Shropshire Council (20 005 709)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 23 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms W has made a complaint about various failings by the Council about her daughter who is a ‘child in need’. The Ombudsman has found several failings by the Council in this respect. Most notably, the Council pressured Ms W into housing her daughter despite the risk of harm she posed to herself and Ms W’s family. Further, the Council failed to effectively consider its legal duty to house Ms W’s daughter. This caused Ms W serious distress over a prolonged time. We have therefore recommended several remedies.

Complaint background

  1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms W, is the mother of four children, Child A who is the second eldest daughter and it is her circumstances which principally lie
  2. Child A had been living with family members in another part of the country until July 2017. Then Ms W obtained a variation of an existing Child Arrangement Order, which enabled Child A to move to join her mother and the other children. When Child A entered Ms W’s family home, she began to present a number of safeguarding concerns to herself and Ms W’s family. This led to Child A being temporarily reaccommodated by the Council away from Ms W’s care in July 2018. Child A returned to Ms W’s care in September 2018.
  3. In late June 2019, Child A was again removed from Ms W’s home by the police owing to threats to kill her family. Child A was then accommodated by the Council as her bail conditions would not allow her to return to Ms W’s home. She has not returned to Ms W’s care since.

Back to top

The complaint

  1. In summary, Ms W is making a complaint about the conduct of the Council’s children’s services team and the adequacy and competency of support provided following Child A entering her care. Specifically, Ms W outlines the grounds of her complaint, as follows:
  • The Council failed to act in line with its statutory duty to accommodate Child A, even though it was clear that Ms W was unable to do so.
  • There was a failure to undertake a comprehensive risk assessment regarding the Council’s plan to return Child A to Ms W’s care, which left Ms W and members of her family in personal danger.
  • There had been a failure by the Council to acknowledge the level of risk which Child A presented when she was at home in Ms W’s care.
  • Council social workers insisted that Child A should be returned to Ms W’s care in June 2019 which was contrary to the informed view of other professionals.
  • Social Worker A acted inappropriately by threatening that Ms W would face prosecution for abandonment if she did not take Child A back into her care.
  • The Council failed to apply the same pressure on Child A’s father, as it did to Ms W, to accommodate Child A.
  • By continuing to insist that Child A should return to Ms W’s care, the Council acted against agreements made at the emergency meeting in July 2019, that she should not do so.
  • There was an alarming distinction between the two assessments carried out by social workers in July and August 2018.
  • It was wrong of a social worker to refer to a previous assessment (rather than a more recent one) in a meeting concerning Child A.
  • Council staff declined to recognise the risk to Ms W, which arose from Child A’s father whose abusive conduct towards her was a matter of record.
  • The Council has still not provided Ms W with key documentation, including minutes from a crisis meeting in September 2018 and child protection reports.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have reviewed Ms W’s complaints to the Council and Ombudsman. I have also looked at the responses of the Council, supporting documents and relevant policy and legislation. Further, I have read:
  • The report of the Independent Investigator appointed by the Council
  • The Council’s responses to my formal enquiries
  • The assessments of Child A by social workers
  • The Child Protection Conference report
  • The minutes of a Support Plus Panel meeting
  1. Both Ms W and the Council received an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision before I reached a final view on this case.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislative framework

  1. A ‘looked after child’ (LAC) is any child who is subject to a care order or accommodated away from their family by a local authority. This is set out under s20 of the Children Act 1989 Act (the 1989 Act). The accommodation can be voluntary or by care order. The child becomes looked after when the local authority has accommodated them for a continuous period of more than 24 hours.
  2. Specifically, s20 of the 1989 Act imposes a duty on every local authority to provide accommodation to children identified as children in need resident in its area who appear to require accommodation. There are certain factors which will influence a local authority as to whether they need to provide accommodation or may provide accommodation. Whether the child is a ‘child in need’, the wishes of the child, the circumstances for why the child requires accommodation and parental consent are all important factors requiring consideration.
  3. A local authority will need to identify whether the child is a ‘child in need’, as defined in s17(10) and (11) 1989 Act. These are children who, without the provision of services:
  • are unlikely to achieve or maintain or have the opportunity to do so, a reasonable standard of health or development;
  • their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, or;
  • are disabled
  1. Further, s17(1) of the 1989 Act imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. They should promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services suitable to those children’s needs.
  2. The local authority then needs to consider whether this is a child in need in their area who requires accommodation. If they do need accommodation under this section, they become 'looked after' by a local authority as soon as the duty under s20 arises, regardless of whether this has been a period over 24 hours. The local authority has duties to all children 'looked after' by them.
  3. The Council must conduct investigations where there is concern that a child may be at risk of significant harm. This is set out under s47 of the 1989 Act and is relevant where the local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. In such circumstances, it has a duty to make the enquiries necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries, supported by other organisations and agencies, as appropriate, should be initiated where there are concerns about all forms of abuse or neglect.

Statutory complaint procedure

  1. The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) require local authorities to have a formal procedure for complaints about children. Specifically, councils must have procedures in place for children and their representatives who wish to make a representation or complaint about its relevant child services team. This includes a three-stage complaint process (local resolution, investigation and review panel). It also specifies the involvement of an independent investigator at the investigation stage with oversight by an independent person.
  2. Once a complaint has been through the full statutory procedure, unless the complainant points to faults or omissions in the Council’s consideration, it should not require re-investigating. The Regulations specify that the Council-appointed investigator should be independent. They may be an employee of the Council but should have had no involvement with the subject matter of the complaint. The process should be overseen by an independent person (who is neither an elected member nor an employee). Therefore, their findings should be relied upon, unless there are flaws in the process or it has clearly not been robust enough.

Chronology of events

  1. In July 2017, Child A returned to live with Ms W following an application to the court to have her returned to her care. When she returned to live with her mother, Child A presented with some distressing behaviours, including violent, threatening and anti-social behaviour. There were also concerns about her engagement with older males online and being very secretive about her online activity. Child A was not attending school and her mother was home schooling her.
  2. In July 2018, Child A was temporarily accommodated outside the family home by the Council due to safeguarding concerns to Ms W and her family. Child A was assessed by the Council during this time and it was noted she presented a serious risk of harming herself and her family.
  3. This led to Child A being temporarily reaccommodated from Ms W’s care in July 2018. Child A then returned to Ms W’s care in September 2018. It is a matter of record however that Ms W did not agree with Child A returning home and that she felt Child A presented a danger to the family. Ms W felt that Child A should have been subject to s20 of the 1989 Act. This would mean Child A being accommodated by the Council as a ‘looked after child’.
  4. On her return to the family home, Child A was assessed as by the Council which concluded that she was a ‘child in need’, as defined by s17(10) and (11) of the 1989 Act. However, this assessment noted that Child A did not display any behaviours described in the family home while temporarily accommodated elsewhere. The assessment therefore examined the impact of Ms W’s behaviour on Child A, rather than mainly focusing on Child A.
  5. In early June 2019, Ms W had made a number of requests to Council staff that her daughter should be ‘looked after’, subject to s20 of the 1989 Act. This was on the basis that Ms W felt she was unable to care for Child A at home without exposing her other children and herself to serious harm.
  6. In late June 2019, Child A was removed from Ms W’s home by the police owing to further threats to kill her family. Child A was later accommodated by the Council as her bail conditions would not allow her to return to Ms W’s home.
  7. In summer 2019, Child A became a ‘looked after child’ of the Council under s20 of the 1989 Act. The Council arranged to hold a Children Protection Conference following Child A’s arrest. The purpose for this was for everyone to look at all relevant information about Child A’s situation and arranging going forward.

My findings

  1. Importantly, Ms W’s complaints relates to matters which properly fall within the Regulations (see paragraph 15) and a statutory complaints procedure therefore applies. This means an Independent Investigator and Independent Person has been appointed by the Council to investigate Ms W’s concerns before the matter reached the Ombudsman. On this basis, I intend to rely upon their findings, unless Ms W points to specific errors in the findings, there are flaws in the process or it has clearly not been robust enough. I will now address each of Ms W’s areas of complaint in turn.

Statutory duty to accommodate Child A

  1. In the weeks and months leading to Child A’s arrest in 2019, Ms W made many requests to the Council that she become a ‘looked after child’. This is because Ms W’s view was that Child A’s behaviour was becoming unmanageable and that she presented a serious risk to both her and her younger children. Importantly, this is supported in the case notes held by the Council and the enquiries made in relation to its s47 investigation. In summary, the Council noted and acknowledged that Child A posed a risk of significant harm in the home. This mainly related to her causing damage at Ms W’s home, making threats to kill members of her family and researching methods for doing so online.
  2. A local authority has a legal duty to accommodate a child, though the circumstances as to when that duty arises is complex (see paragraph 10). In this case, Child A was classed as a ‘child in need’, living in the Council’s area. For the reasons given, Ms W requested Child A become a ‘looked after child’ and therefore accommodated by the Council under s20. In such circumstances, it is my view the Council should have taken such a request seriously and considered its obligations under s20 of the 1989 Act. Further, I share the view by the Council’s Independent Investigator when he concludes:

“Despite Ms W telling staff that she was, at several points, unable to continue to look after Child A, because of the risk of harm to her other children, there is no indication on the case file that this was ever taken seriously. She specifically asked that A be looked after, subject to S20, and yet there is no record of this being considered, until the point when A was arrested and bailed with conditions which prevented her return home.”

  1. In my view, there was a wholesale failure by the Council to consider accommodating Child A who was a ‘child in need’. There was also ample room for manoeuvre by the Council to give effect to accommodating Child A given the circumstances. I am not inferring the Council had a statutory duty to house Child A before her arrest, but rather that it failed to properly consider the legal mechanisms at its disposal. For instance, a local authority has a discretion to provide accommodation under the 1989 Act. This could apply in circumstances where the local authority considers that to do so would safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
  2. The Council was at fault for failing to acknowledge or respond to Ms W’s requests Child A become a ‘looked after child’ under s20 of the 1989 Act. It also failed to properly consider accommodating Child A, as clearly required by the circumstances. I have read the accounts of Ms W and believe these failures caused her serious distress and alarm. I consider Ms W and her family suffered a serious injustice and do not regard the apology offered to be sufficient.

Failure to promote and safeguard needs of Ms W’s children

  1. In Ms W’s view, the Council concentrated its work on Child A and her needs, to the exclusion of her other children. The Council’s Independent Investigator considered the assessments of three social workers made during 2018 which appears to confirm this view. Ms W believes the Council failed to promote the needs and welfare of her other children whom, she felt, were at risk from Child A.
  2. As described at paragraph 14, under s47 of the 1989 Act, the Council has a duty conduct an investigation where there is concern that a child may be at risk of significant harm. Where risks to a child are identified (such as any risk to Child A's siblings), the Council should look to identify what action could be taken to safeguard or promote a child’s welfare.
  3. In April and May 2018, the social worker who undertook the first assessment of Child A’s needs, noted the following:

“All the children have been taken into consideration within the assessment. Their views have been expressed within the assessment. At present the children have shown resilience and do not appear to be impacted on a level that will cause harm to their wellbeing. However should the situation continue, it is likely to impact on their emotional wellbeing. There is the likelihood that Child A’s aggressive behaviour may cause injury to Child A herself or to her siblings.”

  1. In another social worker assessment between July and August 2018, this noted the following:

“There is the likelihood that Child A’s aggressive behaviour may cause injury to Child A herself or to her siblings.”

  1. The Council’s Independent Investigator found that where risks to Ms W’s other children had been identified, no specific actions were devised to promote or safeguard their needs. In my view, the Council clearly attempted to identify the risks Child A posed in compliance with s47 of the 1989 Act, including to Ms W’s other children. However, once these risks had been established, no actions were taken to safeguard the children or promote their welfare and needs.
  2. The Council was at fault and it has rightly apologised to Ms W. I believe the fault likely gave great cause distress for Ms W and to worry for the safety of her other children. I believe Ms W has suffered an injustice which cannot be remedied alone by an apology from the Council.

Failure to acknowledge the risk Child A presented

  1. This part of the complaint is closely linked with my findings outlined in paragraphs 29 to 34 which all generally apply. Before matters came to ahead in June 2019, social worker assessments found a real and serious risk posed by Child A to herself and her family. However, there was no clear actions devised to safeguard any of the persons involved which exacerbated the pressures the family faced.
  2. The Independent Investigator notes there appeared to be no clear plan which acknowledged the risk that Ms W’s other children might come to harm in consequence of Child A’s behaviour. In my view, the same applies to Ms W. The Council has upheld this part of Ms W’s complaint. It said it was clear at the point that Child A was accommodated that she would not be able to return home. The family was significantly distressed by Child A’s behaviour and should have been signposted to therapeutic family support, as recognised by the Council.
  3. The Council was therefore at fault and I believe Ms W has suffered an injustice which cannot be remedied alone by an apology from the Council. I have recommended the Council make a payment to Ms W in substitution for the therapeutic therapy her family should have received.

Child A’s return to Mrs W’s care

  1. Child A was arrested and removed from Ms W’s home in summer 2019 due to threats to kill members of her family. She was also temporarily accommodated elsewhere by the Council in July 2018 and it is noted, on both occasions, Ms W did not wish for Child A to return to the family home. Ms W wanted Child A to become a ‘looked after child’ of the Council, subject to s20 of the 1989 Act.
  2. It is the view of Ms W that the Council then insisted Child A should return to her care and that such action was inconsistent with the informed view of professionals. Ms W also says the Council’s social worker said she could face prosecution if she did not take Child A back into the family home.
  3. In this part of the complaint, I consider there is a conflict of evidence. Specifically, Ms W’s representations differ substantially from the accounts of the Council. For instance, the Council say it has no evidence of it insisting she take Child A back into her care. I will therefore make my findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that I will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base my findings on what I think was more likely to have happened.
  4. Following Child A’s arrest in 2019, there is evidence in the Council’s case notes that it made repeated enquiries to secure an alternate placement within the family. However, these enquiries were predominately focussed on Ms W. That said, I note efforts were made to secure external accommodation for Child A alongside these enquiries, but this proved difficult given there were no spaces available at the places thought suitable. I agree with the Independent Investigator when he infers this was because the Council’s service was without sufficient resources to meet its a statutory duty; most notably, to accommodate Child A under s20 of the 1989 Act.
  5. The Council say that as a matter of law, this would not have been permissible owing to the police bail conditions applied to Child A. The Council records suggest that Ms W was informed about this. I also share this view. However, I do believe, on balance, that before Child A’s bail conditions became clear, Ms W was pressured into taking Child A back into the family home. This is because the Independent Investigator notes:

“Although the investigation found no evidence of a specific plan to return Child A home following her arrest, it is clear that the apparent absence of any suitable placements meant that the pressure to identify a possible family solution was intense. It was doubtless in these circumstances that the suggestion was made that Child A might return home and that staff could support the family there. The suggestion was not progressed, since Child A was bailed shortly afterwards, to remain away from the family home.”

  1. In reaching this view, I have also considered the situation when Child A was temporarily accommodated by the Council in July 2018. The threat posed by Child A was real and the Council failed to acknowledge the risk to Ms W and her other children. It was also incapable of meeting its obligations under s20 for reasons of resources. The minutes of the Support Plus Panel meeting held in September 2018 demonstrate the Council told Ms W it was her responsibility to accommodate Child A, despite the warnings it itself had identified and recorded.
  2. I believe the evidence shows it was more likely than not that Ms W was pressured by social workers to house Child A. I also consider the identified risks and the Council’s statutory duties to provide accommodation were secondary considerations. Also, I have considered the comments made by the Council in September 2018 and Ms W’s insistence she did not want Child A to return home. I am led to believe comments were made to the effect there may, in theory, be consequences for Ms W if she did not accommodate Child A.
  3. In my view, the Council placed an unfair emphasis on Child A returning to Ms W’s care at her home. This position was to exclusion of the risks, its role in promoting and safeguarding the welfare of Child A and Ms W’s other children. On that basis, the Council was at fault. The events which followed Child A returning to the family home in September 2018 clearly demonstrate the impact this had. I consider the fault caused Ms W and her family deep distress.

Child A’s father and accommodation requests

  1. Ms W also complains the Council applied greater pressure on her to take Child A back into the family home than applied to the father. Overall, it is the Council’s view that it did apply less pressure on Child A’s father to care for his daughter, but that there were legitimate reasons for the different approach taken.
  2. The Council said that Child A had been removed from her father’s care following a s47 investigation and had then lived with her paternal grandmother, before returning to live with her mother. Further, in its decision-making, the Council referred to information provided by Ms W regarding Child A’s father. This was that he had been emotionally and then physically abusive to Ms W and that the children had witnessed violence between them. It also noted Child A’s tendency to put herself at risk of sexual exploitation whilst living with her father.
  3. In my view, the Council had a duty under s17 of 1989 Act to safeguard and promote the welfare of Child A. I consider the reasons provided by the Council for applying less pressure on Child A’s father to be reasonable and that they were a legitimate attempt to give effect to this obligation. For those reasons, I do not consider the Council was at fault.

Agreements made at the emergency meeting

  1. Ms W has said the Council arranged and held an emergency meeting in July 2019. She says the meeting was attended by the Council’s Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, a senior police officer and the Director of Children’s Services. At the meeting, Ms W says agreements were made that Child A should not return to her mother’s property. It is Ms W’s view the Council acted contrary to these agreements by later insisting Child A should return to her care at the family home.
  2. The Council’s Independent Investigator concluded that no such meeting had taken place. Instead, it was found that Ms W had been in touch with the Cabinet Member, and that he had relayed the concerns she had raised with him to management within Children’s Services. However, it found no evidence of a meeting or agreements being made. That said, Ms W has presented evidence which does suggest some form of meeting took place. There is no evidence however this was attended by all the individuals mentioned above.
  3. In my view, I do consider conversations were held with respect to Child A not returning to Ms W’s home. But I do not consider a conversation of this nature to constitute fault by the Council. Ms W says the Council acted against undertakings that Child A should not return to her home. I believe this matter and the impact on Ms W has already been addressed in this statement with respect to the Council’s insistence and pressure to accommodate Child A, despite the risk she presented. I concluded that the Council was at fault in this regard. However, I do not believe fault should extend to the Council having facilitated a conversation to discuss the case for the benefit of all the parties.

S17 assessments

  1. The Council conducted two s17 assessments in 2018 to identify Child A’s welfare and safeguarding needs. The first was conducted following general concerns about the danger of a family breakdown in light of Child A’s behaviour. The second assessment followed Child A’s arrest following an assault against her sibling. It is the view of Ms W the two reports draw very different conclusions. This is because the first assessment focuses on Child A’s behaviours and that she was placing herself and her siblings at risk of harm. The second assessment however shifted to examining the impact of Ms W’s behaviour on Child A, rather than mainly focusing on Child A’s behaviour.
  2. In my objective view, I would not expect two assessments to be a carbon copy of each other. Rather, each assessment should focus on what the social worker, exercising professional judgement, feels is relevant at the time of the assessment. I recognise Ms W objects to the way the second assessment focused on how her own behaviours may impact on the family situation. However, that does not mean this was not a valuable factor for the social worker to consider when looking for viable options to improve the family dynamic. Ms W has not provided any evidence to demonstrate why the Council was at fault for taking a different approach and exploring varied issues. Further, I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate the conclusions drawn are irrational or inaccurate. For the reasons given, I have not found any evidence of fault by the Council.
  3. The Council has accepted however the second assessment was not of the same quality as the first assessment. In my view, there is no evidence to suggest that a slight difference in quality led to Ms W to suffer serious loss, harm or distress. I do not therefore regard any fault in this respect to have caused an injustice.
  4. Also, Ms W says a Council social worker used and made reference to the earlier s17 assessment at a Support Plus Panel meeting, rather than the new up-to-date assessment. The report was two months old, and so Ms W feels it was inappropriate to use an out-of-date report. The social worker in question denied this was the case and said the report she was referring to was her most recent assessment. There is therefore a conflict of accounts and the Independent Investigator was right to look at the minutes of the meeting to decide whether the relevant factors and recent events had been considered.
  5. I have read the minutes of the meeting and agree with the Independent Investigator that there does not appear to be any failure to focus on the most recent developments and risks. Further, Ms W has not pointed to any evidence to suggest an alternative view. I have therefore not determined fault in this respect.

Child protection conference

  1. The Council arranged to hold a Children Protection Conference following Child A’s arrest in summer 2019. Both Ms W and Child A’s father held parental responsibility and wanted to attend. However, Ms W felt she could not attend because Child A’s father had perpetrated domestic abuse towards her over a number of years. Ms W sought to bring this to the attention of the Chair of the meeting who was not available. As identified by the Independent Investigator, Ms W was informed, mistakenly, that the police had no record of any relevant incident of domestic abuse. I agree with the Independent Investigator when he states:

“It was known to operational staff that the relationship between them had been marked by domestic abuse, as this was acknowledged in each of the three social work assessments which were carried out. There ought therefore to have been sufficient awareness to ensure at least that there was consultation about the likely need to make special arrangements at the conference, such as splitting the meeting so that the two parents did not have direct contact.”

  1. It is recognised by the Council that this could have placed Ms W at risk of domestic abuse and has informed better practice going forward. Nevertheless, the Council was at fault and I regard this matter could have been avoided and caused causing Ms W both distress and alarm.

Council not providing key documents

  1. Ms W said the Council failed to share key documents with her which would have assisted in her in her dealings with the Council with respect to Child A. In particular Ms W referred to the minutes of the Support Plus Panel meeting held in September 2018. Further, she said she did not receive the agency reports submitted for the Initial Child Protection Conference held in July 2019.
  2. With respect to the minutes of the Support Plus Panel meeting, the evidence of the Independent Investigator suggests, on balance, these had to be sent to Ms W again. The minutes were sent to Ms W shortly after complaining in this respect and I do not consider the effect of any fault in this regard caused Ms W serious loss, harm or distress. In any event, I have provided the minutes of the meeting to Ms W at the time of sending my final decision.
  3. Turning to the agency reports in preparation for the Child Protection Conference, the Independent Investigator has cited the Regional Child Protection procedures for the West Midlands to which the Council subscribes. This specifies:

“Information by all agencies about their involvement with the family should be submitted in a written, legible and signed report. The author of the report is responsible for sharing the report with the family and discussing it with the child, if appropriate, at least one day prior to the conference.”

  1. I share the view of the Independent Investigator that the provision and dissemination of agency reports to family members for conferences is the responsibility of the respective agencies. It should also be noted Ms W has not provided evidence to suggest an alternative view should be adopted. I do not consider therefore the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. As noted, I consider Ms W has suffered serious distress because of the faults. In my view, the Council cannot put Ms W back into the position she would have been absent the faults not occurring and so I have recommending a financial remedy be paid. In order to remedy the injustice identified, the Council will, within one month of this final decision, take the following actions:
  • provide a fresh written apology to Ms W which accepts the faults and injustices identified in this statement.
  • pay Ms W £1,200 to recognise the serious distress she suffered over a prolounged period of time and by reason of the various failings at play. This amount is also intended to compensate Ms W for not receiving family therapy which the Council acknowledge should have been provided at the time.
  • pay Ms W £200 in respect of the time and trouble she has spent pursuing her complaint.
  1. I have also given consideration to recommending service improvements to ensure lessons from this case are learned by the Council. However, the Independent Investigator recommended wide ranging service improvements and I am satisfied by the responses from the Council that these have been implemented. The Council say it has undertaken significant steps to increase their s20 placement sufficiency, which has included increasing residential provision and a focus on recruiting foster carers. It has also recently begun an ‘edge of care’ project which will seek to provide higher level support to families, preventing family breakdown. It says this involve more creative use of s20 of the 1989 Act and building on successful use of respite care for children.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council was at fault for several failings in its approach to both Ms W, her family and Child A. Mainly, the Council failed to properly consider its legal duties to accommodate Child A. It disregarded the risks of significant harm identified and pressured Ms W into housing Child A in a way which exposed Ms W and her family to harm. This caused Ms W a serious injustice and so I have recommended several remedies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings