Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 001 407)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 22 Dec 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complains about the actions of the Council’s Children’s Services. We have discontinued our investigation because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome for Mr B.

The complaint

  1. Mr B complains about the actions of the Council’s children’s services which caused him distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
    • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
    • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered Mr B’s complaint and the Council’s responses including the stage 2 investigation report and the stage 3 panel decision.
  2. Mr B 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

Legal and administrative background

Child protection

  1. The Children Act 1989 says that, where a child is child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm a council must carry out an investigation to establish the child’s situation and decide whether protective action is needed. ‘Significant harm’ covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
  2. Sometimes the concerns are so great the Council considers it needs a court order to protect the children. The threshold for a care order or a supervision order is that the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and this harm is attributable to the care given by a parent.
  3. The Government introduced a legal framework for children’s care and supervision proceedings, known as the Public Law Outline (PLO).
  4. Usually when a PLO is initiated the child has been subject to a child protection plan but insufficient progress has been made. Child protection core group meetings and conferences continue throughout the PLO process.
  5. Councils should use care and supervision proceedings only as a last resort. Before applying to court, they should explore voluntary arrangements to try and avoid legal proceedings unless the scale, nature and urgency of the safeguarding concerns warrants urgent court action.
  6. When a council decides to complete pre-proceedings (PLO) work with the family, it will send a Letter before Proceedings to the parents outlining its concerns and inviting them to a pre-proceedings meeting with their legal representative. The purpose of the meeting is to see whether it is possible to agree what needs to happen to protect the children from harm so court proceedings can be avoided. The meeting involves parents, their legal representative, the council and its legal representative. The council will highlight its concerns, what support is being offered and what the parent needs to do to reduce the concerns.
  7. Parents are then given time to make the necessary changes to reduce the concerns. This period can be extended if the council considers further progress can be made.
  8. If the parents have made enough progress against the agreed actions, the council may decide not to initiate care proceedings but continue progressing the child protection plan or even reduce this to a child in need plan. If they have not made sufficient progress, the council may start care proceedings.

Statutory complaints procedure

  1. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when investigating complaints about children’s social care services. The first stage allows an informal resolution of the complaint. If that is not possible, the complainant is entitled to an independent investigation at stage 2. The Council appoints an Independent Officer and an Independent Person to oversee the investigation. If the complainant is unhappy with the stage 2 response, they can ask for a stage 3 review by an independent Complaints Review Panel.
  2. The purpose of a Complaints Review Panel is, among other things, to consider the adequacy of the Stage 2 report, focus on achieving resolution by addressing the complaints and desired outcomes and reaching findings on complaints which are being reviewed.
  3. The Complaints Review Panel will send its findings and recommendations to the Director of Children Services for consideration. It is then for the Council to decide whether to accept the Review Panel’s recommendations.
  4. If, after receiving the Council’s final response, the complainant remains dissatisfied, he can complain to the Ombudsman.
  5. We take the view that we should not reinvestigate matters where there is a satisfactory complaint investigation and the Council has provided appropriate remedies for the injustice caused by upheld complaints.

Key facts

  1. In 2018 Mr B’s daughter, who was living with her mother and half siblings, was put on a child protection plan due to concerns that she was at risk because of domestic violence. Children’s Services presented the case to the Council’s Legal Gateway Panel which agreed for the PLO pre-proceedings process to begin. Separate meetings were held with the parents and their legal representatives.
  2. A further PLO meeting was held with the mother and her legal representative in January 2019. She was asked to adhere to a further agreement to safeguard her children to prevent the Council beginning care proceedings. The child protection process continued to review the child protection plans but there were no further PLO meetings.
  3. The Legal Gateway Panel considered the case again in May 2019. It decided it was not in the children’s best interest to remove them from their mother but they continued to be subject to child protection plans.
  4. Mr B complained to the Council that it had failed to: respond appropriately to his concerns about his daughter; treat him as a parent with an important role in her life; put her welfare and needs first and safeguard her from harm; and communicate properly with him.
  5. The Council considered the complaint through the three stage statutory complaints procedure for Children’s Services. At stage 2, the Investigating Officer (IO) upheld some parts of the complaint. Mr B was dissatisfied with the investigation and escalated his complaint to the stage 3 panel in December 2019.
  6. The IO requested that the panel be postponed to allow her and the Independent Person to reinvestigate the stage 2 complaint because officers involved in the case had inputted case recordings on the electronic social care records after the investigation had begun.
  7. The stage 3 panel members met before the scheduled review panel to consider the IO’s request. They decided they could proceed because it appeared possible to reach a view on most, if not all, of the complaints on the evidence currently available. The chair of the stage 3 panel explained the situation to Mr B who confirmed he was happy to proceed with the review panel.
  8. The panel considered Mr B’s complaints by: reading relevant documents including Mr B’s written submission; listening to and questioning Mr B and the Head of Service; and considering relevant legislation, guidance and procedures.
  9. The panel upheld all of Mr B’s complaints and made the following recommendations:
    • the allocation of a new social worker;
    • the Council to support and assist Mr B with Christmas contact arrangements with his daughter;
    • an apology and payment of £500 for the distress and time and trouble caused by needing to make a formal complaint through to stage 3 of the complaints process;
    • an apology for each of the complaints upheld by the stage 3 panel;
    • a meeting between senior officers and the social worker to ensure full feedback from the panel findings to inform future social work practice;
    • the Head of Service and Group Manager to contact Mr B to ensure the agreed practice improvements had been implemented and contingency planning in the revised child protection plan had been amended;
    • the Head of Service to oversee the PLO process that was being initiated;
    • the Head of Service/Adjudicating Officer to create a case note on the child’s electronic record to outline Mr B’s complaint, the Council’s acceptance of administrative fault and poor case management; the findings of the stage 3 panel and the injustice caused together with a statement that Mr B had been proactive in promoting his daughter’s welfare but could not attend meetings because of work commitments;
    • future meetings to be held on Mondays and Thursdays so Mr B could attend;
    • the Head of Service for Safeguarding to meet with the Head of Quality Assurance to address the issue of the child protection plan being formulated without Mr B’s consent; and
    • a reminder to be issued to all relevant staff to promote the rights of both parents and others with parental responsibility and encourage both parents to participate and engage to promote the welfare of their children.
  10. The Interim Assistant Director of Children Services wrote to Mr B confirming the Council accepted the panel’s findings and recommendations.
  11. A new PLO process started in December 2019 but the situation changed in early 2020 when the family moved to another area and the Council began the process of transferring the case to their new local authority.

Assessment

  1. The law sets out the procedure for councils to follow when dealing with complaints about Children’s Services. When this process has been followed, we would not normally re-investigate the issues unless there is evidence to show the investigation was flawed.
  2. Although there were issues with the stage 2 investigation, the stage 3 panel was satisfied it could proceed and Mr B agreed to proceed on this basis. The panel upheld all Mr B’s complaints and made recommendations which are within the range of recommendations we would make if we were to investigate the complaint.
  3. The council has accepted the panel’s decision and implemented the recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mr B and improve social work practice for the future. So, there is little more we could achieve by continuing our investigation.
  4. Mr B says the Council has not completed the PLO process started in December 2019. He says the pre-proceedings meeting arranged for January 2020 was cancelled. The Council said it would arrange another meeting, but this has not happened despite him receiving a letter in February 2020 notifying him that the PLO was ongoing and with the Council’s legal team.
  5. At the stage 3 panel the Adjudicating Officer said she would ensure the PLO process was effectively managed with regular reviews and a formal meeting to end the process if there was either: a reduction in risk so the threshold of significant harm was no longer met; or if care proceedings were issued. Mr B says there has been such meeting or any formal notification that the process has ended.
  6. As the Council is no longer dealing with the case, I do not consider we can achieve anything by pursuing this issue. It is for the new local authority to confirm the position to Mr B.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have discontinued my investigation because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or that further investigation would achieve a different outcome for Mr B.

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