Nottinghamshire County Council (19 020 882)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 09 Nov 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained about the processes and information in two child and family assessments the Council completed. He also says the Council failed to ensure his children were suitably educated. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council:
    • interviewed his two children without his consent;
    • falsely stated someone at the children’s school had referred to one of the children as ‘rough’;
    • included inaccurate information about him in a child and family assessment and refused to remove or amend this on his request;
    • did not give him sufficient opportunity to provide the information he considered necessary;
    • revealed to his wife information he had provided in confidence; and
    • failed to provide his children with a suitable school to attend resulting in them being home tutored.
  2. Mr X said this has had an adverse effect on his children and himself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
  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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Mr X and considered his view of his complaint.
  2. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included the family’s case file, the child and family assessments from 2018 and 2019 and details of the children’s school placements.
  3. I gave the Council and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child and family assessments

  1. Child and family assessments gather information about the child and their family to make decisions about:
    • whether any interventions are required, and if so, what they should be; and
    • whether the child meets the criteria for ongoing services as a child in need.
  2. The ‘voice of the child’ must be sought as part of the assessment. The Council must seek permission from the parent to speak to the child. If the parent does not give consent, and there are child protection concerns, councils will consider whether to begin safeguarding procedures.

Education Act 1996

  1. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 confers duties on councils to ensure children receive a suitable education:

“Each local education authority shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them".

  1. Section 7 of the Act confers duties on parents to ensure their child receives a suitable education:

"the parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable-(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and (b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise".

  1. Education is compulsory. Going to school is not. This means that under s7 of the Act, parents can choose to educate their child at home.

Background

  1. This complaint covers events from August 2019 to March 2020.
  2. Mr and Mrs X have two primary school aged children, Y and Z.
  3. The family has been known to the Council and Police since around 2014 due to alleged domestic abuse. The Council carried out an initial assessment in 2016 and then a child and family assessment in 2017. Y and Z became children in need.
  4. The Council closed the case in 2018 when Mrs X said she was no longer in a relationship with Mr X.

Events relating to the child and family assessments

  1. In August 2019, following an alleged incident between Mr and Mrs X, the Police were called. As a result, the Council became involved and began a child and family assessment.
  2. On 23 September 2019, Mrs X gave consent for the children to be seen at school. A Council child and family assessor visited school to speak to the children and their teachers.
  3. The child and family assessment provided details of the family’s history. The assessment also contained the following details:
    • “[Y] can be rough at times but generally…is settling in well”;
    • the children’s views of their father, which included a recollection of domestic violence;
    • the assessor’s view that “it is concerning the children have an understanding of their father’s gambling addiction… this will raise anxieties and instabilities”; and
    • Mr X’s response to the assessor’s views of whether he had a gambling addiction. Mr X strongly refuted this, stating he would spend around £100 a month on gambling and it was a hobby not an addiction. He said it did not have a negative effect on the children because he did not take them into the betting shop.
  4. The assessor recommended Mrs X was referred to family services to take part in a support programme. The assessor also recommended the case was closed to children’s social care because:
    • Mr and Mrs X were again no longer in a relationship;
    • Mrs X was working with a woman’s aid charity;
    • Mrs X had contributed positively to the recent Police investigation into the latest alleged domestic violence incident.
  5. The Council carried out another child and family assessment in January 2020. This provided an update on the family’s circumstances. It noted:
    • Y was being electively educated at home;
    • Mrs X had not engaged with the support programme but wanted to work with the Council over the children in need plan;
    • Mr X was not living with the family, but Mrs X was in a relationship with him;
    • the assessor had concerns that Mr X seemed to be controlling various matters. The assessor cited a report from the Council’s elective home school adviser which stated that Mr X wanted all communication regarding the children’s education to go through him; and
    • the assessor’s manager recorded the following comments: “It is extremely concerning the father does not acknowledge his part in the current concerns… if the child in need plan is not adhered to and there is no meaningful engagement, then consideration to escalate the case should be seriously considered”.

Events regarding the children’s education

  1. On 12 November 2019, Mrs X made an in-year school admissions application for Y for two primary schools.
  2. On 13 November 2019, Mrs X registered Y as being electively home schooled and removed them from school (School S).
  3. The two schools refused Y a place stating they were oversubscribed. The Council sent Mrs X a letter informing her of the outcome and advising her how to appeal these decisions. The Council did not make her an alternative offer because by this time Y was being home schooled.
  4. An elective home school adviser visited the family on 28 November 2019 to provide guidance about home schooling Y.
  5. In February 2020, the parents submitted in year school admissions applications for two schools for both Y and Z. At this time, Z was still on role at a different school.
  6. The Council wrote to the parents on 14 February to say there were no places at either school and informed them of their appeal rights. A record from the case files for the same date showed Mr X phoned the Council to say he would be home schooling Z whilst they looked for a school. Mr X said Y was also already being home schooled.
  7. Another record from the case file, also from 14 February, stated the Council’s home school adviser did not consider the children could be classed as ‘home educated’ because Mr X wanted them in school and was looking for placements.
  8. The Council made the parents an offer for Y of a different school, School S. This was the school Y had originally attended when their parents removed them in November 2019. The parents refused the offer. The Council did not make an alternative offer for Z because they were still on role at their primary school.
  9. On 12 March 2020, the parents informed the Council they had removed Z from school.

Events in relation to Mr X’s complaint to the Council

  1. Mr X initially complained to the Council on 13 November 2019. His complaints were in line with the ones in paragraph 1 of this decision statement.
  2. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint the same day and then wrote again on 23 November to ask for further clarification of Mr X’s complaints. Mr X provided this on 2 December 2019. The Council acknowledged his response on 4 December and said it would not consider his requests to amend the child and family assessments. The Council explained its reasons why and said it would place a copy of Mr X’s comments on the file.
  3. A Council officer responded to Mr X’s complaints on 3 January 2020. In relation to the complaints in paragraph 1, the officer said:

Y was ‘rough’

  1. The school informed the assessor that Y was ‘rough’ at times. The assessor recorded this on the child and family assessment.

Consent to speak to children

  1. Mrs X had verbally given consent on 23 September 2019.

The assessor’s comment that Mr X’s gambling had a detrimental effect on the children

  1. The officer spoke to the assessor about her analysis of the situation. The assessor was concerned that Mr X appeared to minimise the potential impact of his gambling on the children and in doing so, had not provided open and honest answers.
  2. The officer was satisfied the assessor’s conclusions were evidence based and supported her concerns.

Concerns the assessor breached confidentiality when she discussed her conversation with Mr X with his wife

  1. The officer said the assessor went to speak to Mrs X after speaking to Mr X, but the assessor said she did not discuss details of the conversation she had just had with him.

The assessor showed a lack of concern for the fact the children were out of education

  1. The officer said at that stage the safety and welfare of the children were paramount and the assessor made decisions based on safeguarding matters.

Assessor formed conclusions and wrote a biased report based on a 15 minute conversation with Mr X

  1. The officer informed Mr X that the report was based on information provided by third party agencies and conversations with all family members. The officer said it was expected in domestic abuse situations that people would view matters differently.
  2. Mr X challenged the outcome of the investigation and asked that it be escalated to stage 2 of the complaint procedures. A Council officer independent of the events reviewed the officer’s report and replied on 14 January 2020. The Council upheld the findings of the officer.
  3. Mr X complained to us.

My findings

The child and family assessments

  1. I have reviewed the child and family assessments from 2019 and 2020 and the case notes for the family.
  2. There is no fault in either the procedures followed by the Council or the contents of the assessments.
  3. The case notes indicate consent was given by Mrs X on 23 September 2019 for the assessor to speak to the children. This was sufficient. The assessor did not also need the consent of Mr X.
  4. The assessor spoke to the school, Mr and Mrs X and the children. The assessor included information relating to ongoing and historic Police involvement, Mr X’s gambling, his views and opinions on this together with his views on the domestic abuse allegations and their effect on the children, and the views of the school. All this was relevant and in line with the guidance on child and family assessments. The assessor came to professional judgements, views and conclusions which is what I would expect them to do. These were evidence based and it is clear from the reports what is fact and what is opinion. Mr X disagrees strongly with these views and opinions but that does not mean they are wrong or that the assessor should not have reached them. Further clarification was given by the Council to Mr X in both complaint responses over why the assessor came to their conclusions and all aspects of his complaints. The Council has already told Mr X it will place a copy of his comments on the case file.
  5. If Mr X wishes, he can complain to Information Commissioner’s Office under the right to rectification if he remains unhappy with this aspect of his complaint.

Education of the children

  1. Y had a place at School S. Mrs X removed Y and told the Council she would electively home school them. She was entitled to do so under s7 of the Education Act and the Council was also entitled to conclude it had met its s19 duties. An elective home school officer visited the family shortly after Mrs X made this decision to provide advice. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
  2. When the parents decided they wanted Y to be educated at school, the Council processed their in-year school admissions forms promptly and informed Mr and Mrs X of their appeal rights when the schools did not offer placements. The elective home school officer considered the children could not be classed as being home schooled because the parents were applying for school placements. The Council therefore offered Y a school place which his parents refused. It had no duty to offer Z a place at this time because the child was on a school role. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

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