Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to act when her ex-partner continued to fabricate allegations after court proceedings ended, failed to consult her before referring her son to an external provision which was inappropriate for him and provided false information in its referral. The Council failed to consult Ms X before making a referral to an external provision which caused her distress. There is no fault in the remainder of the complaint. An apology is satisfactory remedy for failing to tell Ms X about the referral, along with a reminder to officers.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained the Council:
• failed to act when her ex-partner continued to fabricate allegations after the conclusion of court proceedings;
• failed to consult her before referring her son to The Lighthouse;
• made the referral to The Lighthouse when it is not an appropriate organisation for her son as he has not experienced sexual abuse;
• provided false information to The Lighthouse;
• provided inaccurate reports to court; and
• allowed officers to act unprofessionally.
2. Ms X says the Council’s actions have caused her son emotional harm as he has repeatedly been interviewed by the police and medical professionals.

London child protection procedures

3. The London child protection procedures (the procedures) say where a child is suspected to be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, the local authority is required by section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to make enquiries, to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.
4. The procedures say whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, there should be a strategy meeting or discussion.
5. The procedures say in deciding whether to call a strategy meeting or discussion the Council must consider the:
• seriousness of the concern/s;
• repetition or duration of concern/s;
• vulnerability of child;
• source of concern/s;
• accumulation of sufficient information and patterns of concerns;
• context in which the child is living;
• predisposing factors in the family that may suggest a higher level of risk of harm.

Back to top

What I have investigated

6. I have investigated those elements of the complaint which relate to the Council’s actions following the conclusion of court proceedings. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
8. 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. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Ms X disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
9. 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)
10. 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

11. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
12. Ms 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

Background

13. Ms X became involved in private law proceedings about the care arrangements for her son who was living with her and her partner.
14. In June 2019 the Council received a referral from Ms X’s ex-partner. Ms X’s ex-partner (who is the father of her son) alleged Ms X’s new partner had touched his son inappropriately. The Council held a strategy discussion. A medical assessment took place and the police investigated. The medical evidence did not identify any sexual abuse and the police decided the case did not meet the threshold for legal action. Ms X and her partner signed a safety agreement to ensure the child would not be left alone with Ms X’s partner and he would not carry out any personal care.
15. The social worker completed a section 37 report for court which Ms X says contains errors and missing information. A final court hearing took place in August 2019. The court granted an order stipulating the child should live with his father and have alternate weekends with Ms X, with school holidays shared. The court ordered the child should not be taken out of the UK to move to another country with Ms X.
16. The father of the child reported a further disclosure from his son in September 2019 about a sexualised game played with Ms X’s partner. The Council held a strategy discussion and began a section 47 investigation.
17. In October 2019 the school attended by Ms X’s son reported him playing sexualised games with dolls. The school told the police. The police spoke to Ms X’s son, who made no disclosure. Ms X’s partner denied the allegations and claimed they were malicious. The police decided to take no further action. The Council closed the case after completing a child and family assessment.
18. In October 2019 the father of the child asked for therapeutic input for his son and contacted The Lighthouse. The Lighthouse told the Council of the father’s contact and asked it to complete a professional referral. The Council did that.
19. On a Friday evening in November, shortly before his son was due to go to Ms X’s for weekend contact, the father contacted the Council to report further disclosures of a sexual nature against Ms X’s partner. The Council advised the father to suspend contact for that weekend pending an investigation. The Council held a strategy discussion the following week and agreed to suspend contact in the presence of Ms X’s partner until the investigation had completed.
20. A police officer and Council officer visited Ms X’s son in December 2019. Ms X’s son did not make any disclosure. The police decided not to take any action.
21. Later in December the school attended by Ms X’s son reported it had seen him using sexualised behaviour. A strategy meeting took place. A police officer and social worker interviewed Ms X’s son but he made no disclosure. The police confirmed it would not take any further action. The Council closed the case in February 2020.

Analysis

22. Ms X says the Council failed to act when the father of her child continued to make up allegations against her partner following the end of court proceedings. Ms X says the Council should have assessed whether the father was making up or manipulating the allegations. Ms X says because the Council failed to do that her son has suffered emotional harm as each time an allegation was made he was interviewed by the police.
23. I understand Ms X’s concern. However, the Council’s responsibility here is to ensure Ms X’s son is safeguarded. The Council has a responsibility to take concerns raised with it seriously and I am satisfied on each occasion concerns have been reported the Council has held a strategy meeting to discuss the case with the police and has then begun a section 47 investigation. I appreciate that is upsetting for Ms X and potentially her son if the allegations are malicious. However, it is not the Council’s role to decide whether allegations made are malicious. That is instead properly a consideration for the police and the courts. The documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me the police have had involvement in the case and documentation from the police shows it is not in a position to decide whether the concerns reported by the father are genuine concerns or malicious reports. As I do not consider it is the Council’s responsibility to decide whether reports are malicious I cannot criticise it for following its procedures when receiving a report from the father of the child. It is also important to note it is not just referrals from the father which the Council has received but also referrals from the school, referring to sexualised behaviour by Ms X’s son.
24. Ms X says the Council was wrong to cancel contact with her son in November 2019 when she was due to have him for the weekend. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council advised the father of the child to put contact on hold for that weekend when he contacted various agencies to report another disclosure from his son. I understand this would have caused Ms X some distress. However, as I said earlier, the Council’s responsibility was to ensure Ms X’s son was safeguarded. As the allegation was reported to the Council late on a Friday afternoon I do not consider it was possible for the relevant authorities to hold a strategy discussion to decide how to proceed before contact was due to take place. In those circumstances, and as the decision the following week was to ensure Ms X’s son did not have unsupervised contact with her partner until the investigation was completed, I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
25. Ms X says the Council failed to consult her before referring her son to The Lighthouse. In response the Council says the father of the child asked the Council to complete the referral and it is on that basis the Council made the referral. The Council says it was not unreasonable to have expected the father to tell Ms X about the referral. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied the father contacted The Lighthouse which then asked the Council to complete a referral. I am satisfied though the referral form includes a section which asks whether the referral has been discussed with those who hold parental responsibility. The Council has ticked yes to that section, although it then clarifies it is the father that has provided signed consent. Given the Council’s involvement in the case and the conflict between Ms X and the father of her child which means it is possible Ms X knew nothing of the referral I consider the Council should have told Ms X about the referral it had completed. Failure to do that is fault. I recommended the Council apologise to Ms X for not doing that and send a memo to social workers in children’s services cases to ensure they tell all those with parental responsibility when referrals are made. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
26. Ms X says the Council should not have made the referral to The Lighthouse because that is an organisation for children who have experienced sexual abuse. Ms X says as her son had not experienced sexual abuse The Lighthouse was not a suitable referral for him. As I said in the previous paragraph, the Council did not instigate the referral to The Lighthouse. That was a referral requested by the father of the child. In any event, it was for The Lighthouse to identify whether the referral was suitable for its service, rather than the Council. I therefore do not criticise the Council for completing the referral, although it should have told Ms X about it.
27. Ms X says the Council provided false information to The Lighthouse. Ms X says the Council told The Lighthouse her son was now living with his father due to the allegations when that is not accurate as the court ordered her son should live with his father during the week because he was more capable of promoting contact. I have considered the referral the Council completed for The Lighthouse and the information the Council provided to The Lighthouse in an email. I am satisfied neither of those contacts gave any detail about why the court had ordered Ms X’s son live with his father during the week. Nor did the Council’s referral or email refer to where Ms X’s partner was staying and the referral is clear it was the father that reported the allegations rather than directly from Ms X’s son. I cannot comment on how The Lighthouse obtained different information. I am satisfied though there is no evidence in the Council’s communications with The Lighthouse to suggest the mistaken information came from the Council. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms X for not telling her when it completed a referral to The Lighthouse; and
• send a memo to social workers in the children’s services teams to remind them of the need to inform all those with parental responsibility when making any referrals.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Ms X an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

30. Ms X has concerns about the content of the section 37 report produced for court. As that is a report considered in court it is not a matter the Ombudsman can comment on. If Ms X had concerns about the content of the section 37 report she would have needed to raise those during court proceedings.
31. Ms X is concerned about the professional conduct of the social worker involved in this case as well as managers within children’s services. Those concerns are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If Ms X wishes to raise concerns about the professional conduct of various officers she will need to complain to Social Work England. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider personnel matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman