Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral and child protection enquiry, and its handling of his complaint about this. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in its complaint handling, and in raising an issue about the children’s care in their presence, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by making payments to reflect time and trouble and distress caused by these faults and providing evidence of service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complains about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral and child protection enquiry following an allegation by his son, Z. He says the way the Council investigated the matter caused unnecessary distress to the family.
2. Mr X is also unhappy about the Council’s handling of his complaint about its actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
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 spoken to Mr X, made enquiries of the Council, and read the information Mr X and the Council have provided about the complaint.
7. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered the responses received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Safeguarding referrals and child protection enquiries

8. The Children Act 1989 sets out the circumstances in which a local authority (the Council) with responsibility for social services may become involved in family life because of concerns for a child’s welfare. The law says the child’s needs and welfare are paramount and the Council must act in the best interests of the child.
9. The Council may receive referrals from third parties expressing concerns about a child’s welfare. It will consider these under ‘safeguarding’ procedures - a set of policies and procedures used by agencies to report concerns for a child’s welfare and the Council to investigate such concerns.
10. The Council must consider if a referral raises a concern a child may be at risk of ‘significant harm’. Under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect. The Council must make enquiries (a child protection enquiry) where a child is considered to be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm to establish the child’s situation and whether protective action is required.
11. Where the Council considers this threshold may be met, it should arrange a strategy meeting with the police to decide any immediate safeguarding actions and whether it should make child protection enquiries, which may involve all agencies who work with a child and the family. Once the enquires are complete the Council must then decide what action to take. This could range from closing a case, where it finds no grounds to support concerns, to placing a child into its care, with various other options in between.

Greater Manchester Safeguarding Children Procedures

12. Working together to Safeguard Children 2018 is statutory guidance for councils and other agencies to work together to assess children’s needs and promote and safeguard their welfare. It sets out principles, processes and timescales for conducting child protection investigations.
13. Councils are covered by local child protection and safeguarding procedures based on the Working Together guidance. The Council has adopted the Greater Manchester Safeguarding Children Procedures (Greater Manchester Procedures). This sets out the approach which all those working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children must ensure their practice reflects.

Council’s complaint procedure

14. A statutory complaints procedure is set out in The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006) (the Regulations), and has three stages:

• Stage One - Local Resolution
• Stage Two – Investigation
• Stage Three – Review and Panel

15. The Children Act 1989 and the Regulations provide for the use of the statutory procedure for complaints about services provided under Part 3, and some elements of Parts 4 and 5 of the Children Act 1989. S47 (child protection) enquiries are not within these parts of the Act, but the Council has chosen to use the statutory procedure for all complaints about children’s care.
16. The statutory guidance “Getting the best from complaints” says:

• Where a complaint is accepted at stage one the complainant is entitled to pursue their complaint further through the procedure.
• If a complaint has entered stage one the local authority is obliged to ensure the complaint proceeds to stages two and three if the complainant requests this.
• It is expected the majority of complaints should be considered and resolved at stage one. If both parties believe it would not be appropriate to consider the complaint at stage one they should discuss this together.
• Where the complaint is not resolved at stage one the complainant has the right to request consideration of the complaint at stage two. Stage two commences either when the complainant requests it or where the complainant and the local authority have agreed that stage one is not appropriate.
• The complaints manager should arrange for a full and considered investigation of the complaint to take place without delay.

17. The Council’s complaint process says:

• At stage one the manager of the team complained about will look into the complaint and provide a written response.
• If the complainant tells them they are not satisfied with the response, they will look at whether the issues can be resolved by talking to the team complained about, or whether the complaint should go on to stage two.
• At stage two, the complaint will be looked at by two people; an investigating officer who has not been involved in the complaint already, and an independent person who does not work for the Council. They will complete an investigation and write a report.
• If the complainant is not happy with the outcome, they can ask for the complaint to go to stage three, where it will be looked at by a panel at a hearing. The panel will then make a decision and write their report about the investigation.

What happened

Safeguarding referral and child protection enquiry

18. Mr X and his husband, Mr Y, have two young sons, Z and W, adopted children with a background of trauma. On 5 June 2020, the Council’s Children’s Social Care team received a safeguarding referral from Z’s school, Z having told two staff members Mr Y had thrown him across the room as he was not listening. Z had a bump on his head which he said had been caused by this incident.
19. The Council contacted Mr X and Mr Y. Mr Y told the Council they were running late that morning and he had shouted at Z to put on his shoes. Because of his background in an abusive home, Z can be scared by shouting, and he tripped and banged his head. They checked his head, felt no bump and walked to school without any issues.
20. The Council asked Mr X and Mr Y for consent to a social worker speaking to Z at school. Its records say Mr X was concerned about Z being spoken to alone by a social worker introducing himself as such, because of Z’s previous experience of being taken from his family by a social worker. It was agreed Z’s teacher would be with him. And the social worker called Mr X before speaking to Z.
21. The social worker spoke to Z at school, with a teacher present. Z repeated his account. He had a small bump to the back of his head. The social worker also spoke to W who confirmed Z’s account.
22. The Council held a strategy discussion with the police. It was agreed a child protection medical should be completed.
23. The social worker called Mr X and Mr Y and arranged to visit them at home for their account and consent to the medical. Mr X did not give consent. He then spoke with the Council’s practice manager. The Council’s records say the parents were reluctant but after some discussion they agreed to the medical.
24. Mr X, Mr Y, Z, W, a teacher from their school, and the social worker attended the medical centre later that day. A consultant paediatrician carried out the examination. Z told her Mr Y had not thrown him and he had fallen backwards while trying to sit down. She found Z had no other injuries, marks or bruising. The bump on the back of Z’s head was described as “barely a bump” and was not fitting with having been thrown across a room. She concluded the injury was probably accidental.
25. The Council reviewed the paediatrician’s findings. Its records confirm it still had some concerns in view of the repeated consistent accounts Z had given professionals initially. It decided to ask Mr X to supervise contact over the weekend and follow up the next week. The social worker told Mr X and Mr Y about the proposals while they were all together at the medical centre. Mr X and Mr Y were unhappy about this. They had understood, as the outcome of the medical was accidental injury, this would be an end to the enquiry. They left without the plan being put in place.
26. The Council discussed the position with the police. It was agreed there was no threshold for further action. But the Council decided additional exploration was required, the enquiries would continue and a follow up strategy discussion with all agencies was arranged for the next week.
27. At the follow up strategy meeting on 9 June, it was agreed the social worker would carry out a further home visit to discuss the incident with Mr X and Mr Y. The Council recorded its concerns Z had made two disclosures of having been thrown by Mr Y which had been confirmed by W, and about Mr X’s attitude towards professionals with whom he may need to work positively in the future.
28. The social worker completed the further home visit. He recorded Mr X’s concern and frustration with the process. Mr X felt the Council had not considered the effect on Z of the involvement of a social worker and a medical, and the negative impact of this for Z and the family outweighed the need to investigate his disclosure.
29. The Council reviewed the information it had obtained. It agreed there was no evidence to indicate ongoing risk and closed the child protection enquiry. It provided a copy of its assessment report to Mr X and Mr Y.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

30. In July 2020 Mr X complained about the way the Council had handled the situation. He said:

• The Council had not asked for their consent to visit Z at school. It said they had no choice and someone would attend regardless of their wishes.
• They explained their concern, because of Z’s previous experiences with social workers, a social worker introducing himself as such could have a detrimental impact on his emotional and mental health. They were worried about not being with Z if he became distressed. They asked the social worker not to introduce himself or explain his job to Z.
• The social worker would not answer their questions about how Z was, when he called them after speaking to him at school.
• The Council did not listen to their concerns about the effect on Z of having to attend a medical examination, because his previous experience with this process led to his removal from his birth family.
• The Council’s practice manager told Mr X if they did not give their consent for the medical, she would have to contact the police. Z had been removed from his birth family by the police following a violent incident. Mr X felt his consent was obtained under duress, to avoid Z having any further contact with the police.
• They were told if the medical concluded the injury was accidental, no further action would be necessary. But the social worker told them there were still some concerns and further enquiries required. It was inappropriate to raise these issues while they were in a public waiting room and with the children.
• They had to agree to the social worker’s further visit to their home. The Council wanted the visit and used its statutory power without any good reason as the medical had concluded the injury was accidental.
• They raised their concerns at this visit about the Council’s insistence on following its process and failure to take account of Z and the family’s individual circumstances. They felt the Council required the medical be done that day because it was a Friday and it wanted it completed before the weekend to avoid officers having to work late. And there was no attempt by the Council to contact other professionals involved with Z.
• The assessment report contained many factual inaccuracies which were addressed with the social worker but showed the lack of focus on detail.
• The process followed that day had a huge impact on Z and the whole family. Z became anxious about whether they still loved him and being taken away. It had undone the progress they had made in the last 18 months. The Council did not consider Z’s trauma and loss experienced in his early years, in the way it carried out its investigation.
• The Council did not follow The Greater Manchester Safeguarding Manual. It only considered one aspect of Z’s health, not his overall welfare. Mr X and Mr Y challenged the Council’s process because of their upset and concern about the impact on Z. The Council was more concerned about their challenges than the original incident in its response. They felt the Council discriminated against them because they are two male parents.

31. The Council’s stage one complaint response to the complaint was provided by the service manager for the team which dealt with the referral and child protection enquiries. She said:

• Mr X gave consent for the social worker to speak to the children at school. He gave them a child friendly description of his job without using the term “social worker”.
• It is regular practice to work with the police where there is evidence of risk of significant harm. But they would re-consider the way they deliver information about this joint working.
• They recognised this was a distressing time for the family. There were no assumptions based on Mr X’s challenges, but, as part of a holistic assessment, social workers will consider a parent’s behaviour.
• The social worker said there was nobody else present in the waiting room. They always try to prevent children from being witness to conflict. Had the social worker anticipated the discussion would cause conflict he should have asked to speak to Mr X separately.
• The views of the adoption support worker were obtained and considered at the discussion on 9 June, together with the views of the other professionals at the meeting.
• The follow up visit to their home was not made using any statutory power. It was allowed by Mr X and Mr Y and the children were not present. The visit gave them the opportunity to discuss their concerns.
• The child protection medical was arranged for the earliest opportunity. Had it not been organised that day, the same procedure would have been followed by its out of hours team.
• The Council had taken appropriate steps in line with guidance and legislation and had not been influenced by gender bias. The same process was followed for all children making repeated disclosures of physical harm by a parent.

32. Mr X was not happy with the response. He felt the investigation had not been effective, the manager responsible for the assessment and child protection enquiry and supervising the social worker had been involved with the complaint investigation and there had been no discussion with Mr X, Mr Y or the school about the complaint issues. He asked for the complaint to be moved to stage two.
33. The Council proposed a meeting with Mr X to discuss the complaint. There were issues arranging a date. Mr X said he did not want to delay the progress of the complaint further and asked the Council to move his complaint to stage two instead.
34. The Council’s Head of Service replied to Mr X’s request for a stage two investigation. She said the complaint had already been appropriately investigated and responded to. The Council had not upheld the complaint and further investigation using the complaint procedure would not bring about a different outcome. It would not move the complaint to stage two of its procedure.
35. Mr X then brought his complaint to us.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The Council’s complaint handling

36. The Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint under stage one of the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure. The statutory guidance makes it clear Mr X had a right to request a stage two investigation, and the Council was required to arrange this. In my view, the Council’s refusal to accept Mr X’s complaint for a stage two investigation is fault.
37. This fault meant Mr X lost the opportunity to have his complaint considered by an independent person at a local level. And, instead of the Council arranging the stage 2 investigation, he has had to bring his complaint to us.
38. However, rather than referring the complaint back to the Council for a stage two investigation, I consider it is more expedient for us to complete our investigation of Mr X’s substantive complaint.

Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the safeguarding referral and child protection enquiries

39. The Council was told by Z’s school, in the safeguarding referral, he had a bump on his head which he said had been caused by Mr Y throwing him across the room. The Council decided, based on this information, there was reasonable cause to suspect Z was suffering or likely to significant harm.
40. The Council decided it should see and speak to Z as part of the child protection enquiries it had a duty to make. The Greater Manchester Procedures say the child should be seen, alone where appropriate, by the social worker and the significance of seeing and observing the child cannot be overstated.
41. If access to the child is refused, a council may apply for an emergency protection order, or other appropriate court order to safeguard the child.
42. The Council’s records say consent was given for a social worker to talk to Z at school. Mr X says he did not give consent, he was told he had no choice. My view is the Council should have asked Mr X and Mr Y for their consent, and they could have refused to give this. But the Council could still decide it should speak to Z without parental consent or obtain a court order. Although this should have been explained clearly to Mr X, I do not consider this shortcoming was serious enough to amount to fault.
43. Mr X was understandably concerned about how Z would react, after talking to a social worker, because of Z’s previous experiences. The Council decided it was not appropriate for Mr X or Mr Y to be present when the social worker spoke to Z. But it discussed Mr X’s concerns with him before the social worker’s visit and arranged for a teacher to be there with Z. In my view, the Council considered how it could balance its duty to safeguard Z and make enquiries, together with Mr X’s concerns, and there was no fault in the way it carried out this process.
44. Mr X and Mr Y were also understandably very concerned to find out how Z was following the social worker’s visit to him at school. Mr X says the social worker did not answer their questions about this when he telephoned them after he had spoken to Z. But the social worker saw them at home, shortly after this call, and told them Z seemed happy and unbothered about talking to him. I do not consider the shortcoming in not answering their questions about Z during the phone call was serious enough to amount to fault.
45. In its stage one response the Council apologised if its reference to police involvement was perceived by Mr X as a threat. It said it would re-consider how it delivered information about joint working with the police. But I do not consider the shortcoming in way in which the Council raised the issue of police involvement with Mr X was serious enough to amount to fault.
46. The Council arranged the medical examination the same day, after Z had repeated his allegation to the social worker, who had also confirmed there was a bump to Z’s head, and the strategy discussion with the police. The purpose of the medical was to establish as soon as possible, whether the injury was accidental, as an essential part of the child protection enquiry. I do not consider there was fault in the way the Council arranged the medical.
47. Mr X and Mr Y were upset the child protection enquiry was not concluded following the paediatrician’s finding Z’s injury was probably accidental, as they had understood would be the position. The Council’s records show it considered the paediatrician’s finding together with its other concerns. In my view, there was no fault by the Council in the way it made its decision not to close its enquires at that stage but to hold a follow up strategy meeting.
48. In my view it was inappropriate for the social worker to raise the issues of supervision by Mr X of the children’s care and a follow up meeting in a public area in the children’s presence. I consider this was fault, which together with the heated discussion that followed, is likely to have caused Z and W distress.
49. The strategy meeting on 9 June involved a number of professionals who had dealt with the family, including the adoption support worker. Following this, the Council decided there should be a further home visit to discuss with Mr X and Mr Y its concerns about Z and W’s disclosures and the need for family and professionals to work co-operatively if any future allegations were made. I do not consider there was fault by the Council in the process it followed to arrange this home visit. I understand any inaccuracies in the assessment report were raised with, and remedied by, the social worker.
50. I appreciate Mr X’s concern about the impact of the Council’s enquiries on Z and the whole family. Given the nature of the safeguarding referral - an allegation by a young child of an injury caused by a parent - the Council decided it should take urgent action to speak to Z, establish whether there was an injury and if it was accidental. The social worker’s contact with Z was limited to the initial visit at school, with a teacher present, and Mr X and Mr Y were with Z at the medical centre. In my view the Council properly considered how it should carry out the enquiries it had a duty to make.
51. I have not seen any evidence to show the Council discriminated against Mr X and Mr Y as two male parents. Other than the matter referred to in paragraph 48 above, I do not find fault in the way the Council responded to the safeguarding referral or conducted the child protection enquiry.

Agreed action

52. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X for failing to arrange a stage two investigation of his complaint.
• Pay Mr X £100 to reflect his time and trouble bringing his complaint to us.
• Pay Mr X £100, to be used for the benefit of Z and W, to reflect the distress caused to them by issues about their care being raised in their presence.
• These figures are a symbolic amount based on the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies.

53. And within three months of the date of our final decision, provide us with evidence it has:

• shared a copy of this decision with complaint managers to capture learning from it and reminded staff they should follow the statutory complaints procedure.
• reviewed the way it explains the position about consent to social workers’ access to a child and medical examinations to parents and guardians.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will take the above action as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman