Swindon Borough Council (19 016 947)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 09 Feb 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We cannot investigate many of the points Mr C raised in his complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about his grandson, because the matters have been considered in court. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with supervision of contact between the Mr C’s grandchild and his parents.

The complaint

  1. Mr C complains on behalf of himself and his son, about the Council’s involvement after safeguarding concerns were raised about Mr C’s grandson. I shall refer to Mr C’s son as Mr D and Mr C’s grandson as Z. Mr C says the Council’s involvement has caused avoidable distress and exposed Z to the risk of harm. They say the Council:
    1. Failed to pursue a prosecution against Z’s mother.
    2. Promoted contact between Z and his mother, despite her being found to have caused him harm.
    3. Recommended an unfair amount of contact between Z and his father.
    4. Produced a Section 7 report for the courts which was biased towards Z’s mother.
    5. Failed to recommend Mr C and his partner for a Special Guardianship Order (SGO), instead recommending Z’s maternal grandparents.
    6. Made incorrect statements about Mr C’s partners health in reports relating to the SGO.
    7. Provided Mr C with an inaccurate report, ahead of a fostering panel which led to the panels decision not to approve he and his partner as foster carers.
    8. Showed positive bias towards Z’s mother and exposed Z to the risk of harm when it stopped Mr D from seeing Z unsupervised in hospital but allowed Ms Y unsupervised contact.
    9. Allowed further unsupervised contact between Ms Y and Z when it should have been supervised.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated points h and i above. I have not investigated points a to g for the reasons explained at the end of this decision statement.

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. 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)
  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)
  4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. During my investigation I have:
    • Communicated with Mr C about his complaint and considered supporting information that he provided.
    • Considered the Council’s response to Mr C’s complaint, made further enquiries with the Council and consider their response and the supporting evidence it provided.
    • Considered relevant legislation.
  2. I have also sent a draft version of this statement to Mr C and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

  1. The Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. 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)
  2. If a local authority receives a report of concern about a child (a “safeguarding referral”), the council must decide within one working day 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.
  3. If the initial assessment suggests the child may be suffering, or be likely to suffer, significant harm, the council should hold a strategy discussion to enable it to decide, with other agencies including the police, whether to initiate safeguarding enquiries under section 47 of the Act. The strategy discussion must consider the child's welfare and safety, identify the level of risk faced by the child, and agree what further action is required.

What happened

  1. In October 2017, Mr D had a child, Z, with his then partner, whom I shall refer to as Ms Y. In November 2017, X was admitted to hospital with an injury to his leg.
  2. An initial x-ray to Z’s upper leg showed no fractures and he was discharged from hospital. However, Z’s pain continued so his parents returned him to hospital, where a further x-ray showed a fracture to his lower leg. The Doctor examining Z made a safeguarding referral to the Council.
  3. The Council started a child protection investigating and concluded that Z was suffering significant harm. It therefore made the decision to convene a strategy meeting with the police and with the doctor who made the referral.
  4. During the meeting, the participants discussed the circumstances of Z’s injury. The doctor said that, upon arrival at the hospital, Mr D had discussed the injury with medical staff, stating that he had been changing Z and he had kicked Mr D’s arm and some 30 to 60 minutes later started to cry.
  5. The Doctor said that Z’s injury was not consistent with Mr D’s account, and that further tests and examinations were due to take place in the coming days.
  6. All attendees of the strategy meeting agreed that Mr D should be considered as a potential perpetrator and therefore should not have unsupervised access with Z until police enquiries were concluded.
  7. The Council chaired a further strategy meeting two days later. Further examination of Z had been carried out at the hospital and further injuries had been identified, which medical staff concluded were non-accidental.
  8. Participants discussed who had had recent access to Z and should therefore have been able to cause his injuries. They concluded that Mr D should remain a potential perpetrator. They also concluded that Ms Y’s involvement could not be ruled out, and that Ms Y’s parents had also had recent access to Z.
  9. All attendees therefore agreed that Mr D, Ms Y and Z’s maternal grandparents should all be considered as potential perpetrators, and therefore they should not have unsupervised contact with Z.
  10. The social worker assigned to the case said she would draw up a safety plan to manage supervision.
  11. Participants of the strategy meeting discussed who Z should live with and agreed he would stay in Mr D’s and Ms Y’s home, where Mr C and his partner will also live and supervise contact between Z and his parents.
  12. Two days later Mr C and his partner arrived at the hospital, and Z was discharged into their care. The social worker drew up a safety plan which all parties signed. The plan said Mr C and his partner would supervise all contact between Z, Mr D and Ms Y and that a log would be kept of all contact.
  13. In early December, a management review of the case concluded that Mr D and Ms Y should leave the family home and have limited supervised contact with Z.
  14. Shortly after, the Council obtained an initial court order through the Family Court, which meant the Council would share parental responsibility for Z with his paternal grandparents.
  15. Z’s parents subsequently contested contact arrangements in the Family Court which allowed to move back into the family home, with supervision from Mr C and his partner.
  16. In February, Z’s maternal grandparents were approved as suitable to supervise contact between him and his parents.
  17. In July, a Fact-Finding Hearing at the Family Court concluded that Ms Y had caused the injuries to Z, and therefore Mr D was not the perpetrator. The Interim Care Order was therefore discharged, and Z was returned to Mr C’s care to live with he and Mr D under a supervision order.
  18. Ms Y continued to have contact with Z three days a week, supervised by her parents and sisters.
  19. In February 2019, a Family Group Conference was held, and a plan was devised on how contact between Z and Ms Y could be supported.
  20. During a home visit in March, a social worker told Mr D that Ms Y had completed therapy and that her therapist felt that she has progressed enough for her risk to Z to have reduced. Therefore, all parties would need to think about Ms Y’s contact with Z could progress. Ms Y’s contact with Y was subsequently changed to unsupervised.
  21. Records show that social workers carried out visits to Ms Y’s home to witness her care of Z. Discussions then took place regarding Ms Y having overnight contact with Z.
  22. In October, the issue of contact was again heard in the Family Court, who instructed the Council to prepare a Section 7 report dealing with Ms Y’s application for overnight unsupervised access to Z.
  23. The Council completed its Section 7 report, which contained its assessment regarding Ms Y’s overnight unsupervised access to Z. It concluded Z was not at risk of harm from Ms Y, as the risk identified at the beginning of care proceedings had been mitigated by Ms Y’s engagement with support.

Analysis

  1. Mr C complains that the Councill failed to properly manage the supervision of Z whilst he was in hospital in November 2017. Mr C says Ms Y was allowed unsupervised contact with Z, whilst Mr D was not allowed any contact.
  2. Mr C says the Council’s actions are an indication of a bias towards Ms Y’s as a mother, and placed Z at risk of harm.
  3. The decision to treat Mr D as a perpetrator but not Ms Y was not a decision the social worker made alone. It was made during a strategy meeting held the day after Z was admitted to hospital.
  4. The information that led to the decision to restrict Mr Y’s contact with Z, was that Z had an injury to his leg, Mr D described the events which led to the hospital visit, but the doctor who assessed Z concluded that the injuries were not consistent with Mr D’s version of events.
  5. After further injuries were found, a further multi-agency strategy meeting was held. It concluded that the additional injuries meant Ms Y could not be ruled out as a potential perpetrator, and therefore contact between her and Z should also be supervised.
  6. Having considered this point I do not agree that the decision to initially restrict Mr Y’s contact with Z was because of a bias in favour of a child’s mother. The decision was made based on the information available at the time, and only changed when further information came to light.
  7. I do not find any evidence of fault with how the Council reached its decision, and in the absence of fault I cannot question the merits of that decision.
  8. Mr C also complains that the Council failed to carry out visits to see Z at Ms Y’s home and has failed to ensure she did not have unsupervised access.
  9. Records show that, the day after the Family Court had concluded that Ms Y was responsible for the injuries to Z, the Council met with Ms Y and her parents. Records show supervision was discussed and that both of Ms Y’s parents agreed that they would supervise access.
  10. Further visits were carried out by a social worker and regular child in need meetings were held.
  11. Having reviewed the relevant documents I have not seen any evidence to support Mr C’s claim that contact between Ms Y and Z went ahead unsupervised. I also have not seen any evidence to indicate that these concerns were raised, until Mr D complained to the Council in July 2019, which was after unsupervised access between Ms Y and Z had already started.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have concluded my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I have not investigated Mr C & Mr D’s complaint that the Council should have pursued a prosecution against Ms Y. Decisions about criminal charges are for the Crown Prosecution Service to make, for whom the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over.
  2. I have also not investigated matters relating to the level of contact Mr D or Ms Y have or had had with Z. This is a matter that either has been, or will be, decided by the court. Once a matter goes to court it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, this includes the contents of reports produced by the Council.
  3. For the same reason I will not investigate the Council’s involvement in the Special Guardianship Order (SGO). This matter has been considered in court and is therefore out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. Finally, I have not investigated Mr C’s complaint about the fostering panel. Foster carers may ask the Independent Review Mechanism to review a decision about a fostering panel’s decision not to register them. It is therefore reasonable for Mr C to have used the IRM. Furthermore, the long-term care of Z was subsequently made by the courts when it considered the SGO.

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