the complaint and decides to either carry out further investigation or refer the complaint back to the service complained about to reconsider.
• If the Council decides to carry out a stage 2 investigation it aims to provide a response within 20 working days. If the investigator needs to confirm details of the complaint with the complainant, the time will start from that point. If the investigator cannot keep to the timescale they will tell the complainant and keep them updated.

What happened

14. Ms X has two children, F and G. She separated from their father, Mr Y, after a history of domestic abuse. The children lived with Ms X and had contact with their father under a court agreement. Ms X and Mr Y got divorced in May 2018.
15. In October 2018 Ms X contacted Children’s Social Care to report that her youngest child, G, had said Mr Y had hit him during a contact visit. Ms X wanted contact to stop. The Council placed the children on Child in Need plans and allocated a social worker, SW1, who began visiting the children.
16. In November 2018 after both children reported that Ms X used physical punishment against them, the Council held a strategy meeting and decided to start a child protection investigation. It started a child and family social work assessment which found that both children reported being hit by both parents. Also the acrimonious relationship between the parents was having a negative impact on the children’s well-being.
17. SW1 carried out a Child in Need visit in June 2019. Ms X was not at home and a childminder was looking after G. Ms X says SW1 told her that morning she would be visiting and Ms X explained she would not be at home. G told SW1 that Ms X had hit F. SW1 visited F at his school. F confirmed what G had said. After these visits SW1 called Ms X, and left a voice and text message for her. Ms X called SW1 back. SW1 explained what the children had said. Ms X explained the incident and the children’s behaviour that had led her to lose control for a moment and smack F on the shoulder. Ms X said she was not happy that the SW1 had spoken to her son in front of the childminder when she herself was not present. SW1 said she had contacted her that morning via a text message asking to visit the children and Ms X had replied that G was at home with a babysitter. SW1 said she would provide Ms X with a complaint form.
18. The Council held an Initial Child Protection Conference in early September 2019 which recommended placing the children on a Child Protection Plan and agreed the main elements of the Plan. The Council allocated SW1 as the lead social worker. The child and family assessment was completed and the Child Protection Plan drawn up in mid-September 2019. The Plan included the following:
• Neither parent to use physical chastisement with the children.
• The lead social worker to work with the parents to draw up a code of conduct about their behaviour with each other and the children.
• The lead social worker to speak to each parent about the underlying causes of the conflict and mistrust between them and the impact of past domestic abuse.
• The lead social worker to speak to F and G about their wishes and feelings.
• Ms X to attend a parenting course.
• The lead social worker to work with Ms X to help her develop a support network.
• F to receive help with emotional support at school.
• The lead social worker to “visit the children every ten working days, carrying out a range of planned and unannounced visits”.
• Core Group meetings to take place very six weeks, with the first held within ten days of the Initial Child Protection Conference.
19. The first Core Group meeting took place a few days later. It was a split meeting with the parents attending at different times. All the subsequent Core Group meetings took the same format. The notes of this first meeting say Ms X was willing to engage with support and discuss coping strategies with the social worker.
20. During September and October 2019 SW1 carried out several visits. These were to see the children at their schools, unannounced visits to see them at each of the parent’s homes, and an unannounced visit to Ms X’s home to discuss positive parenting.
21. Following the next Core Group meeting on 22 October there were three further visits by SW1 up to the end of November, at Mr Y’s home and Ms X’s home. On one occasion SW1 visited Ms X with a mental health support worker. The aim of the visit was recorded as being to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the children and try and understand what Ms X feels she needs.
22. On 4 December SW1 visited G’s school to see him after he had told the school about an incident of physical abuse by Ms X that morning. Afterwards SW1 called Ms X to discuss the matter but there was no answer and so she left a message.
23. SW1 made an unannounced visit to Ms X’s home the following day to discuss G’s disclosure. There was no answer, and Ms X did not respond to the telephone message the social worker left.
24. The same day Ms X wrote to the Council asking for a reply to her request for a change of social worker. She said this was not the first time she had written in with this request.
25. The Council replied to Ms X on 6 December saying SW1 said she had had a positive conversation with Ms X and a mental health colleague. The Council felt a change of social worker would not be a positive move for the children as they had built up a good relationship with SW1. The Council said it was confident SW1 had a good understanding of domestic violence and the abuse Ms X had suffered, and was not trying to minimise it.
26. Ms X replied the same day confirming she wanted a change of social worker. She felt the children would not have a problem building up a relationship with someone new. Her view was that SW1 did not see Mr Y’s controlling behaviour and seemed to believe him over her.
27. About a week later Ms X wrote to the Council again asking for an answer to her request. She also said she had not received the minutes of the last Core Group meeting held in October.
28. SW1 tried to carry out an unannounced visit to Ms X on 16 December accompanied by a domestic abuse specialist worker. There was no answer at the home address and so SW1 left a telephone message.
29. The following day SW1 visited G at school. The records say “mother not allowing social worker to visit at home” and that she was asking for a new social worker.
30. Ms X made a complaint to the Council on 17 December. She said she had asked for a change of social worker several times. She said she was not comfortable talking to SW1 as she felt the social worker lacked knowledge of domestic abuse. Ms X said she had taken legal advice and been advised she had a right to request a different social worker. She asked the Council to get back to her as soon as possible.
31. There was a home visit to Ms X on 23 December by a different social worker. I understand this was the duty social worker, SW2. The Council’s record of the visit says SW1 had not been able to see F at home “as mother had refused social worker entry and so he had not been seen within the timescales for statutory visits”. On this visit the record says the social worker saw both children, and Ms X agreed she would benefit from her own domestic abuse worker. The Council had not yet agreed to allocate a new social worker.
32. The next Core Group meeting took place in early January 2020. Ms X did not attend. The minutes of the meeting note Ms X said she would not attend any further meetings until there was a change of social worker. The meeting was followed by a further visit from SW1 to see G at school.
33. The Council replied to Ms X’s complaint on 13 January. It said the request for a change of social worker was not something that could realistically be achieved through the complaints process. It said it was a management decision based on a variety of factors including the relationship between the social worker and the children involved. But it said it would look into the other concerns she had raised.
34. The following day Ms X contacted the Council to say she had spoken to the Ombudsman’s office and been advised the Council should respond to complaint.
35. The next home visit to Ms X, on 15 January, was by a duty social worker. The notes say they discussed difficulties with the children’s behaviour and Ms X’s request for a change of social worker. The duty social worker said she would pass the request on again.
36. Ms X received a stage 1 response to her complaint from the Team Manager on 17 January. He said he did not think a change of social worker would be good for the children. He felt SW1 had built up a good relationship with them and had a good knowledge of their needs. However he offered to meet Ms X to discuss how best to support her working relationship with SW1 and ensure Ms X received support from the domestic abuse specialist. The Team Manager encouraged Ms X to see the specialist worker while SW1 concentrated on visiting the children.
37. Ms X was not satisfied with the response and asked the Council to review its decision or take her complaint to stage 2. She also said she would be sending in another complaint about SW1’s “professional misconduct and skills”.
38. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s request and asked her to explain why she was unhappy with the response and what outcome she was looking for. It said it would then review her request for a stage 2 response and decide how to proceed. The Council repeated that the complaints process could not influence operational decisions in Children’s Social Care.
39. Ms X did not attend the next Core Group meeting on 24 January. The minutes of the meeting note she did not want to attend until there was a change of social worker. SW1 reported she was worried Ms X was “disengaging from social work intervention”. The minutes say Ms X had refused offers of support from an advanced practitioner, specialist domestic abuse worker and CAMHS specialist worker.
40. On 27 January Ms X wrote to the Council to explain why she wanted to take her complaint to stage 2. She reiterated that she wanted a different social worker. She said this was because she felt SW1 was not professional in her approach and was biased. She did not feel comfortable talking to her and felt the relationship had broken down. She also complained that SW1 had entered her house and interviewed her son in front of a new babysitter without informing her. She said this was a breach of confidentiality. She disagreed with the suggestion to have one social worker for her and one for the children. She said she thought there was a need to interfere with the operation of Children’s Services because “without my engagement the case cannot move forward”. She felt it was unfair not to resolve this issue first before continuing with the operation of the service.
41. The same day the Council replied to Ms X saying as she was not willing to engage with social work staff it did not consider it was in the children’s best interests to progress the complaint. It said this placed her children at risk and that had to take precedence over the complaints process. The Council said unless she confirmed she would continue to engage and work with the social work team it would not escalate her complaint.
42. Ms X’s response was that she did not say she did not want to engage with any social work practitioners, only with the current social worker. She said she had a right to complain if professional misconduct was occurring.
43. On 28 January 2020 SW1 visited both children at their schools with a Family Support Worker.
44. Ms X attended the next Core Group meeting in February. The minutes noted that while at first she had said SW1 had helped her with coping strategies, she had been asking for a change of social worker since October 2019. The notes expressed concern about Ms X disengaging from the social worker and declining offers of support. However the meeting saw it as a positive step that she had decided to attend the meeting and had confirmed she would be willing to work with SW1 alongside another professional from the school. Ms X did not want to see SW1 alone.
45. The Council sent its stage 2 complaint response to Ms X on 17 February. It said again that decisions about which social worker to allocate are operational management decisions informed by various factors such as the social worker’s expertise in the field and the children’s engagement with the social worker. It said the complaints process could play no part in the decision. Also it said any misconduct issues would be a matter for the disciplinary procedure not the complaints process. The Council was still concerned that Ms X’s last email still showed she intended to disengage from social care procedures unless there was a change of social worker. But it offered her a meeting with the Team Manager so she could explain her concerns about SW1 and request a change.
46. Ms X replied the same day saying the Council’s response was ‘too late’. She did not take up the offer of a meeting.
47. SW1 carried out three further visits in February to see the children at their schools and at Mr Y’s home.
48. On 12 March SW1 saw both children at school. G reported that Ms X was still hitting him. The Council started fresh child protection enquiries.
49. The following day Ms X called the Chair of the Child Protection Conference asking for a change of social worker. She said she knew the boys were being seen at school but she did not have anyone visiting her at home and she would like that to happen too. The Conference Chair sent an email to SW1 to tell her about the call and say she knew the working relationship between SW1 and Ms X had become difficult. She said clearly any decisions about a change of worker were for the operational team but she asked for an update.
50. On 18 March the Conference Chair emailed the Team Manager to say she was continuing to receive messages from Ms X saying she needed help and support. She said Ms X was not specific about what she needed help with. Ms X wanted a social worker to visit her, but not SW1.
51. The Team Manager emailed Ms X on 23 March saying SW1 was not well and was likely to be out of the office for some time. He said he would allocate another social worker for the children. But if she needed any urgent support in the meantime she should let him know and he could arrange for someone to visit.
52. The Team Manager wrote to Ms X again the following day to confirm there was a new advanced social worker practitioner allocated, SW2. He said most visits would have to be carried out virtually now because of the COVID-19 restrictions. But he confirmed SW2 would be happy to see her and the boys at her home as he understood she wanted support in managing their behaviour.
53. The next Core Group meeting took place towards the end of March as an on-line meeting. Ms X attended. It was reported that the further child protection enquiries had resulted in no further action by the police or Children’s Social Care. Ms X told the meeting she wanted a change of social worker. She wanted support from a social worker at home but did not feel comfortable talking to SW1. She asked how SW1 could assess how the Child Protection Plan was working when she had not visited her at home since January. She also wanted more visits to take place at Mr Y’s home over the coming months. SW1 expressed concern that despite offers of different workers, including an advanced practitioner, Ms X had declined and appeared to be isolating herself. SW1 felt this would add to Ms X’s stress .The representative from G’s school also reported that Ms X had “disengaged from much of the child protection process” and was less engaged with the school. However SW1 reported on her visits to the children that were taking place at school and Mr Y’s house. She said the children were continuing to speak openly to her and were clear in what they wanted for themselves and their family. She reported in detail on Ms X’s concerns, including her feeling that SW1 could not see the difficulties she was facing in parenting the children.
54. SW2 had a virtual visit to see both children at the end of March, followed by a home visit in early April to see G. Further visits and Core Group meetings took place over the next few months. The minutes note that the situation at home was improving and Ms X was more open to support and advice from professionals. A Review Child Protection Conference in May 2020 decided that despite some improvements there was still conflict between the parents and the children should remain on a Child Protection Plan. SW2 would undertake some individual work with Ms X every two weeks on dealing with her emotions.

Council response to the Ombudsman

55. The Council explained that it did not agree to change the social worker at first as it did not consider it would be in the best interests of the children. This was because it said SW1 had developed a good relationship with the children and a good knowledge of the family. It said it decided to allocate a new social worker when Ms X was no longer communicating with SW1 or allowing visits to her home, which it said was not productive. Also SW1 left to go to another department and so it had to reallocate the case in any event.
56. The Council provided dates and details of social worker visits carried out. It said if any were missed it would be because Ms X was not allowing visits, children being away or difficulties in completing them in a particular week.
57. Regarding Core Group minutes, it said there is no specific time frame for sending the minutes out, but they should go out as soon as possible and before the next meeting. It confirmed that it is currently sending them out within two weeks of the meeting and it sends them to Ms X by email to ensure she receives them as soon as possible.
58. In relation to the Child in Need visit in June 2019 when Ms X was not present, the Council said there had been difficulties for SW1 in getting access to the children to be able to see them at home. It said SW1 had told Ms X she was due to visit G at home but “consent may not have been confirmed”.

Analysis – was there fault causing injustice?

59. There is no right to a change of social worker and it is not for the Ombudsman to say which social worker a council should allocate. However I can consider how the Council dealt with Ms X’s request. During the period when Ms X was asking for a change of social worker there was a child protection process underway. The role of the social worker was primarily to ensure the children were safeguarded, their wishes and feelings were considered and to progress the Child Protection Plant. I cannot criticise the Council for focussing on what it considered to be the children’s best interests in considering Ms X’s request. It explained why it took the the view that it would not be beneficial to the children to have a change of social worker and I could not say the Council was at fault in taking this position.
60. I cannot deny Ms X’s feelings that SW1 did not support or believe her and was biased in favour of Mr Y. However the evidence I have seen suggests that the Council took an even-handed approach. SW1 took up issues of concern with both parents, and was looking to them both for changes in behaviour to keep the children safe. The records of discussions at Core Group meetings and Child Protection Conferences do not indicate the social worker disbelieved Ms X about the domestic abuse she had suffered. The Council offered her support from a specialist worker, but she declined. Ms X was also receiving her own therapy during this period.
61. I agree with the Council that the complaints procedure is not the right route for achieving a change of social worker. The Council appropriately offered a meeting with the Team Manager to discuss the request and how the Council could best support Ms X. The complaints process would be an appropriate vehicle for complaints about a social worker’s conduct or decisions. But apart from the incident when SW1 spoke to Ms X’s child in front of the childminder without Ms X being present, Ms X did not provide details of any alleged misconduct for it to investigate.
62. When the Council became concerned at Ms X’s lack of engagement with the child protection process by not attending meetings and not wanting to meet SW1, it decided this was hindering progress and it needed to agree to a change of social worker. It appears this coincided with SW1 no longer being available, although whether through sickness or moving to a different department is not clear.
63. Nevertheless I consider there was some fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s request. The first evidence I have seen of Ms X asking for a change of social worker was in early December 2019. But she says she had been asking since October 2019 and the Core Group minutes say she had. The Council has not denied this is the case. On balance I find fault in the Council’s delay in responding to her request as I have seen no evidence that it replied until 6 December 2019.
64. After Ms X made a formal complaint on 17 December 2019 there was a short delay in responding at stage 1. For the most part the Council followed its stage 2 procedure. However I do not consider it appropriate for the Council to have said it would not deal with the complaint at stage 2 of the statutory complaints process on the grounds that this was against the best interests of the children. The Council did not need to take the complaint through that process and it could have responded to the complaint even if it did not agree to change the social worker, as it subsequently did. This response did not cause any significant injustice, however, as the Council provided its stage 2 response within the required timeframe after clarifying the complaint with Ms X.
65. Ms X also complained that SW1 failed to carry out statutory visits as required. The evidence I have seen does not support this allegation. The Council has provided details of numerous visits, almost all of them at ten-day intervals or less. Any delays were of a few days only. When the social worker could not carry out a visit because there was no-one at home, she tried to make contact with Ms X. It is clear that the children were seen frequently and regularly. The visits did not always take place at Ms X’s home. Some were at their schools and some at Mr Y’s home. The Council complied with the Child Protection Plan in carrying out the visits and I do not find fault here.
66. In my view the Council was at fault in not seeking Ms X’s permission to interview her son in front of the childminder when she was not present, especially as this was a Child in Need visit in June 2019 before the Child Protection Plan was in place. However SW1 obtained important information about F’s well-being from G, which F then confirmed. Ms X also confirmed she had smacked her child, and so any injustice to her from this visit was limited.
67. Regarding the Core Group minutes I consider the Council was at fault in delaying sending Ms X the minutes of the first meeting for over two months. I do not have details of other occasions when the Council failed to send out minutes in time. Contrary to what the Council said in response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, its own safeguarding procedures manual sets a timescale for sending out the minutes of five working days.

Agreed action

68. The Council has agreed that within one month of the final decision on this complaint it will:
• apologise to Ms X for the faults found in the way it responded to her request for a change of social worker, the lack of consent to interview her son in front of the childminder and the delay in sending out the Core Group minutes; and
• remind relevant staff of the timescales in its Safeguarding Procedures Manual for sending out Core Group meeting minutes.

Back to top

Final decision

69. I have found that the Council was not at fault in deciding not to agree to a change of social worker at first. There was some fault in the way it dealt with Ms X’s complaints about the matter and in some other aspects of the child protection process. I am satisfied with the action the Council has agreed to take to remedy any injustice cause and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman