Summary: Mr and Mrs E complained about the Council’s application of child protection procedures to their family. They say the Council failed to properly consider their views which lead to their daughter being placed on a child protection plan. We find the Council was at fault because it delayed sending Mr and Mrs E a copy of the initial child protection conference minutes. It also had to re-arrange the initial child protection conference when not all professionals could attend. In addition to the remedy it offered, the Council has agreed to our recommendations to implement service improvements to prevent reoccurrence of the identified fault.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs E complained about the Council’s application of child protection procedures to their family. They say the Council failed to properly consider their views which lead to their daughter being placed on a child protection plan. They add the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mrs E’s disabilities.
2. Mr and Mrs E also complained about the accuracy of the information included in the assessment produced by the Council. Finally, they complained about the professional conduct of social workers during telephone discussions and meetings. They say it has caused avoidable distress and made a difficult situation much worse.
3. Mr and Mrs E also complained the Council shared information with Mrs E’s client.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Mr and Mrs E’s complaints as stated in paragraph one and two. I have not investigated the complaint in paragraph three for the reasons explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. 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)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (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 our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information Mr and Mrs E submitted with their complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it provided in response.
10. Mr and Mrs E and the Council 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

11. The Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
12. These duties are set out in the statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. If a council receives a report of concern about a child, the referrer must have the opportunity to discuss their concerns with a qualified social worker. The council must then, within one working day, decide what response is required. This includes determining whether:

• The child requires immediate protection.
• The child is in need and should be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
• There is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.

13. Where a council has reasonable cause to suspect a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to hold a strategy discussion and make further enquiries. These are to decide whether it needs to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. A section 47 enquiry may be triggered if there are allegations about neglect or the abuse of a child.
14. If concerns of significant harm are substantiated following section 47 enquiries, an initial child protection conference (ICPC) should be arranged within 15 working days of the original strategy discussion. This is a multi-disciplinary meeting whose attendees decide what action is needed to safeguard the child. The ICPC may decide to make the child the subject of a child protection plan which details what action is necessary to reduce the risk of harm.
15. After the ICPC, if the decision is to place a child under a child protection plan, there will be core group meetings with the professionals and family to assess progress. There should also be review child protection conferences (RCPC). These consider the progress taken to safeguard the child and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.

What happened

16. In August 2019, Mr and Mrs E’s daughter (F) was referred to the Council’s children’s social care department after concerns that she had been sexually abused by a relative. The social worker also had concerns about F’s mental health and wellbeing. The social worker who made the referral was already the social worker for Mr and Mrs E’s son (G). G had left the family home and was having a difficult relationship Mr and Mrs E.
17. The Council recommend a family group conference. This is a way of bringing a family together and enabling them to plan and make decisions to address a particular issue or problem. As part of the process, the social worker spoke to F at school and at home to gain her views.
18. The police contacted the Council in October 2019 after an incident in which F reported that she was feeling suicidal.
19. The Council held a strategy meeting as it had concerns about F’s wellbeing and safety. The result of the meeting was that the Council would conduct section 47 enquiries.
20. The Council completed its assessment of F and recommended that an ICPC needed to be held to decide whether she needed a child protection plan. The Council also shared a copy of its assessment of F with Mr and Mrs E.
21. Mr E contacted the Council after he had received the assessment. He said there were many errors in the assessment, and it had set off Mrs E’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Council told Mr and Mrs E they could highlight their concerns at the ICPC.
22. Mr and Mrs E attended the meeting at the end of October 2019. F also attended. Mr and Mrs E expressed their unhappiness with the assessment and said the social worker had taken their comments out of context. The Council decided to rearrange the meeting because some professionals could not attend. It said a balanced decision would not be made if it went ahead.
23. The rearranged meeting took place in November 2019. The minutes show that Mr and Mrs E said the information in the assessment was wrong and the social worker had not considered F’s views. Mrs E said the assumptions in the assessment about her state of mind were untrue. F also said there were many false statements in the assessment.
24. The professionals that attended the meeting had concerns about Mr and Mrs E’s ability to protect F. They also had concerns about F’s mental health. The Chair of the meeting agreed with this view and decided F would be subject to a child protection plan.
25. The first core group meeting took place at the end of November 2019. Mr and Mrs E disputed the concerns raised in the initial child protection conference meeting and said F did not need a child protection plan.
26. Mr and Mrs E complained to the Council in December 2019. They said there were errors in F’s assessment, the social worker had not listened to them and she had ignored the needs of their children. They also said the Council had failed to share information on the progress of their case and it had failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mrs E’s dyslexia. They also complained about the conduct of social workers and other Council staff during telephone discussions, meetings, and unannounced visits.
27. The social worker visited F at home and in school. She also spoke to Mr and Mrs E. They said they did not need any further intervention from the Council.
28. The Council issued it stage one response to Mr and Mrs E’s complaint in February 2020. It said it was not aware Mr and Mr E had not previously received the ICPC minutes and therefore attached them to its response. It also said:

• There was no evidence that Mrs E told it she had dyslexia and therefore it could not make any reasonable adjustments. It asked her what adjustments it could make to help her through the child protection process.
• There was no evidence its staff had shouted at Mrs E during the initial child protection conference meeting or on telephone calls.
• Mr and Mrs E had opportunities to share their views during the completion of F’s assessment and during the meeting.
• It had to rearrange the first meeting because key professionals could not attend.

29. Mr and Mrs E’s remained unhappy with the Council’s stage one response and so referred their complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. They said they discussed Mrs E’s dyslexia, PTSD, neurological disorders, and physical disabilities regularly and in detail. They re-iterated the Council failed to consider or listen to their views. They also complained that it was unreasonable that the Council arranged the original meeting when it knew not all professionals could attend.
30. The RCPC took place in February 2020. Mr and Mrs E said they no longer wanted involvement from the Council. They said the social worker could not attend their home and could not see F in school. They said there was no evidence why the child protection plan should continue, and F was getting suitable support. The decision was made for the child protection plan to continue as professionals were still worried about F’s emotional wellbeing and mental health. The professionals also wanted further clarity on Mrs E’s PTSD and how she managed it.
31. Mr and Mrs E contacted the social worker and said she could not see F again. They also complained about the comments she made in the RCPC and asked her why she did not share her concerns before. The social worker responded and said F was not in immediate harm but there were still significant concerns about her mental wellbeing.
32. The Council issued its stage two response to Mr and Mrs E’s complaint in March 2020. It apologised for taking 14 weeks to share the ICPC meeting minutes. It also apologised that it rearranged the meeting to allow more professionals to attend. It accepted it inconvenienced Mr and Mrs E. It offered Mr and Mrs E £250 to recognise the distress and time and trouble its actions caused.
33. The Council allocated a new social worker to deal with F in June 2020. A review child protection conference meeting took place in July 2020. As F was making progress and all elements of the child protection plan were being addressed, the Council closed the case.
34. Mr and Mrs E remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred their complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

35. Mr and Mrs E say the Council failed to consider their views and F’s views in the documentation that led to the section 47 enquiry. They also say the information contained in F’s assessment is inaccurate.
36. The Council has a duty to investigate situations where it is concerned a child is at risk of harm. I have reviewed the strategy meeting minutes and I am satisfied the meeting was conducted properly because all professionals had an opportunity to express their views. The minutes also reflect the Council considered Mr and Mr E’s views. All participants of the meeting agreed that the Council should conduct section 47 enquiries because they were concerned about F’s wellbeing.
37. The social worker spoke to F alone to gain her views. She also spoke to Mr and Mrs E during the assessment. I appreciate Mr and Mrs E are unhappy with the assessment and their views are clearly recorded on the Council’s records. However, the information recorded in the assessment was based on the social worker’s professional judgement. The minutes of the ICPC meeting show Mr and Mrs E and F contributed their views and expressed their dissatisfaction with the assessment. They were also able to clarify any errors in the assessment. The professionals in the meeting, which included the police and a representative from F’s school, heard Mr and Mrs E’s views but they still had concerns about F’s wellbeing and mental health. There is no evidence of fault.
38. Mr and Mrs E say a Council officer shouted at Mrs E on the phone and in the initial child protection conference meeting. They also say the same officer sneered and smirked at F after the meeting. The Council denies this. As there is no evidence to support Mr and Mrs E claims, I cannot find fault with the Council.
39. The Council accepts there was a delay of 14 weeks in sending the meeting minutes to Mr and Mrs E. It also accepts it inconvenienced Mr and Mrs E when it had to rearrange the first meeting because not all professionals could attend. It has apologised and offered Mr and Mrs E £250. I welcome the remedy offered by the Council and consider this goes some way in remedying the injustice Mr and Mrs E have suffered. However, I also recommend the Council’s goes further and implements service improvements to prevent reoccurrence of the identified fault.
40. There is no evidence that Mrs E told the Council about her dyslexia. However, the evidence does show the Council was aware of Mrs E’s PTSD from an early stage. This is recorded in the Council’s case notes. I have not seen any evidence that Mrs E asked for any reasonable adjustments. Therefore, I cannot criticise the Council for failing to make reasonable adjustments for Mrs E.

Agreed action

41. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, by 24 March 2021 the Council has agreed to:

• Pay Mr and Mrs E the £250 it offered in its complaint response. This is to reflect the frustration and inconvenience they have suffered.
• Using this case as an example, issue a reminder to its social workers to ensure they send relevant minutes of meetings to all participants without unnecessary delay.
• Using this case an example, issue a reminder to all relevant staff to ensure they arrange meetings when they know all key professionals can attend.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have found fault by the Council, causing an injustice to Mr and Mrs E. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

43. I will not investigate Mr and Mrs E’s complaint about information the Council shared with Mrs E’s client. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent authority that deals with complaints about data protection. The ICO is better placed to decide if the Council wrongly released Mrs E’s data to a third party.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman