Summary: Mrs X complains about the actions of children services and their handling of a child protection intervention. She says the Council misrepresented information, did not tell her it was assessing her, did not involve her in the assessment, and did not invite her to the initial child protection conference. She also complains about the social worker and the Council’s complaint handling. We find some fault with the Council. We have made recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the actions of children services and their handling of a child protection intervention. She complains about the following:
• The Council’s assessment misrepresented information and contained wrong information.
• The Council did not tell her she was being assessed, did not involve her in the assessment, and did not invite her to the initial child protection conference.
• The Council misled her about why it was referring her case to a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)
• The social worker was unprofessional and prejudiced against her.
• The Council breached her confidentiality by contacting her at work and disclosing children service’s involvement to her colleagues.

Mrs X also complains about delays in the Council’s complaint handling. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused her distress, financial loss, and affected her health. She also says she has taken time and trouble to pursue her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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 with Ms X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent two draft decisions to Ms X and the Council and considered their comments.
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

What I found

Legal and administrative background

9. The Children’s Act 1989 sets out the circumstances where a local authority with responsibility for social services may become involved in family life because of concerns for a child’s welfare. The law places an duty on the Council to act in the best interests of the child.
10. The Council may receive referrals from third parties expressing concerns about a child’s welfare. It will consider these under ‘safeguarding’ procedures. This term refers to a set of policies and procedures used by agencies to report concerns for a child’s welfare and set out how a council will investigate such concerns.
11. The Council must consider if a referral raises a concern a child may be at risk of ‘significant harm’. In turn, this covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect. Where a council considers this threshold may be met then it should arrange a strategy meeting with the police to decide on action. The purpose of a strategy discussion is to decide immediate safeguarding actions. A strategy meeting may also include other professionals involved with the child.
12. A strategy meeting may decide the council should make enquiries under Section 47 of the Children’s Act. This allows it to make enquiries with all agencies who work with a child and the family. This includes agencies such as GPs, health visitors or schools. It must then decide what action to take. At one extreme it can close a case where it finds no grounds to support concerns and no reason to take any other action. At the opposite end of the scale it could act to place a child into its care. Between, it has various choices including carrying out a detailed assessment of a child’s needs.
13. If, following enquiries and assessment, the Council considers a child may be at risk of significant harm then it can call a Child Protection Conference. This decides the action needed to keep a child safe. A conference can recommend a child go on a child protection plan. The Council will then monitor this plan and progress against its aims and objectives. It will also arrange ‘core group’ meetings attended by professionals and parents to measure progress.
14. Statutory guidance, ‘Working together to safeguard children’ provides some guidance on the process. It highlights that social workers should share the initial child protection conference information with family beforehand where appropriate.
15. The guidance highlights that high-quality assessments are:
• Child centered.
• Holistic in approach, addressing the child’s needs within their family and any risks the child faces from within the wider community.
• Ensure quality of opportunity.
• Involve families.
• Build on strengths, as well as identifying difficulties.
• Are transparent and open to challenge.

Council’s complaint procedure

16. The Council has a three stage complaints procedure:
• Stage one – either the officer who has been dealing with the case, or their manager, is likely to investigate the concerns. No timescales are provided for when a stage one complaint should be responded by.
• Stage two – the head of the relevant service will investigate the complaint further and a response should be provided within 15 working days.
• Stage three – the corporate complaints team will complete an independent investigation. No timescales are provided for when a stage three complaint should be responded by.

What happened

17. In November 2018, an incident occurred between Mrs X and her husband, Mr Y. The police were involved in the incident. The police made a referral to the Council’s family and children services because Mrs X was pregnant at the time of the incident.
18. The police referral stated Mr Y had become angry and was shouting at Mrs X in public. The referral noted Mrs X said this was Mr Y’s normal behaviour when he did not get what he wanted. The referral also noted that during the incident, Mrs X had been pushed or bumped into. It said Mr Y had accidentally knocked into her while he was arguing with members of the public. The police referral stated Mrs X told the police Mr Y had not done this intentionally and he had not physically pushed her.
19. The police referral also highlighted Mr Y’s police history and mental health difficulties.
20. Following the referral, the Council decided to complete an assessment because of concerns of the risks to Mrs X and her unborn baby from Mr Y.
21. The Council’s records showed there were some difficulties in contacting Mrs X by phone in December 2018. The Council met with Mrs X in mid-December 2018. The Council’s records showed there was a discussion about:
• The incident that happened in November 2018 which led to the referral.
• How Mrs X felt Mr Y had dealt with the incident.
• How she met Mr Y and when she married him (under Muslim law and civil marriage).
• Mrs X’s view of Mr Y’s mother.
• Mr Y being out of work for the last three months.
• Mrs X’s past employment as a waitress before she lived in London.
22. The Council’s records also noted Mrs X was a mixture of ethnicity, including Palestinian.
23. On 3 January 2019, the Council completed a home visit with Mrs X and Mr Y. The Council spoke with both Mrs X and Mr Y about the incident in November 2018. The Council noted its concerns that Mr Y appeared to show little awareness of the concerns being raised and that he minimalised the Council’s concerns. The records also noted the Council was concerned about whether Mrs X was aware of Mr Y’s full police and mental health history and how this impacted on her ability to safeguard her baby.
24. Following the home visit, the Council decided to complete a child in need assessment to better understand how to support Mrs X and Mr Y.
25. Around a week after the decision to complete a child in need assessment, the police made another referral to the Council. The referral noted Mrs X and Mr Y had been involved in an argument. The police noted they found Mrs X outside her property in the cold. It also noted Mr Y had been verbally aggressive during the argument and that Mrs X did not believe Mr Y would hurt her but was aware he was difficult to control when angry.
26. The Council held a strategy discussion with other professionals and decided to initiate a section 47 investigation due to concerns of the risk of emotional and physical harm to Mrs X’s unborn baby. The Council noted the following concerns:
• Mr Y showed little awareness of the impact of his behaviour on Mrs X and the baby.
• Mr Y did not appear able to change his behaviour.
• Mrs X’s lack of knowledge about Mr Y’s mental health and police history.
27. The Council’s records noted it would complete a referral to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC). There is no evidence the Council discussed this with Mrs X or explained what this referral entailed.
28. The Council met with Mrs X on 15 January 2019 to discuss the decision to complete a section 47 investigation. The Council’s records noted:
• There was a discussion about Mrs X’s marriage. Mrs X told the Council her marriage was not arranged
• The Council encouraged Mrs X to seek information on Mr Y using Clare’s law (a domestic violence disclosure scheme which allows people to ask the police about the information they hold on a person in relation to domestic abuse offences and convictions).
• The Council encouraged Mrs X to tell her employer about the Council’s involvement and the section 47 investigation.
• That it was clear from discussions that Mrs X knew little about Mr Y’s history, which meant she could not make safeguarding decisions.
• Mrs X would message her social worker each morning to confirm she was safe and well.
29. On 18 January 2019, the Council held a professionals meeting. It was agreed at that meeting for the case to be progressed to a pre-birth initial child protection conference (ICPC). The Council noted the conference would split, so Mrs X and Mr Y would attend separately. There was also a record the Council would meet with Mrs X and Mr Y on the morning of the conference to share the information that would be discussed at the conference. The Council noted this was to minimise any risk to Mrs X. The ICPC was arranged for 30 January 2019.
30. The Council’s case records noted Mrs X had planned to give birth in another city as this was where her family support network was based.
31. The Council’s records showed it tried to contact Mrs X on 25 and 28 January. The Council was able to speak with Mrs X, but records showed the Council messaged Mrs X on 28 January to inform her of the date of the ICPC. The message record also showed the social worker was concerned that Mrs X had not kept in contact with her daily as agreed.
32. On 29 January 2019, the Council called Mrs X’s work as it was concerned it had not heard from her.
33. The Council completed its child protection assessment on 30 January 2019. The assessment contained detailed information from both Mrs X and Mr Y and the Council’s analysis of the information gathered during its investigation.
34. The assessment also highlighted the two incidents which led to the Council’s intervention. For the incident that occurred in January 2019, the assessment said the police report stated Mrs X had called the police and had run into the street to escape Mr Y’s temper. The assessment also set out the risks the Council were concerned about, including:
• Mr Y being controlling of Mrs X.
• Mr Y’s significant police history.
• Mr Y not fully understanding the impact of his behaviour.
• Mr Y potentially disengaging from his mental health treatment and plan.
• Mrs X’s level of engagement and her understanding of their concerns regarding the safety of her baby. Council noted the difficulty in maintaining consistent and regular contact with Mrs X.
35. The Council set out information that it felt was unclear, including:
• The circumstances of how Mrs X and Mr Y met.
• What Mrs X knew in terms of Mr Y’s police and mental health history.
36. The Council also recorded in the assessment that Mrs X may have been a victim of child sexual exploitation and that Mrs X’s identified as a mix of ethnicity, including Iranian.
37. The Council rearranged the ICPC for 8 February 2019. There is evidence the Council told Mrs X of the new date. The Council then rearranged the ICPC again for 11 February 2019. There is no evidence the Council told Mrs X of the new date.
38. Following consideration of the evidence, the professionals decided to put Mrs X’s unborn baby on a child protection plan.
39. Mrs X moved to another council area at the end of February 2019. Council visited her in April 2019 and provided her with a copy of the child protection assessment. Mrs X said this was the first time she had seen the document.
40. Mrs X raised concerns that the information recorded by the Council was inconsistent. She said:
• The Council noted she was of Palestinian and then of Iranian decent. Mrs X said she was neither.
• The social worker had noted in one record she had asked Mrs X to tell her employer of the Council’s involvement. However, in another record, the social worker recorded she was very clear to Mrs X she needed to speak with her employer. Mrs X felt this demonstrated the social worker’s inconsistent use of language.
41. Mrs X also raised concerns that the information presented by the Council was incorrect. She said:
• She did not work as a waitress before moving to London.
• The records wrongly noted she was a nursery assistant when her job title was nursery teacher.
• The Council made up the circumstance of how she met her husband. She says what the Council recorded is untrue.
• The Council failed to record she had told the social worker she would be moving away from London permanently during their meeting on 15 January 2019.
• The Council used wrong dates in the child protection assessment.
• The Council wrongly suggested in the child protection assessment she had been a victim of child sexual exploitation. She said there was no evidence to support this.
• The Council wrongly asserted Mr Y had a history of previous domestic incidents with an ex-partner.
42. Mrs X also provided the Ombudsman with examples of where she felt the social worker had been dishonest in her recordings. One example given was that the social worker had only noted one phone call in January 2019 when Mrs X said there had been two phone calls.
43. Mrs X said she felt the social worker was prejudiced against her. She provided an example of the fact the social worker kept asking her whether her marriage to her husband was arranged. She feels the social worker only asked her this because of her religion.
44. With regards to the MARAC referral, Mrs X said the Council did not explain to her what this was. She said the Council misled her into thinking it was just to receive advice on securing her home.
45. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged the following:
• The Council contacted Mrs X at work out of concern for her welfare but accepted the social worker should have checked with Mrs X that she was happy for it to do so beforehand.
• The social worker had tried to contact Mrs X prior to the ICPC to share the assessment but was unsuccessful. However, the Council said it should have persevered with this to ensure it could share the assessment with Mrs X.

Complaint handling

46. Mrs X raised her complaint in October 2019.
47. Mrs X chased the Council in December 2019 numerous times as she had not received a response. The Council sent its stage one response in January 2020.
48. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two at the end of January 2020.
49. The Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two complaint at the beginning of February 2020. Mrs X was not happy with the response and asked the Council to respond at stage three at the end of February 2020. The Council responded to the stage three complaint at the end of March 2020.
50. The Council accepted fault for its complaint handling at stage one. It said it should have responded to Mrs X’s stage one complaint within 15 working days.
51. In response to the first draft decision, the Council provided new evidence of a home visit to Mrs X in March 2019. The record noted the social worker had spoken with Mrs X about MARAC and domestic violence support. The social worker recorded Mrs X being open to these.

Analysis

The child protection assessment

52. Statutory guidance, ‘Working together to safeguard children’, notes that high quality assessments should be child centered, involve families, identify strengths and weaknesses, and be transparent and open to challenge.
53. The evidence shows the Council’s assessment did involve both Mrs X and Mr Y. This is because their views have been reflected in the assessment. The assessment also shows the Council’s analysis of its concerns to the risk to Mrs X’s unborn baby after consideration of the information it had gathered during its section 47 investigation. The Council was entitled to reach a view after consideration of the evidence available.
54. However, there is some evidence the assessment contains some incorrect information. For example, the Council does reference incorrect dates in the assessment.
55. Further, there is also information contained in the assessment which I am not satisfied is supported by evidence. For example, the assessment notes that Mrs X had fled Mr Y during the incident in January 2019. However, the police referral does not mention this. Therefore, it is unclear where the Council got this information from.
56. The Council also refers to evidence that suggests Mrs X was a victim of child sexual exploitation. However, there is no evidence, that I have seen, to suggest this was the case. Therefore, again, it is unclear how the Council reached this conclusion. This is fault.
57. However, I do not consider the fault meant the decision to put Mrs X’s baby on a child protection plan was wrong. This is because the assessment still showed a clear analysis of the concerns the Council had. The Council is entitled to consider and weigh up the information it gathered and to decide whether, in its professional judgment, there was a risk to Mrs X’s baby. The Council has properly outlined its reasons for why it believed there was a risk to Mrs X’s baby. It has also appropriately gathered information in line with the statutory guidance. Therefore, I do not consider the inaccuracies I have identified would likely, on balance, have materially affected the Council’s overall analysis of the information in its assessment.
58. It is also clear Mrs X disputes some of the information the Council has recorded her as saying in the assessment. However, I do not consider it possible to determine, even on balance, what Mrs X and the Council discussed during their meetings and phone conversations. This is because there is a conflict in evidence as I have no reason to disbelieve what Mrs X is saying, nor what the Council has recorded. Therefore, I am unable to comment further on this matter.
59. Mrs X says the Council did not tell her she was being assessed and did not involve her in the assessment. There is no evidence to suggest the Council told Mrs X it was completing an assessment.
60. Therefore, it is understandable why she feels the Council did not involve her in the assessment process. It is good practice for councils to tell parents that it will be completing an assessment as it helps to ensure the process is open and transparent. This also helps to foster good working relations between the parent and council.
61. Whilst I acknowledge the Council likely did not tell Mrs X about the assessment, I am satisfied her views are still reflected within the assessment. This is because Mrs X had the opportunity to meet and speak with the Council several times to put forward her views and feelings. The evidence also shows the Council has appropriately set out and considered her views during its assessment.
62. The evidence shows the Council did not share the completed assessment with Mrs X before the ICPC. There is no evidence the Council had considered it would be inappropriate to share the assessment. Therefore, it would have been good practice for the Council to have shared it with Mrs X before the ICPC. As the Council did not do this, Mrs X was unable to input into the assessment and to raise her concerns about the content prior to the ICPC. In my view, this likely contributed to her experience of feeling uninvolved in the assessment. This is fault.
63. I consider the fault identified caused Mrs X an injustice because she lost the opportunity to review the assessment before the ICPC. Further, it has caused some uncertainty as it is not possible to know, even on balance, if the Council would have made any changes to the assessment and whether this would have affected the decision made by the panel at the ICPC.

Initial child protection conference

64. The evidence shows the Council rearranged the ICPC three times. The evidence also shows the Council told Mrs X about the first two dates of the ICPC. However, there is no evidence the Council told Mrs X about the third, and final, date.
65. I find fault with the Council for not telling Mrs X about the final ICPC date. I consider this caused her an injustice as she lost the opportunity to input into the meeting. This also caused some uncertainty as it is not possible to know, even on balance, whether her attendance could have affected the decision made by the panel to place her baby on a child protection plan.

Social worker

66. Mrs X says the social worker was unprofessional and prejudiced against her. She feels the social worker was prejudiced because they kept asking her whether her marriage to Mr Y was arranged. Mrs X feels this was only asked due to her religion and perceived ethnicity.
67. The evidence shows the social worker asked Mrs X about her marriage to Mr Y during her meetings with Mrs X. The evidence also shows Mrs X told the social worker that her marriage was not arranged.
68. It is not for the Ombudsman to question how a social worker chooses to investigate. It might be the social worker had good reason to continue to pursue this line of enquiry. However, it would be reasonable to expect the social worker to record their reasons for why they were pursing the line of enquiry despite Mrs X confirming the marriage was not arranged the first time she was asked.
69. I cannot see from the available evidence the social worker’s rationale or decision making as to why they continued to pursue this line of enquiry. This is fault as the Council should ensure it keeps detailed records to reflect why it is gathering certain information. While I cannot say the social worker’s actions were discriminatory or prejudiced, it is understandable why Mrs X feels the social worker’s actions were prejudiced against her.
70. I am of the view the fault identified caused Mrs X distress as she has been left with the perception that the social worker was prejudiced against her. However, I do not consider the fault would have affected the Council’s assessment. This is because the assessment reflects Mrs X’s position that her marriage was not arranged.

MARAC and the social worker calling Mrs X’s employer

71. There is evidence the Council discussed the MARAC referral with Mrs X in March 2019. The record does not detail what the social worker explained to Mrs X, but it does note Mrs X was open to it.
72. Mrs X said the Council misled her about the MARAC referral. However, it is not possible for me to determine, even on balance, what the social worker told Mrs X about what the MARAC referral involved.
73. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council as there is evidence it had told Mrs X about the MARAC referral.
74. There is evidence the Council contacted Mrs X’s employer without confirmation that Mrs X was happy for the Council to do so. The Council has explained it contacted Mrs X’s employer as it was concerned for her safety but accepted it should have checked with Mrs X before doing so.
75. The Council is entitled to make decisions if it has been properly made. The evidence shows the Council contacted Mrs X’s employer after it had failed to get in touch with Mrs X through normal communications. The Council was also concerned as Mrs X had not kept in touch with the Council daily as agreed to demonstrate she was safe. Therefore, the evidence suggests the Council had good reasons for contacting Mrs X’s employer as it was concerned for her safety.
76. If Mrs X feels the Council has misused her personal data, the appropriate body to investigate these concerns is the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is open to Mrs X to raise a complaint with them.

Complaint handling

77. The evidence shows there were delays in the Council responding to Mrs X complaint at stage one. While there are no timescales set out in the Council’s policy for stage one responses, the Council has acknowledged it should have responded to her stage one complaint within 15 working days. At this stage, this is fault.
78. I find the fault identified caused Mrs X time and trouble as she had to chase the Council several times for a response to her complaint.
79. There is no fault with the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s stage two or three complaint as the evidence shows these were responded to in a timely manner.

Agreed action

80. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the faults and injustice identified.
• Pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the loss of opportunity, distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble caused by the faults identified.
• Remind all relevant staff of the importance of:
1. Ensuring parents are invited to the ICPC where these are rescheduled.
2. Sharing the completed assessment with parents before the ICPC, where appropriate. If the Council decides it is not appropriate for the assessment to be shared, the Council should ensure its rationale is properly recorded.
3. Ensuring detailed information is recorded to show the Council’s rationale and decision making for gathering information.
81. The Council should complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

82. I find fault with the Council for not sharing the completed assessment with Mrs X before the ICPC, not telling Mrs X of the final rescheduled date of the ICPC, and for not keeping detailed records to reflect why it was gathering certain information. These faults caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman