Summary: The Council was not at fault for withdrawing family support from Ms B, her partner and their children, because Ms B had stopped engaging with the support. And it was not at fault for inviting professionals who had not met the children to a child protection conference, because its guidance allowed them to attend and to contribute. However, it was at fault for putting unsupported claims about Ms B into a child protection report, and for a significant delay in answering her father’s complaint. It has agreed to apologise, update its records, train its staff, and make symbolic payments to Ms B and her father to recognise their injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr D, complains on behalf of his daughter
   (Ms B) and her partner (Mr C). Ms B and Mr C are the parents of three children who were named on a child protection plan from mid-2019 to early 2020.
2. Mr D complains that:
• the Council withdrew family support from a children’s centre in April 2019;
• professionals who had never met the children attended child protection conferences and gave their views on the risk to the children;
• there was no evidence to justify the child protection plan;
• there were significant delays to the Council’s complaints procedure; and
• the Council implied it was intending to inappropriately take the children into care.
3. Mr D says the Council’s failings caused distress, and the children were subject to an unnecessary level of social work intervention.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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 it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I considered information from Mr D and the Council. All parties 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

Complaint 1: the Council withdrew support from a children’s centre

What happened?

10. The Council completed an assessment of Ms B and Mr C’s children in early 2019, and, following this, formed a ‘child in need’ plan to set out how the children would be supported. One aspect of this support was from a local children’s centre.
11. In early April 2019, the family support worker from the children’s centre contacted the Council. She said Ms B had been in touch, was in a very low mood, and thought professionals were ignoring her.
12. The Council visited Ms B with the family support worker shortly afterwards. The case note of the visit says, “[Ms B] is not engaging fully. She is refusing to allow access to [the family support worker]. After joint meeting today [Ms B is] refusing to accept this service”.
13. The week after this visit the Council asked the family support worker to end her involvement. The family support worker told Ms B about this by text message.
    Ms B replied, saying she was unhappy with this decision.
14. A month later, after sharing its pre-child protection conference assessment with Ms B, the Council told her support was still available from the children’s centre if she wanted to engage with it. However, she did not do so.

My findings

15. Mr D’s complaint is that the Council stopped support from the children’s centre against Ms B’s wishes. He appears to have based this complaint on the text message conversation between Ms B and the family support worker, in which
    Ms B said she still wanted to access the service.
16. The Council put support from the children’s centre into the children’s ‘child in need’ plan, so it seems obvious that it wanted Ms B to access the family support. This impression is reinforced by the Council’s later case note, in which it told
    Ms B that the family support remained available if she wanted it.
17. The Council clearly did end the family support, as Mr D says in his complaint – but I do not agree that this was fault by the Council. Although Ms B said in her text message to the family support worker that she was unhappy with the service being withdrawn, the Council’s case records suggest her actions – her lack of engagement – implied otherwise.
18. Because of this, and because the service remained available to Ms B after being withdrawn, I have found no fault with the Council on this point.

Complaint 2: professionals who were unknown to the children gave views at child protection conferences

What should have happened?

19. The Council’s child protection procedures are published by its local ‘Safeguarding Vulnerable People Partnership’. This partnership includes representatives of the Council, the NHS and the Police. The procedures are shared between several councils in the south-west of England.
20. The procedures say every child protection conference should include at least two professionals who have had direct contact with the child, or children, who are the subject of the conference.
21. However, attendees may also include those whose contribution relates to their professional expertise or responsibility for relevant services.

What happened?

22. In June 2019 the Council held an initial child protection conference. The attendees were the Council, the school, a midwife, a health visitor and the community mental health team.
23. In August 2019 the Council held a review conference. The attendees were the Council, the school, Ms B’s GP, the health visitor and the community mental health team.
24. The Council held its final review conference in February 2020. The attendees were the Council, the school, the GP and the health visitor.

My findings

25. Although Mr D is right – professionals who had never met the children did give their views at the child protection conferences – not every attendee needed to have met the children. Some professionals can attend, and may have a significant contribution to make, because of their professional expertise.
26. At each conference there were at least two professionals who had had direct contact with the child or children – as the health visitor and deputy headteacher of the school were at all three. It is likely that the other attendees (such as headteacher of the school, the community mental health team, the GP and the midwife) all had relevant professional expertise or responsibility for a service. And there were no attendees who appear obviously irrelevant or unsuitable.
27. Because of this, I have found no fault with the Council for who it invited to attend the child protection conferences.

Complaint 3: no evidence to justify the child protection plan

28. In both the initial and the first review child protection conferences the decisions to start and continue the child protection plan were made unanimously by professionals from a range of agencies.
29. It is not for me to question decisions made by other agencies, and I would not criticise a conference Chair for going along with professional consensus – as happened here.
30. I can, however, consider whether the Council provided inaccurate information to the conferences, and, if so, whether this caused an injustice.

The initial child protection conference

31. The assessment which the Council provided to the initial child protection conference sets out the following areas of risk:
• Ms B’s mental health;
• a lack of parenting support from Mr C;
• concerns about domestic abuse;
• a history of significant harm to Ms B’s eldest daughter, who was no longer in Ms B’s care;
• a risk of sexual abuse from Mr C’s father; and
• Ms B and Mr C’s failure to consistently act on professional advice.
32. The concerns about the support from Mr C were raised in the community mental health team’s contribution to the conference, and the Police provided information about the risk from his father. There are also case notes describing Ms B’s refusal to engage with services against professional advice. And it is not in dispute that Ms B’s eldest daughter is no longer in her care.
33. This means most of the risks identified by the Council in advance of the initial child protection conference were supported by evidence.
34. The Council’s claim that there may have been domestic abuse in Ms B and
    Mr C’s relationship is not supported by information provided by other agencies. However, the social worker felt that the lack of support from Mr C was so severe that it amounted to domestic abuse. This was her professional opinion, and it is not for me to question that.
35. The community mental health team said, in its contribution to the conference, that Ms B did not appear to have a mental illness. However, other contributors – including Ms B’s GP – said there were concerns about her mental health and her reluctance to take medication.
36. I do not know whether Ms B had mental health difficulties or, if she did, whether they amounted to a risk to her children. But I am satisfied that, based on the information I have seen, the Council’s conclusion that there may have been a risk was not obviously unreasonable.
37. Because of this, I have found no fault with the information the Council provided to the initial conference, and – as a result – find no reason to conclude that the Council undermined the decision-making of the conference.

The first review child protection conference

38. The report which the Council provided to the first review child protection conference sets out the following areas of risk:
• Ms B and Mr C’s avoidance and obstruction of professionals;
• a lack of assistance from Mr C;
• a lack of parenting knowledge;
• Ms B’s mental health;
• Ms B and Mr C’s denial of professional concerns;
• possible fabricated illness; and
• Ms B hitting the children.
39. The Council’s records set out numerous examples of Ms B or Mr C avoiding or refusing to engage with professionals, including the social worker, the health visitor, the midwife and the school. Much of this information was provided by non-Council professionals.
40. The Council’s records also support its concerns about the assistance provided by
    Mr C, Ms B’s mental health, and Ms B and Mr C’s attitude towards professionals.
41. The Council’s concern about a lack of parenting knowledge is not supported by information provided by other agencies. However, this was the social worker’s professional opinion, which she explained in the report, so I will not question it.
42. However, the references to possible fabricated illness and physical abuse – both serious allegations of child abuse – are neither explained in the social work report nor supported by evidence in the Council’s records. And the Council has been unable to provide further information to evidence these claims.
43. Social work analysis provided to a child protection conference is important, and, frequently, influential to the decision-making of the conference. It should be clearly explained and backed up by evidence obtained by the social worker and provided by other professionals.
44. In this case, there was no evidence of either physical abuse or fabricated illness, and it is unclear why the report said there may have been. This was fault by the Council.
45. These unsupported claims were not decisive to the outcome of the review conference, because they were neither discussed in the meeting nor given as reasons for the continuation of the child protection plan.
46. Because of this, I see no reason to conclude that the Council’s report undermined the decision-making of the conference. But the Council should update its records to make clear that not all the information in its report to the review conference was accurate. It should also apologise to Ms B, against whom the allegations were made, and make a symbolic payment to recognise her distress.

Complaint 4: significant delays to the Council’s complaints procedure

What should have happened?

47. Although councils should consider many complaints about children’s social work under the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure, this does not apply to section 47 of the Act (child protection) – which is what Mr D complained about. So the Council considered the complaint under its corporate procedure.
48. The Council’s corporate procedure says it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 20 working days, although in certain circumstances this can be extended to 30 working days.
49. The Council will respond to stage 2 complaints in 30 working days, although in certain circumstances this can be extended to 40 working days.

What happened?

50. Mr D complained to the Council in July 2019. The Council wrote to Ms B and
    Mr C, and in mid-August received their consent for Mr D to complain on their behalf. On 22 August, the Council told Mr D it would respond by 19 September – although it had the option to extend this by ten working days.
51. At the end of September, after Mr D did not receive a response, the Council told him it would respond by 3 October. It apologised for the delay.
52. On 3 October the Council told Mr D it had written a response but needed Ms B’s permission before sending it. It said it would now send the response on 10 October.
53. Mr D did not receive a response, so asked the Council to progress his complaint to stage 2. The Council acknowledged this and said it would respond to his complaint by 21 November.
54. On 6 November, after the Council’s complaints team had chased the social work team for a complaint response, the social work team said Ms B had withdrawn her consent for Mr D to complain on her behalf. I have seen no record which confirms this withdrawal of consent, and Mr D was not informed.
55. In December Mr D complained again, and set out his unhappiness that his previous complaints had been unanswered. He then submitted a further complaint in January.
56. On 28 January, after Mr D had still not received a response and had approached the Ombudsman, the Council called Ms B, who said she did, in fact, give consent for Mr D to complain on her behalf.
57. The Council wrote to Mr D to tell him this, and then sent a stage 1 response six working days later.
58. After Mr D made a stage 2 complaint, the Council responded 34 working days later.

My findings

59. After receiving written consent from Ms B and Mr C in mid-August 2019, the Council should have responded to Mr D’s complaint in around six weeks.
60. It did not respond for almost six months. This was a significant delay and was clearly fault by the Council.
61. Although there is some suggestion that Ms B withdrew her consent in late 2019, there is no record of this, and Mr D was not notified. And when the Council rang Ms B several weeks later to check her consent, she gave it. So the consent issue was not a convincing reason for the delay.
62. The Council should apologise to Mr D. It should also make a symbolic payment to recognise the time and trouble he took chasing the complaint responses.
63. Given that the failure to respond to Mr D in a reasonable timescale involved several social work officers and managers, the Council should also arrange the delivery of refresher training to its children’s social work staff who are responsible for answering complaints.

Back to top

Agreed actions

64. Within six weeks of this decision statement, the Council has agreed to:
• put a note on Ms B and Mr C’s children’s social care file, highlighting that its 2019 allegations of physical abuse and fabricated illness were unsupported by evidence;
• apologise to Ms B for including the unsupported allegations in its review conference report;
• make a payment of £300 to Ms B to recognise her distress from the allegations;
• apologise to Mr D for a significant delay in responding to his complaints; and
• make a payment of £200 to Mr D to recognise the time and trouble he took in pursuing the complaints.
65. Within three months of the date of my final decision statement, the Council has agreed to deliver refresher training on complaints handling to members of its children’s social work team who are responsible for answering complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

66. The Council was not at fault for withdrawing family support from Ms B, Mr C and their children, because Ms B had stopped engaging with the support. And it was not at fault for inviting professionals who had not met the children to a child protection conference, because this was not a breach of its guidance. However, it was at fault for putting unsupported claims about Ms B into a child protection report, and for a significant delay in answering Mr D’s complaint. The agreed actions remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

67. I did not investigate Mr D’s complaint about the Council allegedly implying it intended to take the children into care. There are no pre-proceedings documents in the Council’s records for the period in question, so it clearly did not seriously consider taking legal action to remove the children. If the Council had internal discussions about this while the child protection plan was in force, this would – in all likelihood – not have been unusual or inappropriate, and therefore it is unlikely I would find fault with the Council if I investigated further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman