Summary: Mr D complains about an assessment of need carried out by the Council’s children’s services which contained a series of negative statements about him. We uphold the complaint finding numerous flaws in the content of the assessment. While these did not affect the outcome they did cause Mr D distress. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we explain the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr D’. He complains that further to its involvement in his family life from January 2020, the Council acted in a biased way against him when it assessed if it needed to provide services to his children. Mr D says it did not accept he was a victim of domestic violence despite him providing evidence of the same. He also says it made unfounded statements that he was a perpetrator of abuse. Mr D says the Council’s actions caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr D’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information he provided; including that gathered in a telephone conversation with him.
• Exchanges of correspondence between Mr D and the Council which pre-dated our investigation of his complaint.
• Information provided by the Council in response to written enquiries.
• Relevant law and guidance as referred to in the text below.

6. Mr D and the Council also had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision statement which set out my proposed findings. I considered any comments or further evidence provided in response before issuing this final decision statement.
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

Relevant Legal and Administrative Considerations

8. The Children’s Act 1989 sets out the circumstances where a council may become involved in family life because of concerns for a child’s welfare. The law places an overarching duty on the Council to act in the best interests of the child.
9. The Council may receive referrals from third parties expressing concerns about a child’s welfare. These are considered under what are known as ‘safeguarding’ procedures; a set of procedures used by local authorities to evaluate reports that children may be at risk of harm to their health or wellbeing.
10. Some referrals engage Section 47 of the Children’s Act. This provides for the Council to respond to concerns a child may be at risk of ‘significant harm’. In turn, this covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
11. Section 47 of the Children’s Act allows the Council to make enquiries with all agencies who work with a child and the family. Once the Council completes an initial assessment it can take a range of actions. At one end of the spectrum, it can close a case where it finds no grounds to substantiate concerns and no reason to take any other action. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it could act to place a child into its care. In between, it has a range of choices including carrying out a detailed assessment of children’s needs. This might lead it to offer services under Section 17 of the Children’s Act.
12. Section 17 refers in turn to services local authorities must provide to ‘children in need’. A ‘child in need’ is one 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 for him of services by a local authority”. This is because their “health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision […] of such services” or if they are disabled.
13. Where a Council receives a referral suggesting a child may meet this definition it should aim to carry out an assessment of the child’s needs. Once completed the Council must decide how to meet any needs and if it needs to offer services to the family.

Chronology of events

14. The beginning of events in this complaint is January 2020. The Council received a referral from the Metropolitan Police. The police advised they were called to an “incident of concern” involving Mr D and his then-wife, Mrs D. The police said Mr D called them following a “verbal argument” due to him being worried for Mrs D's mental health. The police alerted the Council as Mr and Mrs D had two young children, then aged 4 and 1 year old. The police advised both parties were calm when they arrived. They categorised the incident as ‘low risk’. There is no mention in the police reports of any violence by either party. Nor any history of violence or domestic abuse.
15. The Council referred the case to a social worker who undertook a visit around three weeks after the incident. Their note says they met with both Mr and Mrs D, and spoke to them both together and separately. Mr D says when he spoke to the social worker alone it was in the living room of the home but his wife was nearby and could potentially overhear. The notes of the visit say the incident in January arose following discussion of the couple getting divorced. The Council received conflicting accounts of who said what to whom. The note does not record either Mr or Mrs D’s account of exactly what happened next which led Mr D to call the police. It just says Mrs D became ‘upset’. The notes of the visit contain comments on both children about whom the social worker reported no immediate concerns for their welfare. The note says the social worker advised both parents “about the impact of domestic abuse on welfare of children”.
16. The Council has provided me with no record of what it told Mr and Mrs D about its continued involvement in their family life thereafter. There is nothing to suggest it was undertaking enquiries under Section 47 of the Children’s Act. I therefore assume it continued to take an interest in the case believing this might be a ‘family in need’. It went on to assess what needs the children may have and completed an assessment of need at the end of March 2020.
17. In the meantime, Mr and Mrs D both visited its offices in mid-February 2020. At that time the Council spoke to Mrs D alone and then recorded speaking to both Mr and Mrs D together. The Council notes of the visit say Mr D showed the social worker a film recording taken on his mobile phone. Mr D has also sent me a copy of this recording. The recording shows broken glass on the floor in the couple’s home and both children in the background in the care of another adult. The recording goes on to show Mrs D hitting Mr D and grabbing his neck before biting him on the arm. I understand this is footage from the argument which first caused Mr D to contact the police in January.
18. At this meeting in mid-February the Council recorded Mrs D acknowledging she had broken a glass. She said Mr D provoked her following discussion about divorce. At the meeting Mr D said that Mrs D was a good mother. There followed discussion about whether Mrs D could leave the family home and live elsewhere. This was not resolved. But the Council said it asked both Mr and Mrs D to sign a ‘working together document’.
19. Later in the month the Council recorded speaking on one further occasion to Mrs D. Then in early March 2020 the Council received a referral from a third party saying Mr D had expressed concerns that Mrs D ‘physically abused’ the children. The Council has not provided any note disclosing the detail of these concerns. It recorded speaking to a nursery, which said it had no concerns for the child’s wellbeing.
20. A few days later the Council social worker exchanged emails with Mr D. He said he had left the family home at the end of February. He said Mrs D was now stopping him seeing the children. He asked for the Council’s intervention. In his email Mr D said he had been the victim of domestic violence in January and this is why he contacted the police.
21. In response the Council said it had checked with the school which had no concerns for his child’s welfare. It suggested he seek legal advice about gaining access to his children.
22. Next, the Council called a professionals meeting where officers discussed the case. I have not seen the notes of that meeting. However, the Council says at this meeting there were concerns expressed about ‘family dynamics’ including Mr D “serving wife with divorce papers and sending emotionally disturbing messages to mother about children”. It is not clear what information led the Council to make this statement.
23. Later in March 2020, the Council was in some communication with the school attended by one of Mr D’s children. It had been contacted by Mr D concerned about whether he could pick up his children from school or whether the Council was preventing this. He sent an email to the social worker around the same time saying he wanted to reconcile with Mrs D. The social worker also recorded speaking to Mr D on the telephone. The Council says at the same time Mr D made an allegation to the police Mrs D had stolen items. The Council says it received this information from the police.
24. Around this time Mrs D left the former family home (a private rented tenancy whose lease was due to expire in any event) and left the Borough.
25. The social worker completed their assessment at the end of March 2020. This concluded the children were safe with their mother and the Council did not need to provide any services. The assessment discussed their health, schooling, appearance as observed by the social worker and so on. It also included comments from the school, health worker and GP. No concerns were expressed by either the social worker or those professionals for the children’s wellbeing.
26. The assessment also discussed the relations between Mr and Mrs D. In a section headed ‘the Quality and Capacity for Parenting’ the assessment referred to the film clip taken by Mr D and shown to the social worker. The assessment then went on to say:

• Mrs D had “managed to remove herself and the children from the home due to father being threatening and emotionally abusive to her”.
• “It is a worry that [the children] could have been exposed to the father’s behaviour towards their mother as they have been left in his care at times and the arguments between the parents could have an impact on their development and wellbeing. However, this impact could be minimised now they are no longer exposed to father’s emotional abuse”.
• That Mrs D had engaged well with the assessment and been “calm and consistent” while Mr D was inconsistent with information supplied and “appears to have tried to manipulate professionals by giving different versions of conversations”.

27. The next section of the assessment dealt with the parent’s views. It was reported Mr D saw Mrs D as a good mother. It referred to the couple still living together. It said Mr D had filmed Mrs D hitting him “because he wanted to show it to [Mrs D] afterwards”. The assessment said Mr D had said he had not shared the clip with anyone but later said he had shown it to the police and Mrs D’s parents.
28. In a section headed family background it is reported by Mrs D that “Mr D started threatening mother’s friends who were helping with child care” and this was reported to the police.
29. In a section headed ‘concerns’ the social worker listed the following:

• that Mr D was “gaslighting” Mrs D, something they described as “a form of persistent manipulation and brainwashing that causes the victim to doubt herself”;
• the children were caught “in the crossfire” of violence;
• Mr D was “emotionally abusive to mother by filming himself serving her with a divorce letter in the presence of children”;
• Mr D had accused Mrs D of stealing furniture the couple had jointly purchased;
• Mr D had “threatened to take the children away from the mother” and prevented her from seeking help from his family.

30. In a section headed summary the social worker said they identified no parenting concerns with Mrs D. It said she had “readily admitted to previous domestic abuse in the relationship” and her ability to protect her children would be limited if she stayed in a relationship with Mr D. It explained why witnessing domestic violence could harm the children. It said, “in the course of the assessment, several instances of manipulation and control, gaslighting and emotional abuse by [Mr D] were reported by [Mrs D]”. It said “most of this abuse was filmed by [Mr D] and forwarded to [Mrs D]”. The summary commented negatively on Mr D not alerting the Council to any concerns for Mrs D’s parenting and “choosing to share it with police, education and NSPCC instead”. It said Mr D had given conflicting statements about whether he wanted to reconcile or support his children in the future. It said he needed “insight into his behaviour”.
31. The Council did not send a copy of this assessment to Mr D.
32. In April 2020 the Council says it was contacted by Mr D. This led it to convene a ‘strategy discussion’, which involved its social work staff and police. That discussion shows the police had decided to open an investigation into an allegation of actual bodily harm reported by Mr D against Mrs D. It alludes to the film clip taken by Mr D referred to previously, another clip of bruising to him and various other allegations he made about Mrs D. It also referred to text messages sent by Mrs D to Mr D. The police later sent a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service which decided to charge Mrs D with assault against Mr D.
33. The Council decided to make further enquiries under Section 47 of the Children’s Act. It then updated the children’s assessment in late May 2020. It said it had “thoroughly explored” the concerns raised by Mr D but that it had “no safeguarding concerns” about Mrs D’s care of the children. It said it had found no evidence Mrs D used physical chastisement, but it had spoken to her and discussed her implementing “safer discipline measures”. The assessment also refers to Mrs D agreeing to attend a parenting group and the Council discussed her signing a “safeguarding agreement".
34. As Mrs D now lived out of Borough the Council sent a copy of its revised assessment to the area where she now lived. That authority agreed it did not need to provide services for the children. I saw later email exchanges with a third authority where it would appear the Council also sent it a copy of the assessment.
35. There is no record the Council sent a copy of the assessment to Mr D until July 2020. When he received it he said it was “deceiving and inaccurate” and he wanted to complain. He then submitted a complaint which included the following:

• that the social worker had not involved him sufficiently in the assessment;
• that it wrongly recorded he had been threatening and emotionally abusive towards Mrs D; that he had threatened to remove his children; that he had purchased furniture jointly with his wife; that he had threatened Mrs D’s friends;
• that it had not considered his concern that Mrs D would physically chastise his eldest child;
• that it was wrong to suggest his filming serving a divorce petition was emotional abuse;
• that it had not considered if Mr D was the victim of domestic abuse.

36. In its reply at ‘Stage One’ of its complaint procedure, the Council said:

• it felt it clear the social worker had ascertained Mr D’s views; that Mr D had only made a claim of domestic violence after the assessment concluded; but the Council accepted the social worker had seen the film clip taken by Mr D in February;
• that the series of statements Mr D disagreed with were made by Mrs D during the assessment; although the Council said that it had seen a report Mr D made to the NSPCC where he made a separate allegation of physical abuse against one of Mrs D’s friends;
• that the allegation of physical chastisement only arose after the social worker completed their assessment and was subsequently investigated;
• that the social worker had seen the film clip of Mr D serving divorce papers on Mrs D and this had distressed Mrs D. The Council noted Mr D took the film to prove he had served a petition on Mrs D.

37. The Council said that it partially upheld the complaint, but only in respect of some minor factual inaccuracies in the assessment (matters which are not relevant to this investigation).
38. Mr D pursued his complaint. His complaint included that the Council:

• should have interviewed him in a ‘place of safety’ in February 2020, rather than the family home as he was a victim of domestic abuse;
• had failed to consider the content of the film clip seen by its social worker; that Mrs D admitted breaking a glass and this could be seen in the film causing potential harm to the children; that it had also failed to acknowledge Mrs D’s assault captured on film;
• had shown bias against him as a man;
• had only involved him once in assessment; in discussion in January 2020;
• that it was wrong to describe him as inconsistent in the assessment.

39. In its further reply (the ‘Stage Two’ response to the complaint) the Council said in response to the above:

• that it was not necessary for the social worker to have interviewed Mr C in a ‘place of safety’ away from the family home; however, it acknowledged an offer could have been made at the time to facilitate this;
• that it had no further comments on the film clip with the matter having been addressed in the assessment and the ‘Stage One’ response to the complaint;
• it had apologised (in correspondence in May 2020 not seen by this office) if Mr D “felt the social worker disregarded his views”; the Council accepted it was important social workers gather and take account of fathers’ views and they were treated with “utmost respect and care”; it was rolling out training on how to involve fathers in its work;
• it could make ‘no finding’ on the level of Mr D’s involvement in the assessment but its Stage One reply had taken an overview of the social worker’s actions;
• it accepted the assessment “could have articulated your views and experience better than it did” and the section on Mr D’s views was “clumsily worded”. The Council promised more training on “how to conduct and write up assessments”.

40. In December 2020 Mrs D was found not guilty of assaulting Mr D.

My findings

41. I make no criticism of the Council’s early involvement in this case. The referral from the police triggered an appropriate and proportionate response from the Council. It visited Mr and Mrs D to check on the welfare of their children, because of the potential risk that disputes between the couple could impact on their children’s’ wellbeing. There was nothing in the referral from the police to suggest that any dispute the parents had was other than verbal. And there is nothing I have seen that would make me think the social worker’s initial contact with both parents would have led them to believe anything else. It should be remembered here the social worker’s focus was on the wellbeing of the children, not to establish all the facts around Mr and Mrs D’s relations or to find out exactly what happened in January 2020 which led the police to be called. I also agree with the Council it had no grounds to think initially that it may need to speak to Mr D in a more separate location to his wife.
42. I do have some concern the Council may not have made the continuing basis of its involvement in the case clear. The social worker’s visit in early February clearly did not suggest the children were at risk of significant harm and so its continued involvement could only proceed with the consent of the parents. While there is nothing to suggest Mr and Mrs D were not co-operative with the assessment process that followed it is not set out in the social work notes where the Council explained why it was continuing with an assessment of the children. Nor that it put this in writing.
43. However, the focus on my investigation is on the assessment which completed in March 2020. It is clear from the papers I have seen that I do not have full knowledge of all interactions the Council social worker had with Mrs D. It must be assumed the social worker spoke to Mrs D on occasions that are not clearly spelt out within the assessment document itself. I accept therefore that where the assessment refers to Mr D’s actions which he disputes, such statements were put to the social worker by Mrs D.
44. There is no fault in the Council recording what one partner says about another where this is disputed. However, the Council should record accurate facts and attempt to distinguish what is fact and what is hearsay. It should also distinguish what is said by a parent and what is the social work analysis of those statements. And where the social worker presents an analysis they should put forward their reasons for the views they hold.
45. The assessment undertaken in this case fell short of this basic good administrative practice. In particular I note:

• The section headed ‘Quality and Capacity for Parenting’ expressed as accepted fact that Mr D had been threatening and emotionally abusive to Mrs D. No factual basis was put forward for this statement. Later the report said there were “several examples” of such behaviour but only cited potentially one such example, that of when Mr D recorded by phone serving a divorce petition on Mrs D. Even there the Council did not explain why it saw such an action as potential emotional abuse, although I accept it could have drawn such an inference. As recording such a personal and potentially distressing moment in someone’s life and their reaction to it could be seen as abusive.
• The same section said Mr D had attempted to manipulate professionals through giving differing versions of conversations. Later the report says the social worker saw several examples of this. I can see why the social worker said Mr D was inconsistent at times. For example on whether he wanted to reconcile with Mrs D. But inconsistency alone is not evidence of manipulation. No explanation was made for this statement; i.e. what conversations were referred to and in what way were professionals being manipulated?
• The section on parent’s views described Mr D’s filmed clip of Mrs D hitting him and purported to give his reasons for filming. However, those reasons do not appear in any of the records I have seen of the direct communications the social worker had with Mr D.
• The section on family background said Mr D had threatened Mrs D’s friends. The factual basis for this statement is not explained.
• The section on ‘concerns’ said Mr D was ‘gaslighting’ Mrs D described as ‘persistent manipulation and brainwashing’. The basis for this statement was not explained. It was later repeated. Again, without explanation.
• The section headed ‘concerns’ said the children were caught in a ‘crossfire’ of violence. But the report had not established any pattern of violence as this statement may suggest.
• The section headed ‘concerns’ did not explain any factual basis for the statement Mr D had reported Mrs D for theft and if he had, why this was a source of concern.
• The same section said Mr D had ‘threatened to take children from the mother’ but did not explain the factual basis for this statement.
• The summary section refers to Mr D taking other film clips that apparently showed him abusing Mrs D but did not explain what those clips showed or whether the social worker had viewed them.

46. Unfortunately, the problems with the assessment do not stop there. I also note the following.

• There is no sign in the assessment the Council sought to put any of Mrs D’s claims about Mr D’s behaviour to him. He was therefore given no opportunity to state what comments he disagreed with or give his version of events. He was not given any draft of the assessment to comment on which would be basic good administrative practice. The Council should if possible, take account of both parents views and show how it has done this, before it concludes an assessment.
• The assessment did not address Mr D’s claims that he was a victim of domestic violence. Contrary to what the Council would say when it investigated his complaint this was well known to the Council when it produced its assessment. Mr D made the statement explicitly in his email to the social worker in early March 2020. By that point the Council also knew it was Mr D who had called the police in January reportedly concerned for Mrs D’s mental health. And in February he had shown a film clip in which Mrs D hit him in an incident where she also admitted breaking a glass. The social worker could legitimately put such information in context. They may consider Mr D only gave a partial picture and they could form a view about his actions also. But what they should not have done was simply to ignore Mr D’s statements or any evidence he provided in support of those. The fact that Mrs D was later charged with assault, even though not subsequently convicted, is enough to show the Council should have taken Mr D’s statements about his experience more seriously.
• The assessment also did not originally address Mr D’s claim that Mrs D physically chastised the children despite the social worker again knowing of this claim in March 2020. There is no record the Council attempted to gather more detail of Mr D’s concerns or discussed this with Mrs D. Instead, the Council appears to have dismissed Mr D’s concern based on a conversation with the school only. It also introduced the irrelevant consideration that Mr D had not raised this issue with it directly or sooner. I note it did not draw such a negative inference when commenting on Mrs D’s allegations she was the victim of domestic abuse.

47. I also question the Council’s addendum to the assessment added in May 2020 when it belatedly investigated the concerns Mr D raised about physical chastisement. This part of the assessment is contradictory. Apparently the Council had no safeguarding concerns about Mrs D’s parenting. Yet at the same time it discussed her entering into a safeguarding agreement and attend classes designed to implement safer discipline measures. While it may be the case the Council felt any safeguarding concerns were not sufficient to justify its further involvement (and Mrs D was by now living out of Borough in any event) the Council’s actions were plainly inconsistent with it having “no” concerns. Its report unhelpfully chose not to state what those concerns were which in turn undermined its statement that it had ‘thoroughly’ investigated them.
48. All I have listed in paragraphs 45 to 47 justifies a finding of fault against the Council. Its assessment contained numerous unattributed statements; ill-explained judgements and serious omissions. The overall effect was a report that had the appearance of bias and pre-determination against Mr D. He will rightly feel his voice was not properly heard or taken account of in the assessment. The injustice this causes is that of distress in the form of hurt to feelings.
49. In deciding how to remedy this injustice, I considered asking the Council to carry out a further assessment. However, I decided against this for two reasons. First, events have moved on since May 2020. I understand Mr D is no longer involved in his children’s life and Mrs D also lives in another authority area.
50. Second, I also find that despite the multiple faults in how the assessment was produced the overall outcome is unlikely to have been any different. Because the focus of the Council’s involvement was primarily on Mr D’s children. I cannot say exactly what transpired in Mr and Mrs D’s relationship. But I do not think different or more reasoned statements from the Council on this point will have changed its view that it did not need to provide services to his children at the point it completed its assessment. It did not have any serious concerns for Mrs D’s parenting and there is insufficient evidence in the papers that would lead me to think that there was any fault in that judgment. So, its involvement will have ended at that point.
51. However, I consider it is fair the Council give some recognition to Mr D of the distress he suffered which needs to go beyond the partial apologies it gave during its investigation of his complaint. Although I welcome that in its final reply to Mr D’s complaint the Council indicated that it intended to improve its social work practice. First, to better involve fathers’ views in assessments. Second, that it would seek to improve practice and training on how to conduct and write-up assessments. I hope the findings I have set out above will also feed into this work if the Council has not yet completed this exercise.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. The Council accepts these findings. It has agreed that to remedy the injustice set out at paragraph 48, that within 20 working days of this decision it will:

• provide an apology to Mr D accepting the findings of this investigation;
• pay Mr D £300 in recognition of his distress;
• write to those authorities with whom it previously shared the assessment and ask them to put a note on the file that reflects the wording of paragraph 48 above; i.e. “that an Ombudsman investigation has found fault in this assessment because it contained numerous unattributed statements; ill-explained judgements and serious omissions that gave the appearance of bias and pre-determination against [Mr D]”. A similar note should be appended to the Council’s record of the assessment.

53. I asked for this final action in case any of this assessment should one day resurface in any future dealings any of these authorities have with Mr D or his children. It is important the assessment carries a suitable warning for anyone who may have reason to read it in the future that its content where it relates to Mr D, is open to question.

Back to top

Final decision

54. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr D. The Council has agreed action to remedy this injustice that I consider provides for a fair outcome. I have therefore completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman