Summary: Mr L complains about how the Chair of a Child Protection Conference handled a review meeting, including changing the category of harm. He also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint about this matter. We uphold the complaint about the complaint handling. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr L, complains that:

• a Review of Child Protection Conference (RCPC) wrongly changed the category of harm on his children’s Child Protection Plan (CPP) from neglect to emotional abuse;
• the Chair of the RCPC wrongly said the Conference:
• could only record one category of harm;
• made a unanimous decision to change the category, despite one of the professionals there disagreeing; and
• the Council did not properly respond to his complaints about this issue.

2. Mr L says the category of emotional abuse wrongly apportioned blame to him and implied his actions were causing emotional abuse to the extent that a CPP was required. He wants the Council to reconvene a RCPC to reconsider whether the correct category was used.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr L;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mr L;
• sent my draft decision to Mr L and the Council and considered the response I received.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Child Protection

6. Where a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it has a duty to make enquiries to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
7. If, following a referral, an initial assessment and a multi-agency strategy meeting decide the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the local authority makes enquiries. If these enquiries suggest a child may be at risk of significant harm, it convenes a Child Protection Conference (CPC). Certain bodies must attend if the local authority invites them to do so. (Children Act 1989 s.47(11))
8. The CPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may mean putting in place a CPP, if the Conference decides a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.
9. An alternative to a CPP is a Child in Need (CIN) Plan, if the child needs extra support. (Children Act 1989, section 17)
10. After an initial CPC, there will be one or more RCPC to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether a CPP should be maintained, amended or discontinued.
11. The government has issued guidance for councils managing cases where there are concerns about a child’s safety or welfare. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) This guidance has definitions for the four main categories of harm used in child protection. These are neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse and emotional abuse.

Bath & North East Somerset Community Safety & Safeguarding Partnership Procedures

12. The procedures the Council uses:
• have the same definitions of the categories of harm as used in the ‘Working Together’ guidance;
• say:

“If a decision is taken that the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer Significant Harm and hence in need of a Child Protection Plan, the Chair should determine which category of abuse or neglect the child has suffered or is likely to suffer. The category used (that is physical, emotional, sexual abuse or neglect…) will indicate to those consulting the child's social care record the primary presenting concerns at the time the child became the subject of a Child Protection Plan.”

Complaints and appeals about Child Protection Conferences

13. The Council has a procedure for dealing with complaints and appeals about CPCs. The procedure says the following.
• “You can make a complaint/appeal if you think the Conference did not follow the correct process, used wrong information, decided on the wrong category of primary concern, or made the wrong decision about making or stopping a Child Protection Plan.”
• The first stage is informal and involves a meeting with the Conference Chair, within 10 working days.
• There is a second formal stage, chaired by a senior officer. The officer will meet the complainant within 25 working days. The complainant should receive a letter within 20 days of the meeting.
• The third stage of the procedure is a Complaint and Appeal Panel, to be convened within 15 working days.
14. The procedure says the outcome at the third stage could be for the Panel to:

• decide that the Conference followed proper procedure;
• support the original Conference decision;
• decide the Conference did not follow proper procedures and recommend remedial action;
• decide to reconvene a Conference with the same or a different Chair to reconsider the decision; or
• decide there is insufficient information to make a decision and set out a timescale for completing the task and set a date for a further panel.

15. The procedure (correctly) notes the complaint/appeal procedure does not have the authority to reverse a Conference decision.

The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

16. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in our jurisdiction. But because parts of the functioning of the Conference are usually led by the local authority, there are aspects we can investigate.

What happened

17. Mr L has three school-age children. He shares parental responsibility with his ex-partner (whom I shall refer to as Ms M).
18. In the summer of 2019 a CPC had made the children subject to a Child Protection Plan, with a finding of neglect. The concerns were that Ms M had left the children alone at home on several occasions.
19. On 13 November 2019 the Council’s officer (whom I shall refer to as Officer 1) Chaired a RCPC. Mr L, Ms M and several professionals from a range of organisations attended the meeting. The record notes:
• the views of several professionals that the CPP should be maintained, but with a change of category to ‘emotional abuse’;
• the concerns were about how the parents’ acrimonious relationship was not resolved and was affecting the children’s emotional health. Officer 1 recorded that, during the course of the Conference, she had become more concerned for the children’s well-being and emotional health;
• Officer 1 agreed with the view of other Panel members to change the category – she notes she advised the Conference that using two categories was not usual. So Panel members made a unanimous decision to change the category, from neglect to emotional abuse;
• Mr L challenged the change of category at the meeting.
20. Later on 13 November, Mr L contacted Officer 1 about the change of category to emotional abuse. He was concerned it now seemed the focus of the Council’s involvement was the alleged emotional abuse. But he thought the real issue remained Ms M’s lack of reliability. Officer 1 responded on 14 November, acknowledging Mr L’s concerns.
21. On 18 December 2019 Officer 1 wrote to Mr L, after a meeting with him on 12 December to discuss his concerns. The letter noted Mr L did not agree with the decision of the Conference. But Officer 1 did not agree with Mr L’s request to change the category to neglect.
22. After further emails, on 7 January 2020, Officer 1 emailed Mr L to confirm she remained in agreement with the outcome of the RCPC. On 10 January the Council escalated Mr L’s complaint to stage two of its appeal procedure.
23. On 12 February Mr L met with a more senior officer (Officer 2). On 20 February, Officer 2 wrote to the professionals who had been at the RCPC. She advised the following.
• She did not consider the evidence shared at the conference was enough to show Mr L’s children were being emotionally abused, given the definition of emotional abuse in the Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance.

• “In this instance in line with the complaints procedure I would have recommended that the RCPC be re-held to further consider the category of harm. Due to the time that has passed since the RCPC it was not deemed appropriate to reconvene the RCPC as it would be difficult to review a decision that was made four months ago…”

Officer 2 advised that, instead, she had agreed with Mr L to continue with the next scheduled RCPC. She would appoint a new Chair.

24. On 4 March Officer 2 wrote to Mr L. The letter said the following.

• “I agreed that there was merit in reviewing the decisions reached, I explained that this could only be done if another RCPC was held as it was a multi-agency decision. We discussed that by holding another RCPC it may be that the professionals held a different view as to whether a CP plan was required particularly given the time that has passed since the RCPC. You are reluctant to see the plan end as you feel it has enabled there to be positive change for your children, but you accepted that this may be a possible outcome should an RCPC be convened in the following weeks.”
• “The outcome of our meeting was that I would speak with the Head of Service for Safeguarding Outcomes about convening another RCPC in order to review the category of harm. As we discussed, given the time that has passed since the RCPC it would be difficult to hold a conference to solely consider the category of harm as professionals would need to provide an updating report and in doing so the conference would need to consider whether the CP plan for your children continued and if so under which category. It is this issue therefore that brings difficulty. If your complaint about the conference had been acted upon in November then a review of the category of harm could have been done in a timely way and it made clear to all working with your family why the RCPC was being re-convened and the purpose of this, however with four months having passed this is now extremely difficult.”
• Officer 2 proposed that instead of reconvening another RCPC, a scheduled RCPC would take place. She would write to all attendees, but “…in light of the next RCPC being scheduled for April I have formed the view that work with the family should continue with no changes to the current child protection plan being made.”

25. On 11 May the scheduled RCPC met, with a different Chair. The record of that meeting records the following.
• Mr L wanted the RCPC to discuss changing the category of the previous meeting to neglect. The Chair noted it was difficult to review that decision due to the time that had passed. But she would note Mr L’s concern in the record of the meeting.
• The Panel members discussed how the children were doing. They made a unanimous decision to end the CPP and make the children subject to a CIN Plan instead.
26. After the meeting, Mr L contacted Officer 2, noting he still wanted a new meeting to consider what decision the November 2019 meeting should have made. He advised her “[if] this is not your intentions I wish to continue with my formal complaint”. Officer 2 advised she could not override the view of the RCPC. She signposted Mr L to the Council’s Complaints Department.
27. Mr L asked to make a complaint about Officer 2’s instruction for the May RCPC Chair not to discuss the previous RCPC’s decision. The Council’s responses (through its corporate complaint procedure) noted:
• Officer 2 had made clear she did not agree with the November 2019 categorisation of emotional abuse and the May 2020 RCPC was aware of that;
• Officer 2 could have been clearer to Mr L about the purpose of the May 2020 meeting, including in her March letter;
• ideally it would have reconvened the RCPC. But due to delay, that was not possible. There remained an uncertainty about what a reconvened RCPC would have decided;
• the Council apologised for how it had handled Mr L’s initial complaint;
• the Council was reviewing how it dealt with complaints about CPCs and would be undertaking work with Independent Chairs.
28. The Council’s stage two corporate complaint response advised:

“There can be no doubt that the service failed to consider your concerns in accordance with the published child protection case conferences complaint procedure. This delay prevented the November 2019 RCPC being reconvened. However, if it had been possible to reconvene the meeting the RCPC may still have confirmed their original decision. While this delay by the service is maladministration and a fault, the fault did not manifest as such a significant personal injustice as to warrant any further remedy to that already provided.”

29. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council advised:
• “Whilst there are some occasions where the risks to a child fall under two categories of harm, ordinarily professionals are asked to consider one category of harm.

In Bath and North East Somerset Independent Chairs are discouraged from using multiple categories of harm as this can lead to uncertainty and confusion as to the risks posed to the child. In line with service expectation the Independent Chair leading the conference in November 2019 would have requested professionals consider one category of harm and for the children subject to this review conference the overall decision was that the children were suffering emotional harm.”

• the Council had sent a record of the RCPC to the professional who Mr L said did not agree with the change of category. But he had not contacted the Chair to advise of an error in the record. Even if he had, there would still have been a majority recommending a finding of emotional abuse.

Was there fault by the Council?

The Council wrongly recorded the category as emotional abuse, rather than neglect.

30. Officer 2’s view was the evidence before the RCPC did not meet the threshold to make the finding of harm it did. But the CPC is a multi-agency body. Neither the Council, through its CPC complaint procedure, nor the Ombudsman, has the jurisdiction to change a CPC’s decision. So I cannot make a finding on this part of the complaint.

The Chair of the CPC wrongly said two categories could not be recorded during the Review of Child Protection

31. The minutes of the November 2019 RCPC say that Officer 1 advised the Panel it was not usual to record two categories; not that it could not happen. But she went with the majority view of the other Panel members about recording only emotional abuse. In response to our enquiries, the Council says it discourages more than one category.
32. One of the Ombudsman’s principles of good administrative practice is that bodies in our jurisdiction should be open and clear about their policies and procedures. I could not see, in the Procedures the Council sent me, the advice about usually only using one category of harm.
33. In response to my draft decision, the Council clarified that it understood that there was no policy that precluded two a CPC recording two categories of harm. But Mr L’s complaint had highlighted that a previous manager had given direction that Independent Chairs should not use two categories, to prevent uncertainty as to the main reason for the CPP.
34. The instruction to not record two categories, without the clarity of a written policy or procedure, does not meet our expectations for openness and clarity. So I find fault with that part of Mr N’s complaint.
35. The Council says it is due to review its quality standards for child protection conferences. It would include reference to the category of harm as an outcome from that review.

The record of the Review of Child Protection Conference (RCPC) wrongly says the decision was recorded as unanimous

36. The record does say the decision was unanimous. Mr L says one of the professionals did not agree. The Council will have sent the professional a copy of the record. He did not ask for it to be amended. And, even if he had, it would not have made a difference to the outcome of the RCPC. So any injustice is not significant enough to warrant the public expense of further investigation.

The Council did not properly respond to Mr L’s complaints about this matter.

37. The Council has accepted a delay with this part of Mr L’s complaint. I agree there was delay. By my calculation, Officer 1 should have met Mr L by 27 November 2019: she did not meet him until 12 December. She provided a response to Mr L’s complaint on 18 December. As she did not agree with Mr L, that should have triggered stage two of the Council’s CPC complaint procedure. In turn the Council’s timescales say Officer 2 should have met Mr L by 29 January 2020. She did not meet him until 12 February, although the Council says she spoke to Mr L on the telephone before that. After that, Officer 2 provided her response within a time that bought it back roughly in line with the Council’s timescales.
38. The consequence of the delay was Officer 2 took the view that, by the time the Council decided to uphold the complaint, it was too late for it to reconvene a RCPC to consider that decision. I am unclear why Officer 2 said in her 20 February 2020 letter that it was four months since the mid-November 2019 meeting: I make that to be three months after the RCPC. However, it is also unclear whether the difference between a three and four month delay would have altered Officer 2’s rationale.
39. I have cited Officer 2’s 4 March 2020 letter at length, as my view is the letter did not make sufficiently clear that Officer 2’s decision to not reconvene a new RCPC meant the Council would not reconsider the November RCPC’s category. Having spoken to Mr L, it is clear he was expecting the May 2020 RCPC to revisit the November decision. That lack of clarity was fault. The Council’s complaint response accepted that lack of clarity.
40. I asked the Council about the review and further work it committed to undertake in its July 2020 complaint response. It responded to say:

“Since Mr L’s complaint, the Manager of the service has alerted those within the Safeguarding and Quality Assurance Service to the timescales of complaints and the responsibilities of Independent Chairs when receiving a complaint. The complaint procedures for child protection conferences remains under review pending the final Ombudsman recommendations in respect of this complaint as well as learning from a subsequent complaint. It is envisaged that the new procedure for complaints will be finalised at the end of August.”

Did the fault cause an injustice?

41. At the time of the November 2019 conference, Mr L wanted the Council to continue with its CPP, albeit with a different category. While we cannot decide whether the category was correct, the delay in the complaints process has left an injustice to Mr L in his stress and frustration. And the uncertainty about what might have happened if the Council had acted more promptly and reconvened a new RCPC.
42. If the Council’s 4 March letter had been clearer, on the balance of probabilities, I find it likely Mr L would have asked the Council to proceed to the third ‘appeal’ stage of its CPC appeal procedure. So he lost the opportunity to do this, which leads to an uncertainty about what might have happened.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Mr L seeks a change in the decision recommended by the November 2019 RCPC. That is not something the Ombudsman can achieve.
44. The Council has already taken steps to record Mr L’s view. It has a senior officer’s (Officer 2) view that the November 2019 RCPC did not appear to have the evidence in front of it to make a finding Mr L and Ms M’s children were suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm because of emotional abuse.
45. Mr L’s reason for wanting the category changed is because of his fear the finding might be used against him in the future. So, to provide further confirmation of the Council’s view, the Council has agreed that, within a month of my final decision, a senior officer write to Mr L. The letter should:
• apologise for the faults and injustice found in this statement;
• reaffirm the Council’s conclusions (that it found through its CPC complaints procedure) that the evidence presented to the November 2019 RCPC did not support a finding of emotional abuse, given the definition set out in the Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance;
• confirm that, but for the faults in the complaints procedure, the Council would have asked a RCPC to reconvene to look again at the category.
46. The Council has also agreed to:
• place a copy of the above letter on the file where it holds the CPP documents;
• send a copy to all the professionals involved in the CPP.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I uphold this complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman