Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of child protection procedures concerning his daughter C. We have found some fault in the section 47 investigation leading to an initial child protection conference. We also found the Council should have considered Mr B’s complaint through all three stages of the statutory procedure. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £350 and has already taken steps to improve its procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the actions of Coventry City Council (the Council) in respect of his child, C. Specifically, he complains that:
• the social worker was biased and unprofessional, her investigation and preparatory work for court reports and the reports themselves were inaccurate and biased.
• the Council should not have called an initial child protection conference; it failed to provide the report in advance or interview Mr B as part of the section 47 investigation and it called the conference a review not an initial conference.
• the Council failed to offer Mr B the chance to proceed to stage three of the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have only investigated parts two and three of the complaint as the first part relates to court proceedings which are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
7. 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

What I found

Child protection

8. 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.

Child protection conference

9. 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 within 15 working days of the strategy meeting.
10. 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.

Child in need

11. 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. It is often used to protect children where the threshold of risk of significant harm is not met but a council considers support is still needed.

Children’s Services complaints procedure

12. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless he considers that investigation was flawed. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Early referral to the Ombudsman

13. The government guidance accompanying the legislation says that ‘only in exceptional circumstances may local authorities justify a variation’ from the statutory procedure. It also makes clear that once a council has accepted a complaint under the procedure, unless it is resolved to both parties’ satisfaction, the complainant has a right to go through all three stages.
14. We have identified some circumstances when we may accept an early referral of a complaint, for example:
• a stage 2 report had identified fault and the issue in question was whether a remedy was appropriate; or
• there had already been significant delay; or
• there was such a significant breakdown in trust between the complainant and the Council that it would make it difficult to complete the complaints procedure.

What happened

15. Mr B was separated from his wife Ms D and they shared the care of C.
16. In November 2018 C’s school made a referral to the Council following concerns about allegations made by C regarding her mother’s care. The Council allocated the case to a social worker who spoke to Mr B, Ms D and C. They also spoke to the school. C said she wanted to live with Mr B and did not like living with Ms D.
17. The Council investigated and decided to do a children and families assessment. This led to a child in need plan in January 2019, as the Council had concerns about the relationship between Mr B and Ms D and the impact this was having on C.
18. Mr B had also started private court proceedings for C to live with him and the court asked the Council to prepare a report for the case.
19. Ms D agreed to change some of her behaviour and both parents engaged in a parenting programme. Ms D and Mr B were both to engage with professionals to reduce the concerns about C’s emotional, physical and mental wellbeing.
20. Social workers continued to visit and work with C. She maintained she wanted to live with Mr B, but the Council had concerns she was being influenced by Mr B and his mother, who expressed negative views about Ms D. The Council saw C showing affectionate behaviour towards her mother and enjoying activities with her.
21. In March 2019 the school made another referral following a further allegation by C about her mother. The Council arranged for C to stay with Mr B while it investigated the allegation. A multi-agency strategy meeting was held with the Council, the police, and the education and health teams. The meeting decided to continue with the child in need plan. It noted the court case was ongoing.
22. Visits continued to C while she was at both parent’s houses. The Council felt C was being coached by Mr B’s mother to say negative things about Ms D in contrast to her behaviour when she was with Ms D. The Council maintained concerns about the impact of the parents’ relationship on C.
23. In June 2019 the court requested a further report on C’s emotional welfare and whether she was at risk of harm from either parent. The Council held another strategy meeting in July 2019 to discuss whether C was being coached by Mr B’s family and whether she was at risk of significant harm while in the care of either parent.
24. The meeting concluded that the case should progress to an initial child protection conference (ICPC) because C continued to disclose negative comments about Ms D when in Mr B’s care but was observed to be happy and showing a positive bond with Ms D when in her care. The meeting also note that C had been coached by Mr B’s mother with Mr B’s knowledge and Mr B had been unable to resolve his issues with Ms D. The Council considered the situation was emotionally and mentally abusive and was likely to have a negative impact on C’s development.
25. The Council completed its section 47 enquiries on 26 July 2019 and on 31 July 2019 a report for the ICPC recommending C be subject to a child protection plan as she continued to be exposed to the difficult relationship between Mr B and Ms D. The report was unsigned and did not indicate it had been shared with either Mr B or Ms D.
26. The case records show that the Council telephoned Mr B and Ms D on 29 July 2019 to inform them of the date. Mr B said it would have to be changed as it interfered with his contact with C. The Council said that wasn’t possible. Mr B said he would not attend. He then spoke to the conference chair on 1 August 2019 and after some discussion he agreed to come.
27. The notes say that during the discussion with the chair, she said that the social care team was waiting for the team manager to agree that Mr B could have a copy of the conference report. Mr B felt he should have had it by now. The chair emailed the team manger asking for the report to be released to Mr B and Ms D.
28. The records say the Council hand-delivered the reports to Mr B and Ms D at 12 pm on 5 August 2019. Mr B said it was delivered at 4.30 pm.
29. The ICPC was held on 6 August 2019 at 10.30 am. Neither the allocated social worker nor the team manager attended. The Chair noted in the minutes that the report had only been shared with both parents the previous day. She also expressed concerns that the Council had not disclosed that Mr B had an ongoing complaint with the Council.
30. The conference agreed that the threshold for a child protection plan had not been met and the child in need plan should continue. It recommended a new social worker for Mr B and Ms D, family mediation, a family group conference (to involve the wider family) and continued work with C. A progress meeting was arranged for September and a review meeting for November 2019.
31. In September 2019 the court case concluded with an order for shared care for C.

Complaint

32. In July 2019 Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council about its actions since November 2018. He alleged the Council failed to investigate the situation properly, was biased towards Ms D and included inaccurate information in the court reports. The Council said it could not investigate the complaint until the court proceedings had concluded.
33. The Council met with Mr B on 30 September 2019 to discuss the complaint and responded to the complaint on 23 October 2019. It concluded that the social care team had taken appropriate action to safeguard C and investigate the concerns raised. It said inaccuracies in the court reports were for the Court to consider. It did not consider the social worker had discriminated against him but felt that the situation could have been improved with better communication. It noted the late sharing of the ICPC report but drew no conclusion. It did agree the information provided by the chair of the conference should have been provided by the social care team.
34. The Council partially upheld the complaint and apologised for social workers attending meetings late and for inaccuracies in the court reports.
35. Mr B disputed the response and requested to escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints process.
36. The Council appointed an investigating officer (IO) and an independent person who met with Mr B in January 2020. They interviewed the relevant people between March and June 2020 and completed their reports in June 2020. They acknowledged delay in the process due to the pandemic restrictions and the chair of the ICPC having left the Council.
37. The IO upheld three, and partially upheld one, of the nine complaints:
• the ICPC report should have been given to Mr B three days before the conference but was delivered less than 24 hours before it was due to start. This was too late and gave Mr B insufficient time to prepare for the conference.
• The Council in the invitation letter referred to the ICPC as a review conference in a letter to Mr B, which was incorrect.
• The Council failed to tell Mr B why the case was going to a conference and failed to consult with him beforehand. There was no evidence in the case records that the Council had any direct discussions with Mr B as part of the section 47 investigation or the reasons for proceeding to an ICPC.
• The Council submitted two reports for court late.
38. The IO did not uphold five complaints including that:
• the Council failed to properly and impartially investigate the allegations made by C. They considered that the Council had responded appropriately and proportionately to the concerns raised.
• there was no justification for the ICPC and that it took place because Mr B had complained to the Council. The IO noted that when the Council decided to proceed to the ICPC, Mr B had not made a complaint and the Council properly considered the threshold, concluding there was sufficient evidence to proceed.
• The social worker made the allegation that C had been brainwashed by Mr B’s mother. The IO said that there was evidence that the issue was raised as a concern by social workers and was addressed during the court proceedings.
39. The IO concluded that she could see no evidence that any of the complaints raised by Mr B had impacted the court proceedings or that the Council had fabricated evidence for court.
40. The IO made some recommendations, including the following:
• the Council should apologise to Mr B in writing for the failure to provide a copy of the ICPC report within the appropriate timescales and ensure reports are shared within the timescale in the future.
• the Council should also apologise for referring to the conference as a review conference which indicated that C had been subject to a child protection plan. The Council should also ensure C’s file was corrected.
• the Council should apologise to Mr B for failing to interview him as part of the section 47 investigation. It was not good practice.
41. The Council informed Mr B of the outcome of the complaint process on 22 June 2020. The letter included the recommended apologies. Mr B then complained to the Ombudsman. We asked the Council if Mr B could proceed to a stage three panel. It replied saying that the stage two complaint was investigated thoroughly and independently, and it did not feel a stage three would add anything further.

Analysis

the Council should not have called an initial child protection conference

42. I cannot find fault with the process the Council followed in reaching the decision to proceed with a section 47 investigation leading to an ICPC. Following the Council’s intervention in late 2018 and the child in need plan it continued to have concerns about C’s emotional wellbeing which were also echoed by the court as part of the private law proceedings. The Council held a strategy meeting and decided to proceed with a section 47 investigation. The outcome of this was to hold an ICPC to decide if the threshold was met for a child protection plan. The reports detail the concerns raised and the reasons for the actions.

The Council failed to provide the report in advance or interview Mr B as part of the section 47 investigation and it called the conference a review not an initial conference

43. I agree the Council was at fault in not sharing the report with Mr B three days before the conference. I also consider the Council was at fault in not going through the document with Mr B to explain the reasons for the meeting. This failure left Mr B with uncertainty as to why the conference was being held and fuelled his feeling that the Council was acting unfairly towards him.
44. The uncertainty was exacerbated by the failure to interview Mr B as part of the section 47 investigation which would have provided another opportunity for Mr B to understand what was happening and why.
45. The error in the invitation letter was also fault which could have left an incorrect impression of C’s case.

The Council failed to offer Mr B the chance to proceed to stage three of the statutory children’s complaints procedure

46. The children’s complaints procedure is a statutory three-stage procedure which the Council should follow unless exceptional reasons apply. In cases where both parties are not in agreement the Council should proceed to stage three.
47. The Council was at fault for not offering Mr B the chance to proceed to a stage three panel: he was clearly not in agreement with the findings and none of our criteria for early referral were met. It was also fault for the Council to prejudge whether the stage three panel would agree with the stage two outcome.
48. This caused Mr B to miss out on further consideration of his complaint by an independent panel and meant he had to pursue the complaint with us.

Agreed action

49. I welcomed the apologies provided and the action taken to correct C’s file. However, I considered a further remedy was appropriate to address Mr B’s injustice and improve the service for the future.
50. I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision,
• pays Mr B £250 for the uncertainty caused by the failures in the child protection process and £100 for the failure to fully complete the statutory complaints procedure.
• reviews its procedures and reminds relevant staff of the need to ensure all parties are fully involved in the section 47 investigation and fully informed, within the required timescales, of the reasons for proceeding to an ICPC.
• improves its complaints procedure to ensure all qualifying complaints about children’s services complete the three-stage procedure in accordance with the guidance.
51. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. It says the Council has already delivered training around child protection enquiries, reviewed child protection procedures and processes and reiterated them to staff. The Council has also developed Introduction Packs to go to families on initial contact. These contain information about processes including the child protection process. It has done work with staff teams including training and workshops including working with and engaging fathers.
52. It says it will ensure that all officers and managers dealing with complaints are aware of the three-stage process and that it is discussed in regular complaint and management meetings.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman