Summary: There was no fault by the Council when it required him to complete an anger management course before returning to the family home. It did so based on its assessment of the risk to the children and although it could have been more flexible, its more cautious approach was to safeguard the children, and was not fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about how the Council handled matters when safeguarding his children. In particular, he says the Council:
• took too long to organise his attendance on a course despite saying that he could not return to the family home unless he completed this;
• said that he could not return home due to bail conditions but this was not part of the bail conditions; and
• intimidated his wife.
2. Mr B was out of the home from 25 November until 25 February. He had to live in his car as he was still supporting the family financially. Mr B had investigations for a serious illness during this time.

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 considered the information provided by Mr B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its case notes and assessments of the children. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I took into account any comments made.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

6. The Children Act 1989 says the child’s needs and welfare are paramount and the needs and wishes of the child should be put first. This is so the child receives the support they need before a problem escalates. Safeguarding children is everyone’s responsibility.
7. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools, and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing.  The assessment may result in:
• No further action
• A decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs
• A decision to convene a strategy meeting
8. An assessor may decide that no further action is necessary, that the child is in need or the child is in need of protection. Where the outcome is continued involvement, the council agrees a plan of action with other agencies and discusses this with the child and family.
9. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. A child is in need if:
• He is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; or
• His health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• He is disabled.
10. Where a council thinks a child is “in need” it should arrange for a social worker to carry out an assessment. If the council decides the child is “in need” it will develop a child in need plan setting out the support the child needs. It will monitor the delivery of that support and keep the plan under review through regular child in need meetings.

What happened

11. Mr B lives with his wife and children. In November 2019, he and his wife argued. The Police were called, arrested Mr B, and made a referral to the Council on the basis that the children had witnessed the incident and may be at risk of harm. The Council’s case notes say Mr B confirmed that it was a condition of bail that he does not return to the family home.
12. The Council’s social worker (SW) visited the children and Mrs B to discuss what happened. Mrs B changed the locks of the house and agreed not to allow Mr B to come to the house. The Council do agree however, that Mr B should still see the children, provided that he is not at the home or with Mrs B. It is clear that the aim here is that Mr and Mrs B should not see one another in front of the children in case there is another incident, but that contact between the children and Mr B should be supported.
13. The Council decided that Mr B should complete an anger management course. In early December, Mr B tells the Council that while he is waiting for this he has completed an online anger management course that he has paid for himself. He also told the Council he is sleeping in his car as he is still paying for the upkeep of the family home and cannot afford anywhere to live for himself. The case notes show the Council kept in touch with Mr B and that he had the support of extended family and his church.
14. A few days later, the Council convened an Independent Child Protection Conference (ICPC). Mr B attended and became very upset. He said he had a serious illness too. The Conference decided the children should have Child in Need plans. It also made a referral to Adult Services to assist Mr B with accommodation. The case notes say that Mr B told the Council that if he could not go home, he wanted to stay in the car. At that point, the bail conditions have not been discharged and Mr B is prevented by these from going home.
15. The bail conditions were due to be reviewed on 23 December 2019. Shortly before this, Mrs B told the Council that Mr B is engaging with wellbeing services to support him and so she is willing for him to move back home. However, the Police confirmed that a decision about bail conditions will now not be made until 23 January 2019.
16. Mr B continued to sleep in his car and on 9 January, the Council made a referral to its provider for an anger management course. The Police ended the bail conditions on 24 January.
17. The Council met with Mr and Mrs B the next day to complete a safety plan. The Council’s child protection team decided that Mr B should complete the anger management course before he returns to the house. Both Mr and Mrs B wanted him to return to the house, and the Council said that if that happened, it would need to step up the work with the children and look at child protection action procedures. Mrs B’s profession involves working with vulnerable people and the SW mentioned this too.
18. On 4 February, the Council started to contact multiple external providers about a suitable course for Mr B to complete. The Council’s SW offered to meet with Mr B and the housing team to explore temporary accommodation. She also asked for Mr B’s consent to contact his GP so the Council could take into account his health needs. The case notes also show the SW encouraged Mr B to tell any housing associations or providers to contact them to confirm his situation.
19. In mid-February, the Council agreed that Mr B can see the children within the family home as long as Mrs B is not there. The SW offered to help Mr B get some temporary accommodation as he was still living in his car.
20. By this time, the Council had several quotes for suitable courses and agreed that it would fund Mr B attending one of these.
21. On 24 February, the Council agreed that Mr B can return to the family home. Mrs B had a safety plan in place that she has agreed with Women’s Aid. The Council still expected Mr B to complete a course to look at how similar incidents can be avoided in future.

Was there fault by the Council causing Mr B an injustice?

22. This was a very difficult situation for Mr B and his family. The Council has acknowledged that it could have given more weight to the fact that Mr B had taken a private course and that he had some health concerns. It says it could have been more flexible in how it assessed the risk to the children. I appreciate the Council reflecting on its actions here.
23. The case notes are clear that the Council understood that it was a condition of his bail that he should not stay at the family home. The notes say that Mr B told the Council this. The Council also liaised with the Police. It was not a condition of Mr B’s bail that he had to complete a course before he could return. This was part of the Council’s risk assessment.
24. Mr B could not have moved back to the family home until 23 January, when bail conditions ended. At that time, the Council still had a duty to consider the risk still posed to the children of witnessing further incidents between the parents and to take action to safeguard the children. I cannot criticise the Council for safeguarding the children. It could not verify Mr B’s health issue and it was open to the Council to first attempt to have Mr B complete the course before he moved back to the family home.
25. In the meantime, the Council attempted to mitigate the impact on Mr B by offering to help him find some housing. It is also evident that the Council took into account that Mr B was engaging with it and was seeking to put things right, when it decided that Mr B could enter the home if Mrs B was not there in order to see the children in a home environment.
26. I have looked at whether the Council could have made the referral to the course provider sooner or looked for an alternative sooner. It could have possibly made the referral sooner. However, this is not straightforward and does not mean that Mr B would have returned to the home sooner. It was not clear whether the Police would bring any criminal charges until after 23 December. This would have been an important consideration for the Council and so starting its search for a provider at the beginning of January was not fault.
27. Although the Council has reflected that it could have been more flexible in managing risk between 23 January and 23 February, its more cautious approach was not fault. Based on its ongoing contact with the family, it was open to the Council to try to place Mr B on a course before he returned to the home.
28. Mr B has complained that the Council intimidated his wife. I understand that this was when the Council mentioned her profession and that it would consider convening another ICPC to consider the risk to the children should she allow Mr B to return to the home sooner than the Council deemed safe. I can see that this put Mrs B in a difficult situation, however, I cannot say that this was to intimidate her. It would be important that Mrs B consider the consequences of this, and the Council raising the issue did not alter the fact that Mrs B may have wanted to consider her situation carefully. The Council’s remark that it would convene another ICPC should Mr B return home too soon, was based on safeguarding considerations.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman