Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to concerns about his son, Y. There is fault by the Council, which has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, and is represented by his mother, (M), complains that the Council:
1. Wrongly shared information with his son Y’s mother that had been provided by Mr X and M in confidence, leading to M being verbally abused by Y’s mother;
2. Failed to adequately monitor Y’s mother’s accommodation, meaning Y was left in an unsafe and unhygienic environment;
3. Failed to properly involve Mr X in plans to move Y from a child protection plan to a child in need (CIN) plan, which meant his views were not taken into account;
4. Wrongly removed Y’s CIN status on the basis of information provided by his mother in lockdown which could not be verified or monitored;
5. Failed to inform Mr X that the decision to step Y down from CIN could be appealed;
6. Failed to take Mr X and M’s concerns seriously, for example allowing Y’s mother’s partner W to continue to care for Y after Y had disclosed he had bruised him.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s actions in relation to his concerns about his son Y.

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 spoke to M and considered information provided by M and the Council. I have shared my draft statement with M and the Council and have considered their comments before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection and child in need

6. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and determine whether protective action is required (section 47 of the Children Act 1989). Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
7. If the information gathered by the enquiries substantiates the concerns that the child may remain at risk of significant harm, the social worker will arrange a Child Protection Conference.
8. Certain bodies must attend if the local authority invites them to do so, including another local authority, and various health bodies. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include recommending that the child should be subject to a Child Protection Plan or a Child in Need Plan.
9. The definition of a child in need is a child who is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of services by a local authority. A Child in Need Plan is often used for children where the threshold of risk of significant harm is not met but a council considers support is still needed. The plan sets out the child’s needs and how the council intends to meet them.

What happened

10. Mr X’s son Y lives with his mother Z, from whom Mr X is separated. In 2019 Z was living with her partner W. In 2019 the Council placed Y on a child protection plan over concerns Y was at risk of harm. In summer 2020 Z and W separated following an incident which prompted Z to call the police. W moved out of the family home and no longer has contact with Y. Mr X’s mother, M, who is representing Mr X, complained to the Council about its response to their concerns about Y. She said:
11. a) The Council wrongly shared information with Y’s mother that had been provided by Mr X and M in confidence, leading to M being verbally abused by Y’s mother.
12. The Council initially said it had shared safeguarding information, such as an allegation concerning W’s bathing of Y, which it had to raise with Z in order to keep Y safe. However, M told me the Council had shared information that was not related to safeguarding such as Mr X’s plans to take legal action and Mr X’s opinions of Z and that the Council had said Mr X was poor at communicating. The Council has shared records of its meetings with Z. The records show possible legal action by Mr X was discussed but suggest Z was already aware of this. There is no evidence the Council wrongly disclosed Mr X’s plans or opinions and it is not possible to say whether anything the Council said prompted Z to abuse M. There is no fault by the Council.
13. b) The Council failed to adequately monitor Z’s accommodation from October 2019, meaning Y was left in an unsafe and unhygienic environment.
14. M told me she visited Y between October 2019 and March 2020. She said his home smelled bad and was cluttered. The Council maintains it has adequately monitored Y’s living conditions and is satisfied these are acceptable. It provided notes of regular announced and unannounced visits to Y’s home between October and March and of video calls during lockdown in April and May 2020. The notes do record a noticeable smell of animals at times but do not record an unsafe or unhygienic environment. There is no fault by the Council.
15. c) The Council failed to properly involve Mr X in plans to move Y from a child protection plan to a child in need (CIN) plan, which meant his views were not taken into account;
16. The Council has accepted it failed to communicate adequately with Mr X regarding the plan to step down from the child protection plan. In apologised for this in its Stage 2 response to Mr X. It said it had emailed a report to Mr X the day before the conference, then sent it to him via recorded post and the conference was postponed to allow him to read this. The Council is at fault. It has apologised, which I consider is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. The Council has provided minutes for the meeting at which the CIN decision was made. These record Mr X’s views on the CIN decision as well as M’s and provide evidence that their views were taken into account.
17. d) The Council wrongly removed Y’s CIN status on the basis of information provided by his mother in lockdown which could not be verified or monitored;
18. Minutes of the meeting at which the CIN decision was made, which was attended by Mr X, show that the professionals concerned were unanimously in support of the move to CIN. The minutes clearly set out the basis on which this decision was made and that a range of information was considered. There is no fault by the Council.
19. e) The Council failed to inform Mr X that the decision to step Y down from CIN could be appealed. In response to my enquiry the Council said Mr X would have been informed during the meeting at which the decision was made and that appeal rights may also have been set out in the invitation to the conference. The invitation sent to Mr X did not include information on appeal and there is no record in the meeting minutes that Mr X was advised of his appeal rights. In my view, on the balance of probabilities it is likely that Mr X would have appealed had he been made aware he could do so. The Council was at fault in that it did not advise Mr X of his appeal rights. Mr X therefore lost the opportunity to appeal. However, given the unanimity of the professionals concerned, I think it unlikely an appeal would have been successful. I therefore do not find there was significant injustice to Mr X requiring a remedy.
20. f) The Council failed to take Mr X and M’s concerns seriously, for example allowing Z’s partner W to continue to care for Y after Y had disclosed he had bruised him and failing to ask Y if he had been left alone with W.
21. M told me Y was wrongly returned to W’s care on the basis of an unenforceable promise that he would not be left unsupervised with W. She said the Council failed to ask Y if he had been left unsupervised with W.
22. The Council shared the child protection assessment it completed in July 2019 following the incident between W and Y. The assessment concluded Y was not at continuing risk of significant harm. It described a safety plan agreed with Z and W under which W would leave if he felt annoyed with Y and could not cope, prior to letting things escalate, and that W and Z would attend health assessments. The assessment did not say Y should not be left as the sole carer for W.
23. However, a separate report of that month said Z was to ensure W was never left alone with Y. A social worker’s report of August also refers to a “safety plan” that said Y should not be left alone with W.
24. There is no evidence the Council failed to take concerns over W seriously or that its decision to allow W to continue to care for Y was wrongly made. However, the child protection assessment of July 2019 should have recorded that Y was not to be left alone with W. This is fault by the Council.
25. As a result of other concerns identified during the assessment, a child protection conference was held and Y became subject to a child protection plan in September 2019.
26. A Council report of September 2019 records that W asked about a timeframe under which he would be allowed to care for Y alone. The report also records concerns about W’s presentation during visits and meetings and that W reported trouble with Y’s behaviour. It records that Y is scared of W and that his mother has been unwell but declined most offers of support.
27. There is no evidence Y was asked directly if Y had been left alone with W after the safety plan was put in place. In its response to my enquiries the Council said Y may not have been asked and that he was asked more open questions. Given the concerns about W’s presentation in September 2019, W’s questions about a timescale for looking after Y alone and the fact Y’s mother was unwell but declining support, the Council should have established whether Y had been left alone with W in breach of the plan. This is fault by the Council but there is no evidence of injustice to Y, Mr X or M.
28. In response to my draft decision M said there had been a huge injustice to Y as he had suffered further harm, which could have been prevented if her concerns were taken seriously. She said W had verbally abused Y in early July 2020 before the incident at the end of July which led to W’s departure from the home. Council records show it was closely monitoring the situation in July 2020 and providing advice to Z. There is no evidence of fault in its decision-making with regards to W.
29. g) The Council failed to carry out a child protection medical assessment after Y was bruised in breach of its own policies.
30. The Council said it decided not to proceed with a child protection medical after the incident as a social worker had visually assessed Y and observed that there was no significant bruising. M states that there is an obligation on Councils to carry out a child protection enquiry and medical assessment in any case where they suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer harm. In fact, there is only an obligation to do this where the harm is or is likely to be significant. In this case the Council did not consider the bruising to be evidence of significant harm.
31. The Council’s policy, Undertaking Assessments and Investigations, does not require a medical referral in all cases of harm to a child. However, it says that a strategy meeting should discuss whether a medical examination is needed. The Council has not provided documentation recording the decision not to refer Y for a medical. This is fault by the Council. M and Mr X were clearly anxious about Y and a clearly recorded decision would have alleviated this. The Council has agreed to apologise for this in writing. There is no need to review the decision as W no longer has contact with Y.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. The Council has agreed that within one month of my final decision it will apologise in writing to M and Mr X for failing to record its decision not to refer Y for a medical assessment and for any distress caused.

Back to top

Final decision

We have completed our investigation with a finding that the Council was at fault which has caused injustice. It has agreed to apologise to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman