Summary: Mr X complained about inaccuracies and bias contained within a Child and Family Assessment and related issues. We do not find the Council to be at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council carried out a biased assessment following allegations made by his son. Mr X says the Council failed to take account of evidence he provided that his son was coerced by his mother into making false allegations that were both personally and professionally damaging to him.
2. Mr X says this has caused him considerable distress and has directly impacted his relationship with his son.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my investigation, I have:

• considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mr X; and
• sent my draft decision to both parties, invited comments on it and have taken those received into consideration.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

7. The Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. If a local authority receives a report of concern about a child, it must decide what response is required. This includes determining whether:

• the child requires immediate protection, or
• the child is in need and should be assessed under section 17 of the Act, or
• there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.

Child and Family Assessments

8. Child and Family Assessments gather information about the child and their family to make decisions about:

• whether any interventions are required, and if so, what they should be; and
• whether the child meets the criteria for ongoing services as a child in need.

What happened

9. Mr X and his former partner, Ms D have been separated for many years. They have a son, Child B, who was 11 years old at the time of events covered by this investigation. A Child Arrangement Order allowed Mr X to have contact with his son on Wednesdays and alternate weekends.
10. In November 2019, Child B made a disclosure to a third party and his school that he had been assaulted by Mr X during recent contact visits. This information was passed onto the police and the Council’s social services department. A social worker, Officer J, was assigned to make further enquiries.
11. Officer J interviewed Child B, Ms D, school staff and Mr X.
12. Mr X told Officer J that his son had a well-documented history of making up allegations such as these, under the influence of his mother. He says he provided Officer J with evidence of this, that she subsequently ignored.
13. In January 2020, Officer J completed a Child and Family Assessment (“CAF”).
14. The outcome of the assessment was for Mr X to attend a parenting course, but no further child protection action was required.
15. Mr X was unhappy with the content of Officer J’s assessment. He said it was gender-biased towards Ms D, included “hearsay evidence” and failed to take into account the evidence he had provided. Mr X was concerned this would impact on his professional standing. He was also unhappy about comments another social worker (Officer M) had made about his actions being childish.
16. In February 2020, he complained to the Council and requested the following action be taken:

• For disciplinary action to be taken against Officer J.
• For disciplinary action to be taken against Officer M, for personal comments she had made about him.
• For the CAF to be amended to include Mr X’s version of events.
• To take action to ensure Child B’s safety whilst in the care of Ms D.

The Council’s response

17. In summary the Council’s response made the following points:

• It found no evidence to support the claim made by Mr X that the CAF was biased in favour of Ms D. The Council was satisfied Officer J had spoken to Mr X and on three occasions and included his views about what happened within the assessment.
• As Mr X had told Officer J his other, adult son had witnessed the events, she had requested his contact details to corroborate what Mr X had told her. Because Mr X had refused to provide these details, Officer J could only proceed based on what Mr X and Child B had told her.
• There was no evidence of coercion of Child B by Ms D.
• Child B had repeated his allegations to several third parties, including his Deputy Head Teacher, Officer J, the police officer and his life coach.
• Officer M accepted the comments she made about Mr X were “unfortunate and inappropriate”. The Council apologised to Mr X.

18. Dissatisfied by this response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. During the course of the Ombudsman’s involvement, Mr X has raised further concerns about the welfare of his son and the Council’s failure to intervene.
19. Mr X has provided the Ombudsman with a detailed chronology dating back to 2015. This sets out many events that he considers to be relevant. These include

• Ms D making false allegations about Mr X paying no interest in his son’s education, refuted by a letter from the school.
• Ms D making false allegations about Mr X dragging Child B out of the temple in front of many witnesses.
• Ms D throwing her son out “onto the streets”.
• Child B running away from his mother’s care.
• Ms D sending Mr X a text stating “wait till he calls the police on you”.
• Ms D failing to alert the authorities about Child B being assaulted at school.
• Mr X was assaulted by Child B after being told off for not doing his school work.
• There were no bruises to corroborate Child B’s claims he was assaulted by Mr X
• The police told Mr X there were not taking it any further as they “knew it was down to Ms D”.
• Officer J told Mr X he did not care about his son, “and therefore I am going to write down that you kicked him and punched him as you didn’t want him to do his 11+ homework”.

20. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly consider this information and include it within the CAF.

Analysis

21. When considering complaints about child protection matters, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made. A child protection investigation will inevitably be distressing for any parent. It is therefore important to try to ensure things are done properly.
22. I have reviewed the CAF and the Council’s case notes for Child B. I have also taken into consideration the chronology and other information provided by Mr X.
23. There is no fault in either the procedure followed by the Council or the contents of the assessment.
24. Officer J spoke to the school, the police, Child B’s GP, Mr X, Ms D and Child B. She included information relating to ongoing and historic disputes between Child B’s parents, as well as most of the matters Mr X says were relevant. She recorded:

• Mr X’s view that Child B was co-erced by Ms C.
• Mr X said he had been assaulted by Child B.
• Mr X’s view that Child B has a history of making up allegations.
• Child B had previosuly run away from his mother care and there was police involvement.
• Child B had no marks or bruises.

25. Officer J came to a professional judgement and conclusion, which is what I would expect her to do. These were evidence based and it is clear from the CAF what is fact and what is opinion. I would not expect the assessment to include all of the points Mr X felt were relevant, particularly as many were more reflective of his relationship with Ms D, rather than Child B’s welfare. The Council considered making amendments to the CAF in response to Mr X’s concerns about important information being excluded, particularly round coercion. The Council took the decision not to do so because Child B had repeated allegations to a number of people. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and one the Ombudsman will not interfere with.
26. I appreciate Mr X disagrees strongly with these views and opinions but that does not mean they are wrong or that Officer J should not have reached them. Further clarification was given by the Council to Mr X in both complaint responses over why the assessor came to their conclusions and other aspects of his complaints.
27. The Council has already apologised to him for the comments made by Officer M. This was an appropriate remedy for any offence caused to Mr X.
28. For these reasons I am satisfied there has been no fault by the Council in the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with child protection enquiries involving Mr X and his son. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman