Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly took child protection action in respect of her children A and B, causing her stress and difficulties in her professional life. There were some more minor faults in the Council’s actions, but these did not cause significant injustice. The Council’s decision that both children needed Child Protection Plans was one it was entitled to take.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains there was fault in a safeguarding investigation the Council carried out under s.47 of the Children Act 1989, specifically:

• There were not enough grounds to start the s.47 investigation because the allegations were false;
• The investigation was aggressive and intrusive;
• The Council supplied papers late that contained inaccuracies (four sub-points); and
• The Council did not carry out the recommendations of the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC);
• A remained subject to a Child Protection Plan despite her having been given to understand this would not happen.

2. She also says the Council intervened too late in her family’s case and that the Council’s later actions made things worse for her sons, specifically:

• Support for B should have started months earlier;
• The social worker was often on sick leave and did not attend the ICPC, meaning support was inconsistent;
• Family group conferences only involved Mrs X, not others such as A’s father;
• A and B are now less trusting of outside agencies as a result of the Council’s involvement;
• B’s managed move to a new school failed after the ICPC, whereas it had previously been succeeding; and
• False allegations against Mrs X’s new husband led to difficulties about physical contact with A.

3. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to communicate properly with her during this time, specifically

• Mrs X had still not had a copy of a report by the time of her second stage complaint despite having been promised this at the first stage;
• Mrs X was not told the result of an investigation by another council’s social services department;
• Communication during the course of the s.47 investigation was poor and uninformative, leading to the unfair use of the term “emotional abuse”;
• A core group meeting went ahead on 1 April 2019 despite knowing Mrs X was out of the UK, leading to the following review being organised without parental involvement;
• There was delay telling Mrs X of the outcome of the core group meeting of 1 April 2019 and the dates of future meetings; and
• Principles of partnership with parents were not maintained, leading parents to not be encouraged to participate and left feeling intimidated and excluded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
5. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

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

How I considered this complaint

7. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her on the telephone. I asked the Council for complaints correspondence to clarify the complaint before making written enquiries. I considered the documents the Council sent me. Many of them contain multiple references to and judgements about third parties, so I have not been able to share all of them with Mrs X. I considered information that Mrs X provided at my request. I considered the Council’s duties under the Children Act 1989. I shared a draft of this decision with both parties and invited their comments. I considered those I received.

Back to top

What I found

The safeguarding investigation

Grounds for the investigation

8. Councils with social care duties who receive reports concerning children may decide that a child is at risk of “significant harm” under s.47 of the Children Act 1989. The records show the family had been previously known to social services, which had had earlier concerns about her older son, B. A social care record from 2015 Mrs X provided in response to the draft decision and an email from the same year referred to B having difficulties at school and a social worker wanting to persuade Mrs X that B should live with his father.
9. Mrs X did not deny striking B. Councils with social care responsibilities commonly find physical assault meets the threshold for child protection action. The Council received a referral from the younger son, A’s school in 2019 following a disclosure to a teaching assistant. While Mrs X says the allegations made by A’s school were false and that it made unnecessary safeguarding referrals, what was disclosed by or reported as being disclosed by A and B, not denied in B’s case by Mrs X, meant the Council could decide there were grounds for a safeguarding investigation in either or both cases. Doing so was not fault.

Whether the investigation was aggressive and intrusive

10. The specific issue here was an unannounced visit by a social worker on 3 December 2018. To protect children, social workers carry out unannounced visits to family homes. By their nature, these visits are intrusive. There was no fault in carrying out the visit. The records do not show if the social worker was aggressive. In response to the draft decision, Mrs X provided the accounts of members of her family. However, while the family members are clear in their views, there are no accounts by impartial third parties. Thus, I do not find the Council at fault.

Supplying papers late

11. The administration before the ICPC did not all go to plan. An appointment with A’s father was cancelled and he was interviewed only shortly before the ICPC. The Council did not give Mrs X a copy of its assessment of A until less than 48 hours before the ICPC. She did not receive a copy of the assessment of B until she arrived for the ICPC. Copies of documents had to be shared. The Council accepted this was fault and apologised. It also offered to add a statement to the records with Mrs X’s comments of inaccuracies she said were in the papers.
12. While there was clear administrative fault, the evidence in the records shows it did not affect the Council’s view of the risk to the children and the consequent action it took. I therefore find the Council’s apology and offer to add Mrs X’s views to the records sufficient remedy for the injustice caused by the poor administration of the arrangements prior to the ICPC.
13. Mrs X says the Council cancelled appointments to allow her to correct factual inaccuracies. She says these inaccuracies affected the Council’s decisions. I have not investigated this further as the Council’s child protection decisions were based on the evidence mentioned earlier. Given what had been disclosed by A and the referral from B’s school, it is likely any corrections to the records would not have altered these decisions.

Carrying out the recommendations of the ICPC

14. Mrs X says the Council failed to carry out statutory visits every 10 days, there were no contingency plans when objectives failed, and there was a period without a social worker after the ICPC.
15. The Council accepts it did not carry out statutory visits every 10 days. However, the records support the Council’s position that this was due to three issues. Mrs X was not always available, due to the nature of her work. Mrs X maintains the Council could have visited at other times when she was available. There were also concerns about the safety of workers at A’s father’s home, so visits took place at his school. B, who is much older, refused to see the social worker. While the failure to carry out the visits was fault, I do not find it caused any injustice.
16. The issue of failed objectives is a matter of opinion, not fault. The records show regular re-evaluation of the family dynamics by social workers. That a social worker was unable to attend a managed move meeting was not fault.
17. The records also show the Council maintained an allocated social worker after the ICPC, with one worker replacing another in January 2019 without a gap, though I note there was a period of sickness. I do not find the Council at fault.

A remaining subject to a Child Protection Plan

18. The records show Mrs X is correct in that a social worker took the view at a review child protection conference (RCPC) that A’s case could be stepped down to a Child in Need. Mrs X provided an email chain between her and the social worker in which the social worker later told Mrs X she had not registered her dissent within four days of the RCPC, so it had not been accepted. However, there is no evidence she dissented at the RCPC, or that it would have changed the outcome had she done so. It was not fault for the RCPC to decide to maintain the Child Protection Plan for A.

Intervening in Mrs X’s family’s case

Starting support for B

19. The records show a youth worker started work in January 2018, following earlier involvement by the education welfare officer (EWO). The issues in the records were B’s poor school behaviour and attendance, and concerns about family breakdown, with both his parents having rejected him. The records show efforts by the Council to return B to school. The issue of possible bullying at school came after January 2018. I do not find the Council at fault.

The social (youth) worker

20. The records show consistent involvement by the youth worker in B’s case throughout 2018. The records also show the involvement of other social workers. The youth worker did not attend the ICPC, but that on its own is not fault.

Attendees at family group conferences

21. This point concerns a conference that took place on 30 July 2018. At this time, the concerns were only about B, so A’s father would not have been invited. As B’s father did not attend, only Mrs X was present. That was not fault by the Council. The Council partly upheld the complaint as no-one explained to Mrs X why A’s father was not invited. However, I do not find this omission to explain caused injustice to Mrs X that requires remedy. Although Mrs X provided an account from B’s father that is critical of the Council’s actions regarding him, it is for him to complain to the Council if he wishes.

A and B’s diminished trust in outside agencies

22. I accept that A and B are wary of outside agencies. That is often the consequence of the disruption to family life caused when children are subject to Child Protection Plans. But I do not find their feelings are the result of fault by the Council.

The failure of B’s managed move

23. The records show that B’s managed move to a new school failed due to poor attendance and behavioural issues. I do not find it was the result of faulty actions by the Council.

The effect of a false allegation on Mrs X’s new husband’s relationship with A

24. A’s school reported he had disclosed harm. The Council had no option but to investigate this. The Council was not responsible for the effect on the relationship this caused, despite Mrs X’s new husband’s views to the contrary. Although it accepts it was at fault by failing to arrange a meeting with Mrs X’s new husband that it promised, the injustice from this was slight and does not require remedy.

The way the Council communicated with Mrs X

Late delivery of the copy of a report

25. The report concerned was that of an assessment carried out in May 2018. In not upholding Mrs X’s complaint about this, an independent investigator quoted the records showing the Council sent the report. While I accept that Mrs X did not receive it, the records quoted by the investigator are clear the Council sent it. I do not find the Council at fault.

Informing Mrs X about an investigation by another council

26. Another council received a referral regarding B when he was living with his father in its area. The Council was not responsible for this investigation and has no duty in respect of it.

Communication leading to the use of the term “emotional abuse”

27. The Council accepted when it considered Mrs X’s complaint that some reports were late, as dealt with earlier in this statement. However, it did not accept it was wrong to use the term “emotional abuse”. While Mrs X maintains there was no risk of emotional abuse, the Council made A and B subject to Child Protection Plans on the basis there was. It is not for me to say if the Council was right there was a risk of emotional abuse. Instead, I must decide if there was procedural fault in the Council reaching that view. The records show there was no procedural fault, but that it was a judgment that professionals made on the evidence before them. I do not find the acknowledged lateness of reports led to a different decision than the ICPC would otherwise have reached.

The core group meeting while Mrs X was out of the UK

28. The records show the meeting in question took place on 4 April 2019. This was during a period of 18 days when Mrs X was out of the UK. Mrs X says she objected to the meeting being held during her absence. She provided evidence that she did so on her return. However, the records do not show if she objected before her holiday. Nevertheless, the emails Mrs X provided in response to the draft decision show she told the Council of the dates of her holiday two months in advance. I would expect a council to try to hold a meeting on a day when a parent is available. But is not automatically fault to hold a meeting when a parent is unavailable for a period and the meetings are held regularly. While it would have been helpful if the Council could have arranged the meeting when Mrs X was available, her absence was 18 days. I do not find the Council at fault for holding a meeting in her absence.

Telling Mrs X about the outcome of the core group meeting

29. The Council accepted it had not sent Mrs X the minutes of the core group meeting of 4 April 2019 when she complained four weeks later. That delay was fault. However, the Council sent her the minutes in response to her complaint and before the next core group meeting. I therefore find the injustice caused by the fault was limited.

Maintaining the principle of partnership with parents and children

30. While I appreciate Mrs X feels the faults identified and other matters where there was no fault failed to maintain the principle of partnership, this is not a specific complaint of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have upheld the complaint on the basis that there was some administrative fault. The Council’s apology is sufficient remedy for this. I do not find it was fault for the Council to decide A and B should be subject to Child Protection Plans.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman