Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Miss P’s complaints against the Council about the way it investigated her children’s allegations of abuse and the actions of social workers. The Council accepted there were some problems sending her documents during its investigation which is fault. The agreed action remedies the injustice this caused.

The complaint

1. Miss P complains about the behaviour of 2 Council social workers who:
1. Failed to act and investigate a report her son made against his father of sexual and physical abuse as well one made by the police;
2. Failed to accept the results of a psychological examination she had;
3. Claimed she had mental health problems despite no evidence to support this and not being qualified to reach this conclusion;
4. Contacted her current partner’s employer and wrongly claimed he was a drug addict and was aggressive;
5. Spoke to each other during a court break against the court’s instructions; and
6. Prevented her from moving to escape domestic violence from her children’s father.
2. As a result, she lost her job which involved working with children, lost her family, and support network. In addition, her children have not, and are still not, being protected from their father.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated all the above complaints except for d) and e). The final paragraph at the end of this statement explains why they were not investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered all the information Miss P sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I did not send a complete copy as it contained some information about third parties that needs to remain confidential. This means I am also unable to refer to it directly or indirectly. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss P and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss P has 4 children who all lived with her (two are aged 8, one is aged 5 (child 3), and the other aged 2 (child 4)). Up to 2017, she was in a relationship with her former partner, Mr Q, who did not live with her. He is the father of child 3 and child 4.
8. In December 2019, child 3 claimed his father had punched him in the stomach during a contact session which made him feel sick. He also claimed his father had sexually abused him. The child also said their social worker (social worker 1) and their father were in a relationship. Miss P is unhappy with the behaviour of another social worker (social worker 2) as one of the children claimed she was at Mr Q’s mother’s house for a social visit. Mr Q’s mother, the grandmother of child 3 and child 4, is also a social worker (social worker 3) employed by the Council but in a different department. Mr Q lives with his mother.
9. Miss P reported her son’s claims to the police who made a referral to the Council.
10. In February 2020, child protection proceedings started. Miss P says the Council never sent her any documents in advance of meetings and excluded her from a family group conference. During the section 47 enquiry, she claims social workers never spoke to the children or her current partner who her son had told about the abuse. A section 47 enquiry is where the Council has reasonable cause to suspect a child in its area is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. It involves an assessment of the child’s needs and the ability of those caring for the child to meet them. The aim is to decide whether any action is needed to safeguard the child.
11. The Council has interim care orders for the 2 older children. In addition, there were private court proceedings between Miss P and Mr Q. During these, the court asked the Council to prepare a section 7 report and child 3 and child 4 went to live with Mr Q.
12. I now examine each of her complaints:

Complaint a): The investigation

13. Miss P claims:

• the Council failed to investigate safeguarding referrals made about Mr Q physically and sexually abusing her son;
• social worker 2 told her last year she would make all the proceedings disappear if she got back together with Mr Q;
• the Council failed to send her documents before meetings. She saw no child protection plans, assessments, or copy reports;
• social worker 1 never saw her and her children together and social worker 2 failed to record disclosures of abuse from the children;
• social worker 2 was in a relationship with Mr Q; and
• social worker 3, who is best friends with social worker 1, is using her position within the Council, and her personal friendships with the social workers, to influence the outcome of the case.

14. Evidence from the Council shows it received a police referral in December 2019 about Mr Q punching child 3. The following month, it started a Single Assessment. Miss P claims she never received a copy of this assessment.
15. In January 2020, a strategy discussion decided the threshold for a section 47 enquiry was met as the children were at significant risk of harm, with Miss P not acting protectively towards them and failing to engage with services. The children were showing signs of emotional abuse. It noted the allegation she made the month before about Mr Q punching the child. It recorded the police as taking no further action on the claim. The social worker reported during the assessment, unsupported concerns about abuse were raised.
16. In February, Miss P reported the children had told her partner of further abuse from Mr Q. The minutes of the case conference held shows Miss P attended. The conference decided the threshold for significant harm was met and there should be child protection planning under the category of ‘emotional abuse’. Miss P says she was not sent the documents for this conference before it took place.
17. The following month, she made a report of Mr Q hitting child 4 during contact.
18. A social worker visited Miss P in April. This involved talking to all the children and talking about the allegation.
19. In May, she made further reports of him hitting child 4 and took him to hospital. The Council held a strategy meeting the same month after another allegation of assault. It noted the reported incident by Miss P and the hospital visit. Evidence from the hospital said the bruises were a couple of days old. A social worker, along with social worker 2, had visited Miss P earlier that month. They observed the child was clumsy and unsteady on his feet. They saw him fall and hit his head a couple of times while they were there. The meeting agreed the need for a joint investigation by the police and Council of all 4 children.
20. This investigation, which included interviewing the children alone, found no disclosures from the children. The police would interview Mr Q. The Council completed its section 47 investigation about assault/sexual harm.
21. The same month, Miss P complained to the children’s school about not receiving documents from the Council.
22. In June, Miss P wanted the children interviewed by the police again. A social worker visited to talk to 2 of the children but was refused access unless she agreed to ask them direct questions, which the social worker considered improper. The police visited following a further disclosure of harm of child 3 by Mr Q. The child’s account was considered inconsistent.
23. In August, Miss P claimed child 3 had a large bruise after visiting his father. Social worker 1 visited the children at Mr Q’s house. The social worker refused Miss P’s request for her to ask the child direct questions about how he got the bruise and about the claim social worker 2 was sleeping at Mr Q’s house. The social worker spoke to the child alone and thought the bruise was not consistent with a grab mark as claimed by Miss P. A duty social worker completed her investigation of the allegation and noted no concerns raised by the children.
24. In October, Miss P told the Council of a further claim of sex abuse by child 3. She also claimed Mr Q was arrested days earlier for raping his 4-year-old daughter. The police visited and discovered he does not have a 4-year-old daughter. Nor had he been arrested. The same month, Miss P claimed an ex-partner of Mr Q called her to say he had punched child 4 in the ribs during a visit and broken a rib. The police visited and found no signs of injury.
25. The NSPCC received an anonymous referral of Mr Q growing cannabis in the attic, children being harmed, and photograph sharing online. It also received a message from someone claiming to be a family friend who said she witnessed Mr Q punch Miss P’s son at a party, breaking his ribs. The number left belonged to Miss P.
26. The records show child 3 and 4 were visited again at Mr Q’s house by a social worker who found the claims unfounded.
27. In November, the child protection conference decided the significant harm threshold was no longer met and the younger children could be monitored under a child in need plan. The two older children were now living with Miss P’s parents. Child 3 and child 4 were now in their father’s care.
28. The Council says it gave Miss P all documents in response to her service request but accepts there is some evidence of it sharing reports with her late.

Analysis

29. I make the following findings on her complaints:
1. The investigation: I found no fault on this complaint. This is because the records show the Council investigated the allegations made, with assistance from the police, and found they were baseless. The records show social workers visiting the children in response to the allegations.
2. Social worker’s claim: There is no evidence to support the claim of a social worker telling Miss P she could make all the proceedings go away if only she got back together with Mr Q.
3. Sending invitations and documents: I note from the records the Council:

• February 2020: it sent her a letter inviting her to the Initial Child Protection conference. It gave the date, time, and address of the meeting.
• April: it contacted her by telephone about sending her instructions for joining the core group meeting through Skype later that week.
• May: it sent her an email attaching reports it received for a conference. I have seen the attachments it sent her including reports, plans, and minutes for example.
• October: it sent her documents and an invitation to a review child protection conference for the following month. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, this was an online meeting.
• November: it sent her copies of the plan and minutes from the conference held earlier the same month. I have not seen any invitation or documents sent to her for this meeting.
• I saw an invitation to an online Family Group Conference sent to Miss P. While not personally addressed to her, it was obviously about her and her family. I did not see the email or covering letter attached to it. The minutes of the meeting show Miss P was invited but did not attend. There is evidence of an email to her enclosing the family plan made at a meeting the same day.

In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted there was evidence of some reports being shared late with Miss P. As noted, nor have I seen evidence of all the invitations and documents sent to her before meetings. On this basis, I found some fault on this complaint. I consider the fault would have caused some injustice to Miss P (stress and frustration).

4. Failed to see her and children: I found no fault on this complaint. Social workers visited Miss P and the children. The evidence, for example, shows a social worker asking Miss P to leave so she could talk to the children without any possible influence from her. This is not unusual as social workers need to observe and see children talking and behaving freely without the presence, and influence, of the parent, particularly where there is suspected emotional abuse.
5. Relationship of social worker and Mr Q: The Council explored the allegation of a personal relationship between social worker 2 and Mr Q. It found no substance to the claim. I have seen notes of this investigation and the response to the allegation from the social worker. While I cannot refer to their contents, I can say I am satisfied the Council took her claim about a relationship between Mr P and social worker 2 seriously and investigated it. I found no fault on this complaint and saw no evidence suggesting the Council’s decision was in any way flawed.
6. Influence of Mr Q’s mother: There is nothing in any of the records I have seen that suggests an unprofessional approach by social worker 3, the grandmother of child 3 and child 4, and the social workers allocated to this case. His mother is a social worker, although does not deal with children’s cases. Inevitably, working as a social worker in the same council will mean social workers will most likely know each other to some degree.

His mother should not have access to the case notes or any records of child 3 and child 4. I have seen nothing to suggest she had. The evidence shows a grandmother who raised legitimate concerns about Miss P and the welfare of the children. Being a social worker and mother of Mr Q did not mean she was prevented from raising concerns about the children.

The records of contact between her and social worker 1 and 2 do not show unprofessional behaviour by any of them. There are entries in the records of social workers explaining to his mother the limits of what they could and could not say about the case. I found no fault on this complaint.

Complaint b): Psychological examination

30. Miss P told me she privately paid for a psychological examination to try and avoid the Council taking legal proceedings. The Council said it commissioned a psychologist assessment within pre-proceedings which included a letter of instruction. Miss P also chose to arrange her own independent assessment.

Analysis

31. I found no fault on this complaint. The evidence shows Miss P chose to instruct her own psychologist. She did this because she mistrusted any of those the Council would instruct, even jointly. There is no evidence showing the Council forced her to instruct her own at her own expense.
32. A case note of a visit by social worker 2 in July 2020, noted Miss P saying she had instructed her psychologist to assess her and would not use anyone the Council put forward.
33. Another note in September, of a telephone call between Miss P and a social worker manager, recorded Miss P believing the Council had chosen who will assess her and so refused to have it done. It was agreed details of psychologists would be sent to her solicitor who would be a party to any instruction. The manager said the one she had done privately was not a proper expert report.

Complaint c): Claimed mental health problems

34. Miss P said social worker 1 said Miss P was clinically insane.

Analysis

35. There is no evidence supporting Miss P’s claim of the social worker saying this. This means I found no fault on her complaint.

Complaint f): Prevented her escaping domestic violence

36. Miss P claims the Council prevented her from moving away from her former partner who was violent towards her. When she approached other councils for accommodation, the Council blocked her request saying she did not need to move.
37. In response to my enquiries, the Council says it has no information about this.

Analysis

38. There is no evidence to support Miss P’s claims.

Agreed action

39. I considered our guidance on remedies.
40. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Miss P a written apology for the times it failed to send her invitations and documents before meetings; and
2. Remind officers of the need to send invitations and documents in advance of meetings to allow enough time for them to be considered.

Back to top

Final decision

41. The Ombudsman, on Miss P’s complaint against the Council, found no fault on complaints b), c), and f).
42. The Ombudsman found some fault on part of complaint a). The agreed action remedies any injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

43. I did not investigate the following complaints:

• Complaint d): Social workers contacting her partner’s employer. This is because her partner would need to complain about this himself.
• Complaint e): Social workers meeting during a court break against the direction of judge. This is because we cannot investigate what happened at court which would include a court break and the claim the social workers ignored the judge’s direction not to speak to each other. This was a matter Miss P could have brought to the judge’s attention during the hearing.

44. In addition, we did not investigate any complaint Miss P had about what happened in court, the reports submitted during these proceedings, or its decision about where the children will live. This is because we do not have jurisdiction to consider what happened during court proceedings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman