Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to put his son on a child protection plan and about its failure to follow correct appeal processes. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, says the Council did not give him the opportunity to prove that allegations against him were false, then wrongly placed his son on a child protection plan. He also says the Council did not follow the correct appeals process.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the child protection investigation and the Council’s handling of his appeal.

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. 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

5. I spoke to Mr X and considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I provided a draft version of this statement to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

6. The Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children set out the Council’s duties to protect children from harm. The Council may be involved where the child is “suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm” (section 47 of the Act).

What happened

7. Mr X and his wife have a severely disabled son, B.
8. In June 2019 the Council received a referral expressing concerns about Mr X’s behaviour towards his wife and Mrs X’s mental state. The referrer expressed concerns for B’s safety. The Council then opened a child protection investigation. Mr X was arrested and released without charge. The Council interviewed him at length. He denied domestic violence and expressed concern for his wife’s mental health. However, the Council concluded there was likely to be domestic violence between Mr and Mrs X and that this may result in harm to B. It decided to put B on a child protection plan, noting that “the concerns are very clear and have been apparent for a long period of time”.
9. Mr X appealed this decision in February 2020. Although the complaint was made outside of the time limit set by the Council’s child protection appeals protocol, it decided to allow his complaint.
10. Mr X challenged Council statements that he was controlling towards his wife and isolated her from her family, and that he had not followed advice on addressing his violence towards Mrs X. Mr X said his wife had travelled abroad without him on several occasions, that they had travelled together to her home “dozens of times” and that she had stayed there for extended periods.
11. He also challenged a statement in a social worker’s report that the family had been known to social care since 2015 due to domestic violence.
12. The complaint was heard by a Council manager who did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. The manager said all professionals involved in the decision to put B on a child protection plan had expressed concern about the risk to B and that since then Mr X had not completed a recommended domestic violence programme. Mr X appealed again. The second appeal was considered by representatives from the police and NHS as well as a different Council manager. It was not upheld.
13. Mr X then took his complaint to us. He said the issue of Mrs X’s access to her parents was the main pillar in the Council’s case. He said the Council had misunderstood what Mrs X had said, and that she had travelled abroad to see her family several times, but the Council had not asked to see the evidence for this. He said in 2015 an interpreter had wrongly made a referral to the Council after he called his wife “silly” or something similar during a discussion with professionals about B’s care and that this was insufficient for a classification of domestic abuse.
14. In response to my draft decision Mr X said he and his wife had been put under psychological pressure from the Council which had affected their ability to care for their child.

Back to top

Analysis

15. The Council has shared considerable evidence pointing to domestic abuse in the relationship between Mr and Mrs X, which it considered put B at risk. Mr X is incorrect in his view that the allegation he prevented Mrs X from seeing her parents or travelling was the main pillar of the Council’s case. I can see no evidence the Council was at fault in deciding to put B on a child protection plan.
16. There is no evidence the Council failed to take Mr X’s version of events into account before making its decision. In my view, additional evidence on Mrs X’s ability to travel abroad would not have affected its decision.
17. The appeals process followed the Council’s child protection appeals protocol. I can see no evidence the Council was at fault in its handling of Mr X’s appeals.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman