Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council acted after it received a safeguarding referral for their children, H and K. The Ombudsman finds the Council’s failure to tell Mr and Mrs X the safety plan was a voluntary agreement was fault. That meant they did not understand their rights when Mr X moved out of the family home. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and amend its safety plan documentation to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council acted after it received a safeguarding referral for their children, H and K. They said the Council told them Mr X could not have contact with the children whilst the Police completed their investigation.
2. Mr and Mrs X said that resulted in Mr X leaving the family home. They feel the family were separated for longer than necessary and the Council failed to keep them updated about what was happening. They want the Council to apologise for its actions.

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)
5. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr and Mrs X’s representative, Mrs L and read the complaint information she provided.
7. I discussed the complaint with Mr X.
8. I considered evidence provided by the Council including its case records.
9. I referred to the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018.
10. I referred to the public report we published 19020471.
11. Mr and Mrs X 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

Child protection

12. Anyone concerned that a child is suffering or at risk of harm should tell the Council. If the Council has reasonable cause to suspect the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm it must initiate enquiries. This is to decide whether to take action to protect the child or promote their welfare.
13. Before starting an investigation, the Council must hold a strategy discussion with the Police to decide what action to take. If the Council decides to investigate, it must complete an assessment within 45 working days. The assessment will help the Council decide whether the child and her family need help to keep the child safe.
14. An allegation somebody has harmed a child may also be a report of a criminal offence. If this is the case, there may be a Police investigation and a criminal prosecution alongside the Council investigation. Both investigations start from the same facts, but they have different standards of proof, rules for evidence, objectives and results. The Police and the Council must coordinate their response and share information but may have different outcomes.
15. Where child protection concerns arise, councils frequently enter voluntary interim agreements with parents which place certain restrictions on their contact with their children. These agreements should be time-limited- usually while the council conducts its assessment- the council should write each agreement down, make sure the family knows it is voluntary and set out the potential consequences if the agreement is broken.

Background

16. H and K’s school made a safeguarding referral to the Council after the children disclosed Mr X had hit them. In the referral, the school said K had a blotchy mark on his cheek.
17. The Council assessed that referral and it needed to hold a strategy meeting. The Council’s case records referred to H having a mark on their face.
18. The Council held an urgent strategy meeting the same day attended by Children’s Social Care (CSC), Police and Health. The meeting agreed for a social worker and the Police to visit H and K at school to speak to them, view the injury and put in place any immediate safeguarding measures.
19. Two social workers and the Police spoke to K and H separately. The Council said there was no evidence of visible injury on either H or K. However, based on their disclosure to school earlier in the day, and their presentation and disclosures during interview, the social workers decided it was potentially unsafe for K and H to be in Mr X’s care after the visit.
20. The social workers and Police spoke separately to Mr and Mrs X. The case records show that Mr and Mrs X agreed that H and K would stay with their grandmother, Mrs L for the evening as the Police may wish to speak to Mr X further. The Council said it would be in touch the next day to discuss plans and get an “update from the Police”.
21. The next day the Council met with Mr and Mrs X. In that meeting, Mr and Mrs X agreed that Mr X would not have any contact with K and H whilst the Police completed their investigation and the Council completed the section 47 enquiry. Mr X agreed to move out of the family home. That safety plan had a review date of four-six weeks.
22. The case records show no further contact between the Council and Mr and Mrs X for a week. At which point, Mrs X contacted the Council asking when the Police investigation and social work assessment would progress.
23. Two days later, Mr and Mrs X contacted the Police. They said the Police told them they had completed their investigation a couple of days earlier and had sent a report to the Council. As that was a Friday evening, Mr and Mrs X said they contacted the Council about the Police outcome the following Monday.
24. Mr and Mrs X met with the Council next day. In that meeting the Council agreed Mr X could return home and that a social worker would visit the following week to speak to H and K.
25. The Council completed its assessment of K and K three months later. It did not identify any ongoing safeguarding concerns.

The complaint to the Council

26. Mrs L complained to the Council about how it responded to the safeguarding referral. She raised several concerns about how the Council had considered the allegations; about officer conduct and the decision to separate the family.
27. As part of the Council’s stage two investigation response, the Council said:
• the social workers were guided by the Police investigation and that Mr X should not have access to his sons (as victims) to prevent any harassment, persuasion or behaviour that could compromise the Police investigation. They believed the Police needed to speak to Mr X before he could see his children.
• there were no case records evidencing any contact between CSC and the Police, and no contact to say Mr X was interviewed. The social workers stated they had contacted the Police and asked for an update but did not get a response.
• if the social workers had been informed of the Police outcome, it would have triggered a review of the safety plan or begun discussions about a return home.
28. The Council said the Police had a responsibility to keep the Council informed about their investigations, however the Council needed an escalation policy for instances where the Police failed to provide information the Council had asked for.
29. The Council said Mr X did not see his children for 13 days. It understood the Police to of completed their investigations after approximately ten days, therefore it accepted Mr X could have had contact with K and H three days sooner if better communication between the Council and Police was in place.
30. The Council set out service and social work practice improvements it either had or intended to make following the complaint.
31. Mrs L was unhappy with the Council’s response to the investigations she felt it had not provided a sufficient explanation for its decision to ask Mr X to leave the home. She also expressed concern about the inaccurate recording of injury that she felt undermined the Council’s decision making.
32. In response to my enquiries the Council said it had taken action as a result of the complaint and that it had:
• Introduced a nominated Police liaison to ensure good communication between the Police and CSC during joint investigations.
• Introduce an escalation policy, led by management, where the Police were not providing the necessary information.
• Introduced a ‘family time’ system for CSC to facilitate safe contact for children who are separated from their parents.
33. It accepted there were delays in it completing the assessment for K and H brought about by an internal restructure and the COVID-19 pandemic but that did not impact on Mr X’s return to the home. It confirmed the Service had changed how it allocated safeguarding referrals and brought in additional management oversight.

My findings

34. The school’s safeguarding referral said H had a blotchy mark on his cheek. However, the Council’s social care case records refer to K having an injury. It appears this error originated when the Council screened the initial referral and then was repeated in subsequent records. That was fault.
35. Although this has caused Mrs L to question the robustness of the Council’s decision making after it received the referral, I have seen no evidence this error affected how the Council made its initial assessment. The Council interviewed K and H and decided it needed to take further safeguarding action to protect their welfare based on their presentation and disclosures. It made that decision despite there being no evidence of physical injury. That was a matter for the assessing social workers professional judgement, not the Ombudsman.
36. The Council cannot require a parent to leave home without a Court Order. As part of the safety plan, Mr X agreed not to have contact with K and H. Mr X told me the Council did not tell him that moving out of the home was voluntary. He said that when agreeing to the safety plan with the Council he felt as if he did not have a choice but to leave. There is nothing in the case records or the safety plan to show the Council explained it was a voluntary agreement and the implications of not complying. That was fault.
37. In addition, the Council said Mr X could not have contact with K and H because of the Police investigation. If the Police decided they needed restrictions to prevent Mr X having contact with his children during the investigation they could have made bail conditions which Mr X could have challenged in court.
38. If the Council, Mr X and the Police agreed to the no contact restriction in the safety plan instead of either the Police or Council taking more formal action, the Council should have recorded that discussion, ensured Mr X understood his rights and agreed a review date with the Police. Failure to do this was fault.
39. On the balance of probabilities, Mr X would likely have agreed to leave the home even if the Council had explained to do so was voluntary. However, not ensuring he knew and understood his rights has caused him an injustice as he did not have all the information necessary to make an informed choice.
40. The Council’s investigation found communication between the Police and the Council was poor, with the Police not telling the Council when it concluded its investigation and the Council not having a route to escalate communication difficulties. That was fault. That resulted in the restrictions between Mr X, K and H remaining in place longer than necessary causing avoidable distress to the family. The Council has already apologised to Mr and Mrs X for that delay which remedies any injustice caused. It has also made service improvements to prevent a further recurrence of this fault.
41. The Council has already apologised for the delay in completing the assessment for K and H and identified the reasons for the delay. It has made service improvements. I have not considered this further as there is nothing further my investigation would add.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
• Write to Mr and Mrs X an apologise for not fully explain their rights when they agreed to the safety plan.
• Amend the safety plan template to ensure signatories understand the agreement is voluntary and to explain any consequences of not following the agreement.

Back to top

Final decision

43. The Council was at fault for not ensuring Mr and Mrs X knew the safety plan was a voluntary agreement. The Council has agreed to our recommendations therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman