Summary: Ms X complains that social workers were biased against her and failed to recognise she was a victim of domestic violence. The Council is at fault as it failed to consider if Ms X was a victim of domestic violence which caused distress to Ms X. The Council has agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice by apologising to her and making a payment of £300 to acknowledge the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council’s social workers were biased against her and failed to recognise she was a victim of domestic violence during child protection enquiries. As a result the Council did not treat her appropriately or fairly which caused significant distress to her and her children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Ms X;
• Discussed the issues with Ms X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Ms X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administration

6. The Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children 2018’ set out councils’ responsibilities to safeguard children. 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)
7. The London Child Protection Procedures sets out how agencies and individuals should work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people. Section 20 of the procedures sets out how councils should safeguard children abused through domestic abuse. The procedures provide that professionals should validate and support children and mothers who disclose domestic abuse by listening to what the child or mother says and taking it seriously. They should then take action to establish if the child or mother requires protection and has strategies for keeping safe. (section 28, London Child Protection procedures)

Local Authority Designated Officer

8. Statutory guidance says that every council has a duty to manage allegations and concerns about any person who works with children and young people in their area. This includes council staff, staff or partner agencies and volunteers.
9. The London Child Protection Procedures state it will apply its procedures where there is an allegation that any person who works with children in connection with their employment or voluntary activity has:

• Behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child;
• Possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child;
• Behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicated they may pose a risk of harm to children.

10. The procedures should be applied when the person, as a parent or carer, has become subject to child protection procedures.

Complaints procedure

11. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond to all stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 30 working days.

What happened

12. Ms X and her former husband, Mr Y, have four children. The Police made a referral to the Council’s children’s services as Mr Y had made allegations of domestic abuse by Ms X and that she had assaulted one of the children.
13. The Council held a strategy meeting and decided the threshold for section 47 enquiries was met due to concerns about ongoing domestic violence between Ms X and Mr Y and making malicious allegations against each other. Following an assessment of the family, the Council concluded the children were at risk of emotional abuse due to the dispute between Ms X and Mr Y and referred their case to an Initial Child Protection Conference (the Conference). The Conference decided the children were at risk of some harm and would be best supported with a child in need plan.
14. Ms X was also referred to the LADO as she works with children and was employed in another area. The LADO advised a referral should be made to the LADO in the area where Ms X was employed. She also advised Ms X should be informed she should not work privately with children without the presence of another adult. The Council’s LADO later concluded the threshold for intervention had not been met as the children were placed on a child in need plan. A subsequent check by officer 1 showed the Council had not made the referral to the LADO in the area where Ms X worked. Ms X has said she was self employed and the Council did not tell her she should not work privately with children without another adult present.
15. Following the conference, the family were allocated to officer 1, the social worker who made a number of visits to the family home. The family’s progress was also considered at child in need meetings.
16. Ms X made a number of allegations about Mr Y’s care of the children and raised that Mr Y was sending threatening messages to her. She also said in an email to officer 2 that Mr Y had emotionally abused her for a number of years. Officer 2 advised Ms X to report any threatening messages to the police. There is no evidence she gave any consideration to Ms X disclosure that Mr Y had emotionally abused her.
17. Officer 1’s record of a child in need visit to Ms X notes her concern that Ms X was involving the children in the parental dispute and the child in need plan was not working. The record notes Ms X said she was terrified of being in the same room as Mr Y during a proposed family group conference. The record shows officer 1 told Ms X she had been in the same room as Mr Y for child in need meetings.
18. Shortly afterwards a third party contacted officer 1 to raise concerns about Mr Y’s behaviour. The record notes officer 1 disputed the third party’s concerns.
19. The Council held a strategy meeting to discuss concerns from a third party and Mr Y that Ms X had physically abused two of the children. The third party had also raised concerns about the impact of the parental dispute on the children. The Council considered the threshold for a section 47 investigation had been met. The case was subsequently considered by a conference and the children were placed on a child protection plan due to emotional abuse.
20. The child protection plan included a referral for both parents to an agency to help them have a better understanding of the impact domestic violence was having on the children. The plan also included announced and unannounced visits to the family every two weeks.
21. Officer 1 carried out announced and unannounced visits to Ms X and to the children at school. Mr Y also had contact with the children and one of the children lived with him. Ms X requested officer 1 visit the children at Mr Y’s address. The Council’s records note officer 1 made mostly announced visits to Mr Y’s address.
22. The Council reviewed progress at core group meetings and conferences. The conference decided the children should be stepped down to child in need. The Council closed the family’s case when the courts decided the custody arrangements for the children.
23. Ms X made a complaint to the Council raising a number of issues about officer 1 and her manager, officer 2’s conduct. Both officers had left the Council by this time. Several months later officer 3, a senior officer had a meeting with Ms X to discuss her complaint but did not provide a written response. The Council told us that it had dealt with Ms X’s complaint informally. The Council issued a response to Ms X under stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The process took approximately 10 months.
24. In response to Ms X’s complaint, officer 3 acknowledged:

• There were doubts as to whether the officers dealing with Ms X’s family had maintain curiosity and kept an open mind.
• Apologised to Ms X for the conduct of the officers as his sense was the service fell short of what he expected. He also recognised the Council’s involvement left Ms X feeling deflated and not listened to.
• Acknowledged Ms X’s email addresses may have been inappropriately shared. Regardless of whether allegations are founded or disputed, it was important information was only shared where necessary to avoid re-abusing victims or placing them at risk. These comments have been reported to the management group to ensure the Council avoids similar circumstances.
• The Council had commissioned further ongoing training around domestic abuse for all social workers and their managers.

25. In response to my enquiries the Council said:

• There were emails to and from Mr Y where Ms X’s email address was copied in. It is not clear if Mr Y already knew of the email address but the Council should have sought explicit consent from Ms X for her email address to be disclosed. The Council has cascaded this learning to managers and imbedded the practice in its procedures.
• In cases of domestic abuse, if there are times when both individuals are required in a room together this will be considered in terms of the level of risk posed, the wishes of the individuals and the Council’s assessment of the circumstances.
• In this case the social work assessment was that the relationship was not clear cut whereby Ms X was the victim and Mr Y was the perpetrator as there were counter allegations on both sides. The assessment was also the risks could be managed in terms of attending meetings and in the interests of transparency, it was decided both would be present at some meetings.
• Ms X’s job involved working with children so it was relevant to contact Ms X’s employer particularly when her children were placed on a child protection plan. Mr Y did not work with children or vulnerable people so there was no need to inform his employer.
• Ms X’s complaint and officer 3’s response has been added to the family’s case notes so Ms X’s concerns and officer 3’s findings are on record.

Analysis

Failed to consider Ms X as a victim of domestic violence

26. The Council said it was not clear cut as to which party was the victim or perpetrator. I acknowledge this was a difficult situation due to the allegations and counter allegations made. But there is no evidence to show the Council considered if Ms X, or indeed Mr Y, were victims of domestic violence. It appears the Council was not alert to the complexities of domestic violence in dealing with Ms X and Mr Y’s case.
27. The Council’s records show Ms X made disclosures of emotional abuse by Mr Y to officers 1 and 2 and said she was afraid of being in the same room as him. A third party also raised concerns about Mr Y’s behaviour. The records show officers 1 and 2 dismissed both Ms X’s and the third’s party’s concerns without consideration. This was not in accordance with the London Child Protection Procedures which provide the Council should take disclosures seriously. As the Council has acknowledged, the records show officers did not maintain an open mind or professional curiosity when Ms X made her disclosures. The officers failed to explore Ms X’s and the third party’s disclosures and made assumptions that Mr Y was not a risk on the basis Ms X had previously attended meetings. On balance, I consider this to be fault.
28. The Council said it considered the risks of Ms X and Mr Y jointly attending meetings could be managed. I have not seen any evidence a risk assessment was carried out or that the Council considered either or both parties could be victims of domestic violence.
29. The Council has acknowledged it should have sought explicit consent for emails to her to be copied to Mr Y. Again, this is evidence the Council did not consider if Ms X was a victim and the complexities of domestic violence.

Bias towards Mr Y

30. The Council carried out announced and unannounced visits to Ms X in accordance with the child protection plan. However, it did not carry out such visits to Mr Y until Ms X asked it to. It is apparent from the Council’s records that it only carried out one unannounced visit to Mr Y. This is surprising when Mr Y was jointly caring for the children and one child was living with him on a full-time basis. This is further evidence that officers did not maintain an open mind.
31. The Council is not at fault for referring Ms X to the LADO and requiring her to disclose the child protection investigation to her employer. Ms X worked with children and was in a position of trust. I understand Mr Y does not work with children so the procedures would not apply to him.

Complaint

32. The Council delayed in dealing with Ms X’s complaint. Ms X made her complaint two months before the COVID-19 pandemic so it is not clear why the Council did not deal with it for several months. On balance, this delay is fault which will have caused frustration to Ms X.

Injustice to Ms X

33. I consider the failure of officers to keep an open mind and to consider if Ms X was a victim of domestic violence meant she felt unsupported and not listened to. The failure to initially carry out visits to Mr Y and to carry unannounced visits will also have added to Ms X’s perception that officers were biased towards him. This will have caused additional distress to Ms X during a difficult time. The Council should remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
1. send a written apology and make a payment of £300 to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused to her by failing to consider if she was a victim of domestic violence and delay in dealing with her complaint. The Council should also place a copy of the apology letter on Ms X’s children’s files.
2. provide evidence to show the Council has carried out training for social workers and managers regarding domestic abuse as it had undertaken to do in response to Ms X’s complaint. If the Council has not carried out the training it should do so within three months of my final decision and provide evidence to show it has done so.

Back to top

Final decision

35. The Council is at fault as it failed to consider if Ms X was a victim of domestic violence which caused distress to Ms X. The Council has agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman