Summary: Mr X complains the Council arranged for his daughter to move out of the area following allegations of domestic abuse by his ex-wife. He complains the Council failed to investigate the situation, passed on false allegations about him, deliberately misconstrued and withheld information. We find some fault with the Council’s actions. We have made recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council arranged for his daughter to move out of the area following allegations of domestic abuse by his ex-wife. He says the Council:
• failed to investigate the situation and did not talk to him;
• passed on false allegations about him to another council;
• deliberately misconstrued information to mislead the reader; and
• deliberately withheld information.
2. Mr X says he did not see his daughter until a court agreed she could return to his care. He says he was caused distress and financial loss in dealing with the matter. He says his daughter, who has special needs, was caused an injustice due to the disruption to her schooling and home life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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. 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

6. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. 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)
10. 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)
11. ‘Working together to safeguard children’ (July 2018) is the statutory guidance which sets out the guidance councils should follow when carrying out their duties in relation to safeguarding children.
12. The guidance notes that a child centred approach is fundamental to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of every child. A child centred approach means keeping the child in focus when making decisions about their lives and working in partnership with them and their families.
13. When a council’s children care service receives a referral about a child who may be at risk of significant harm, it must decide within one working day what type of response is needed. This includes deciding whether:
• the child needs immediate protection and urgent action is required;
• the child is in need, and should be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989;
• there is reasonable cause to suspect the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and enquiries must be made, and the child assessed under section 47 of the Children Act 1989;
• any services are required by the child and family and what type of services;
• further specialist assessments are required to help the authority decide what further action to take; or
• no further action is required.
14. If the Council decides to complete an assessment, whatever legislation the child is assessed under, the purpose of the assessment is always:
• To gather important information about a child and family.
• To analyse their needs and/or the nature and level of any risk and harm being suffered by the child.
• To decide whether the child is a child in need (section 17) or is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm (section 47).
• To provide support to address those needs to improve the child’s outcomes and welfare and where necessary, to make them safe.
15. It is important the impact of what is happening to a child is clearly identified and that information is gathered, recorded and checked systematically, and discussed with the child and their parents/carers where appropriate.
16. The guidance notes that good assessments support practitioners to understand whether a child has needs relating to their care or a disability and/or is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The specific needs of disabled children should be given sufficient recognition and priority in the assessment process.
17. The guidance also notes that assessments should be child-centred, decisions made in the child’s best interests, focused on the action and outcomes for children, and hearing their voice. It should involve the family and identify strengths and protective factors, as well as risks to the safety and welfare of the children.

What happened

18. Mr X has a child, A, with his ex-wife, Ms P. A needs extra care as she has special needs. Mr X lived with his father, Mr Y, with A.
19. In January 2019, the Council received a referral from a domestic abuse charity. The referral noted Ms P disclosed that Mr X had physically assaulted her in December 2018. Ms P said A had witnessed physical assaults and witnessed several aggressive arguments between Ms P and Mr X. Ms P told the charity she had moved out of the house to prevent the arguments and left A with Mr X. The referral also noted Ms P said A was not at risk from Mr X as he would never hurt her.
20. The Council decided to complete an assessment. The Council noted concerns about the domestic violence described by Ms P and the impact this had on A. The Council also noted it needed to contact Mr X as A lived in his main care.
21. The Council tried to contact Ms P three days after receiving the referral but was unsuccessful. The Council spoke with Ms P six days after it received the referral.
22. The Council’s records noted it discussed the following with Ms P:
• Ms P reported years of verbal and some physical abuse incidences between her and Mr X.
• Ms P had taken A to another country a few times due to hostility within the house.
• Ms P alleged Mr X did not take on the full responsibility of caring for A and had refused to support her financially.
• A had witnessed the alleged physical assault which happened in December 2018. Ms P reported A was very scared and was shaking.
• Ms P made allegations that Mr X had a gambling problem. She also discussed being worried about his drinking as he would drink while A was in his care.
• Ms P had left the family home following the incident in December 2018 and left A in Mr X’s care.
23. The Council’s records noted it discussed Ms P’s options. These included working with her and Mr X to ensure safe and positive contact could be made between them and A, emergency accommodation, or refuge.
24. Records showed Ms P told the Council she was worried about A’s safety and wanted to go into refuge.
25. The records also showed the social worker sought the advice of a manager as she was uncomfortable with Ms P’s decision to remove A. The Council noted that while A was potentially at harm from witnessing domestic violence, it had not yet been able to assess the risk posed by Mr X.
26. It was acknowledged by the Council that it was potentially in a difficult position as it could appear it had decided Mr X was a risk to A just on Ms P’s account. The Council decided to ask the social worker to speak with Ms P and ask her to think about leaving A with Mr X while the Council completed an assessment.
27. The social worker spoke with Ms P, but the records showed Ms P said it was not safe for A to return to Mr X’s care. The Council asked Ms P to consider the potential impact of the disruption on A. Ms P told the Council she believed it was not safe for A to return to Mr X as he was not managing her care needs.
28. The Council also discussed the matter with the police. The police suggested Ms P go to a police station to report the domestic violence incident. The Council supported Ms P to make her report to the police. The Council decided not to contact Mr X at this stage in case the police needed to take further action following Ms P’s report.
29. Records showed the social worker arranged for Ms P to attend a refuge, which was in another council’s area, Council B.
30. Mr X provided evidence he had contacted the Council on the same day the Council met with Ms P. He told the Council he was concerned that Ms P had taken A with the intention of taking her to another country and leaving her there. He also told the Council he was concerned the sudden change to A’s routine may confuse and distress her. Mr Y also contacted the Council to raise concerns that Ms P would take A out of the country.
31. Ms P moved to the refuge with A in mid-January 2019.
32. Near the end of January 2019, the Council contacted Mr X. The Council’s records noted the following was discussed:
• Mr X’s biggest worry was the welfare of his daughter and he was worried about A not going to school.
• Mr X said he was the main carer for A and that Ms P did not attend any school meetings or doctor appointments.
• Mr X said Ms P did not listen to the advice of healthcare professionals.
• Mr X said Ms P was a lazy parent, that she would rather work than care for A.
• Mr X denied physically assaulting Ms P and said her bruises was because he had to restrain her to stop her from assaulting him. Mr X provided the Council with a photo of himself with injuries. Mr X said he was a victim of domestic violence and that Ms P was very violent.
33. The Council spoke with Ms P’s other child, Ms K. She said both Mr X and Ms P were as bad as each other and constantly argued. She also told the Council she thought it was unnecessary for Ms P to have gone to the refuge as A was happier at home.
34. In the case summary record, the Council noted the following statements by made by Ms K:
• “[Ms K] stated her mum has anger issues and can snap at any point. She stated that her mum also physically assaults [Mr X] and has seen her punching [Mr X] in the face while he was holding [A]”, and
• “[Ms K] stated her mum had been violent towards her and has lost her temper. [Ms K] stated that her mum has slapped her across the face in front of others and has hit her in the past”.
35. The Council spoke with Mr Y. Mr Y told the Council both Mr X and Ms P were not willing to work together to parent A. He said he would not leave Mr X and Ms P alone with A because of worries A would be caught in the middle of their fighting. Mr Y said he had seen Ms P care for A, and it was not true that she did not look after A properly. Mr Y noted Ms P had a bad temper. He also said he had never seen Mr X or Ms P hit one another.
36. The Council completed its assessment in February 2019. In the assessment, the Council wrote the following:
• “According to [Ms K] her mum can struggle to manage anger when stressed and can snap at any point. She reported observing her physical altercations between her mum and [Mr X] while [A] was present. [Ms K] stated her mum has also lost her temper with her and that this resulted in her physical assaulting her”.
37. Mr X said the Council had deliberately changed Ms K’s statement to cover up Ms P’s abuse of him.
38. The Council noted the evidence showed Mr X and Ms P had a volatile relationship and it was likely they did have heated arguments. The Council noted the conflict in evidence about each parent’s parenting capabilities. The Council also noted both Mr X and Ms P had presented it with photographic evidence of physical abuse alleged to caused by each other.
39. The Council noted Mr X and Ms P’s relationship was very likely to have exposed A to significant harm because of her witnessing, and hearing, physical and volatile arguments. The Council advised Mr X to apply to the Court for contact as Ms P had made it clear she did not feel safe allowing Mr X to know their whereabouts.
40. The assessment also noted a list of information Mr X wanted the Council to record. This included information that Ms P had hit him while he was holding A and that Ms P had pulled a knife on him several times.
41. As Ms P had moved to another council’s area, the Council decided to refer the case to Council B. The Council recommended Council B completed its own assessment regarding any risk to A. The Council noted this was because while the information it had gathered had not supported Mr X’s concerns about Ms P’s parenting of A, it recognised its assessment was limited. The Council sent the other council a copy of its assessment and its case record of the work completed.
42. Mr X provided evidence the Council provided Council B with information that he was seeking to locate Ms P and A. The document provided by Mr X noted he was ‘persistently trying to locate the family’. The Council confirmed Mr X’s solicitor had asked for details of Ms P and A’s location. The Council also explained the police had got in contact with the refuge to alert them that Mr X was possibly trying to locate them.
43. The Council said the term ‘persistently trying to locate the family’ was wording used by Council B.

Analysis

44. When a council receives a referral about a child, it must decide within one working day what type of response is needed. After receiving the referral, the Council decided to complete an assessment.
45. It is not clear from the evidence exactly what date the Council made this decision. However, the Council attempted to contact Ms P three days after receiving the referral. This suggests the Council had made the decision to complete an assessment before this.
46. Therefore, the Council likely, on balance, made its decision three days after receiving the referral at the latest. While the Council may not have made its decision within one working day, I am satisfied the delay is not so significant as to amount to fault.
47. When the Council met with Ms P in January 2019, it would have been aware from the information provided within the referral that Ms P had made disclosures of physical and verbal abuse from Mr X. Further, that Ms P had left the family home, left A with Mr X, and said Mr X was not a risk to A.
48. During the meeting, Ms P provided further information about her relationship with Mr X and made several allegations about him. The Council’s record also noted Ms P told the Council she had previously taken A out of the country.
49. However, Ms P now told the Council she did not think it was safe for A to return to Mr X’s care. This contrasted with the information in the referral which noted Ms P said Mr X was not a risk to A. The information Ms P provided, that Mr X was a risk to A, does conflict with the information contained in the referral. However, I do not consider it would have been appropriate for the Council to dismiss Ms P’s concerns.
50. The evidence shows the Council recognised there was a risk it would appear it had decided Mr X was a risk to A based just on Ms P’s account. The Council therefore tried to encourage Ms P to leave A with Mr X while it completed its assessment. This action was appropriate as it shows the Council was aware of the need to gather information from both parties and to give both parties the opportunity to provide their account.
51. The records show Ms P told the Council she would not leave A as she felt it was not safe for A to return to Mr X as he was not managing her care needs. Ms P has parental rights and was entitled to take A.
52. However, at this point, the Council should have turned its mind to whether it was in A’s best interest to leave with Ms P and whether there were any potential risks to A. This is because the Council should take a child centred approach when making decisions. This is especially relevant given the Council had information Ms P had previously taken A out of the country and returned without her. Given A’s additional care needs, it was also relevant for the Council to consider any potential risks to A if she were to leave with Ms P.
53. If the Council had considered this and decided there was no risk to A from Ms P and that it was in A’s best interest to leave with Ms P, this would be the Council’s professional judgment. However, there is no analysis of the situation and no evidence the Council had considered what was in A’s best interest. There is also no rationale recorded about why the Council was satisfied there was no risk to A if she were to leave with Ms P. This is fault.
54. I consider the fault identified caused Mr X an injustice. This is because he was caused distress and anxiety at not knowing whether A was safe. He was also left with the impression the Council had supported Ms P in removing A from his care just based on Ms P’s account. I do not consider the fault identified caused A any significant injustice. This is because there is no evidence to suggest she suffered any distress or significant harm from Ms P taking her.
55. Mr X said the Council did not investigate the situation and did not talk to him. However, this is not supported by the evidence. Records show the Council spoke with Mr X about the situation near the end of January 2019. The Council also provided its reasons for not contacting Mr X sooner; this was due to the fact Ms P had reported her allegations to the police. The Council was entitled to make this decision after consideration of the relevant information.
56. I am also satisfied the evidence shows the Council did investigate the situation. This is because the Council completed an assessment after speaking with all relevant parties, including Mr Y and Ms K. The assessment also reflects Mr X’s views of Ms P and his counter allegations against her.
57. Mr X says the Council deliberately misconstrued and withheld information within the assessment. The evidence does suggest the Council has changed the wording of some information within its assessment. For example, within the case summary record, the Council recorded the information provided by Ms K. This included the statement that Ms P physically assaults Mr X and that she had seen Ms P punching Mr X in the face while he was hold A. However, in the assessment, the Council has worded the information differently and instead noted Ms K reported observing physical altercations between Ms P and Mr X while A was present.
58. The revised wording suggests there was violence perpetrated by both parties, rather than highlighting Ms K had said she had seen Ms P physically assault Mr X. This does appear to minimise Ms P’s actions. Further, the Council noted the physical altercations occurred while A was present. This is different to the statement that Ms P punched Mr X while he was holding A. Therefore, the Council’s use of wording does arguably minimise the potential risks to A from Ms P. It is therefore understandable why Mr X feels the Council has misconstrued and withheld information. This is fault.
59. I consider the fault identified caused Mr X distress as he was left with the impression the Council was biased against him.
60. Mr X said the Council passed on false allegations about him to another council. The evidence shows the Council sent Council B a copy of its assessment and case summary records. Ms P’s allegations against Mr X were included in these documents. I acknowledge Mr X’s view that these allegations were false. However, I am satisfied it was appropriate for the Council to provide this information to Council B as it could not just dismiss the information provided by Ms P.
61. There is evidence to suggest the Council had shared with Council B that Mr X was trying to locate Ms P and A. However, I do not consider this to be fault. While I acknowledge Mr X says he did not try to locate Ms P and A, there is evidence to suggest he was. This is because the Council received communication from Mr P’s solicitor asking for Ms P details and the Council were told the police had contacted the refuge advising of the possibility of Mr X trying to locate them.
62. Further, I acknowledge Mr X feels the Council was wrong to suggest he was ‘persistently trying to locate the family’. However, the evidence suggests this was wording used by Council B in their records. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Council for this.

Recommended action

63. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council should complete the following:
• Apologise to Mr X for the distress and anxiety caused by the faults identified.
• Pay Mr X £300 to recognise the distress and anxiety caused by the faults identified.
• Remind relevant staff on the importance of record keeping and on recording the rationale for its decisions and actions taken or not taken.
64. The Council should complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

Subject to further comments by Mr X and the Council, I find fault with the Council for not properly considering A’s best interest, or the potential risks to her from Ms P, when Ms P told the Council she would be taking A. I also find fault with the Council for the way it presented certain information in the family assessment. The faults identified caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman