Hertfordshire County Council (20 006 177)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 28 Jun 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr D complained about the way the Council dealt with a safeguarding referral in respect of his children in 2017 and the way it dealt with his complaint in 2020, which caused him significant distress and uncertainty. We found the Council was at fault for not informing Mr D of the referral and misleading him that it was dealing with his complaint for over six months. We also find this caused injustice to his daughter F. The Council has agreed to pay Mr D £1600, including an amount for F.

The complaint

  1. Mr D complains that the Council:
    • failed to properly investigate a safeguarding referral received in 2017 which meant it failed to ensure his children’s safety;
    • failed to tell him about the safeguarding referral in November 2017 despite the fact he has parental responsibility;
    • delayed in dealing with his complaint and,
    • delayed telling him the council was not responding to his complaint under its complaints procedure and that it considered his complaint out of time.
  2. This caused him significant distress and uncertainty regarding his children’s welfare and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

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)
  2. 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

  1. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
  2. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

  1. When a council receives a referral regarding concerns about a child’s welfare, it should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information-gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing.  The assessment may result in:
    • No further action.
    • A decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs.
    • A decision to convene a strategy meeting.
  2. The child and family must be informed of the action to be taken.

Council’s safeguarding policy

  1. The Council’s procedure for action following receipt of a concern regarding a child says that the child and family will, where possible, be informed about the contact and parents' permission will generally be sought by Children's Services before discussing information about them with other agencies.
  2. It goes on to say that following a contact, the Council will review the information gathered as part of the screening process to determine the most appropriate service for a child. This will involve:
    • discussion with the person or organisation who raised the concern;
    • checking for any existing records for the child and for any other members of the household; and
    • involving other agencies as appropriate.
  3. The initial outcome decision following a contact, which must be authorised by the manager, may be:

Option 1: No Further Action / Information and Advice - The child does not appear to be a Child in Need, the provision of information, advice, signposting to another agency and/or no further action.

Option 2: Services Provided by Families First/ Targeted Youth Support Services or Universal Services - The child’s need may be best met by a coordinated multi-agency response (i.e. Early Intervention) via a Families First Assessment or Targeted Youth Support Services, access to Short Breaks (children with disabilities), or from Universal Services in the community such as health or schools, etc. and may not require intervention under the S17 or S47 of the Children Act 1989.

Option 3: Further Assessment: Where the child appears to be a Child in Need which requires a Child and Family Assessment or it is suspected that the child is or is likely to suffer Significant Harm, which will result in an assessment with a view to conduct a strategy discussion prior to Section 47 Enquiries.

Children’s Services complaints procedure

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

What happened

  1. Mr D and Mrs E are divorced. They share care of their two children, F and G.

First referral

  1. In November 2017 F’s school contacted the Council to report a concern: F said her mum hit her. The contact was referred to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) to consider the matter further. MASH carried out checks with the police, health bodies and the probation service. No concerns were noted. The health bodies only provided information about the children and not the parents.
  2. MASH contacted Mrs E to discuss the referral. She said she was working with a social worker from a voluntary organisation (Agency Z), had support from family and friends and was working on her parenting skills. MASH informed Mrs E that they would be making contact with Mr D to inform him of the referral and get his views. Mrs E expressed reservations about this due to concerns about how he would respond; in particular she felt he would get very angry with her.
  3. MASH also contacted Mrs E’s social worker. She said she was supporting the parents to help them support the children. After initial objections from Mr D, she had also met with him and was planning to do further work with the family. She also expressed concerns about how Mr D would react if he was informed of the concerns because Mrs E had made allegations of domestic abuse.
  4. MASH contacted F’s school. They had met with Mrs E to discuss the concern and were satisfied that F was happy and felt safe at home with Mrs E. MASH also contacted G’s school who had no concerns about G.
  5. MASH decided not to contact Mr D because of the concerns raised about Mr D’s behaviour.
  6. MASH decided that there was no need for further action because Mrs E admitted hitting F, recognised it was an inappropriate way of punishing her and had taken positive steps to change this by engaging with a social worker who was supporting her and the family. The school was also aware now and could provide additional support. MASH said that the social worker could explore the allegations of domestic abuse further.
  7. The social worker had spent one session with the children in October 2017. She then had further contact with Mr D in November and December 2017 regarding setting up further sessions with him and the children. These did not take place because Mr D had concerns about the lack of knowledge of the proposed work by the social worker and he did not give his permission for her to work with the children. The social worker continued to work with Mrs E but had no further contact with the children .

Second referral

  1. In February 2018 F’s school contacted the Council to say that F had reported again that Mrs E had hit her and G. F had already told Mr D and he was now aware of the previous referral in November 2017.
  2. The contact was again referred to MASH who carried out checks and spoke to Mr D, Mrs E and her social worker. Mr D said the children were staying with him while the incident was investigated, and he wanted to know why he was not informed about the previous referral.
  3. MASH received information from Mrs E’s GP, which indicated she was stable but on significant medication for a mental health condition and had spent three weeks in a residential centre receiving treatment approximately four months ago.
  4. Mr D obtained a court order for the children to stay with him pending a further hearing, with Mrs E having supervised contact and an agreement to participate in family therapy. Mr D complained to the Council that he had not been informed of the previous referral and was unhappy that the Council had left it up to Mrs E and her social worker to inform him. He was not aware the social worker involvement was in response to the previous safeguarding incident. He said the Council had failed in its duty of care to keep his children safe.
  5. The Council provided a report for the Court and received further information from Mrs E’ social worker raising concerns about the emotional impact on the children of Mr D and Mrs E’s relationship. It proposed carrying out an assessment and looking at providing support to the family. Mr D did not consent to this immediately. He wanted more information about the previous events. He wanted the Council to further investigate an incident in 2015 where he alleges Mrs E was violent towards him. He also considered the involvement of the social worker with Mrs E was inappropriate.
  6. The Council decided not to proceed with an assessment due to the court ordering that a different organisation carry out an assessment. The court asked the Council to provide a report as part of the private proceedings.

Complaint

  1. The court proceedings concluded in March 2019 and Mr D asked for a copy of the children’s case files which the Council provided in May 2019. Mr D was involved in further court proceedings brought by Mrs E in the autumn of 2019. In December 2019 Mr D complained to the Council about the failure to tell him about the referral in November 2017 and the failure to safeguard his children properly. He also complained about the involvement of Mrs E’s social worker.
  2. The Council replied in March 2020. It gave information about the contact in November 2017 and the Council’s response. It said it had consulted with Mrs E, her social worker and the school about Mr D’s likely reaction to the information including the allegations Mrs E had made about verbal abuse and decided not to inform Mr D. It accepted that it would have been better to discuss the concerns with Mr D. It noted the referral had been received over two years ago and the Council’s practice had developed considerably since then. It apologised for the failure to inform Mr D at that time.
  3. In terms of the action taken it said MASH had decided that a proportionate response to the referral would be for the school and the social worker to continue the support already in place. It noted in accordance with its policy that early intervention by universal services is generally in a child’s best interest, rather than statutory child protection intervention.
  4. It said the social worker from Agency Z had been supporting the family in November 2017 and the Council consulted with the social worker as it would with any other agency supporting a family. The Council made clear that the social worker was not acting on behalf of the Council and was not obliged to take any action.
  5. Mr D contacted the Council in May 2020 to pursue his concerns. He was unhappy with the responses provided by the Council. He felt that if the Council had shared the information with him about the November 2017 incident, he could have acted earlier to stop the children being harmed and it is possible that the private court proceedings could have been avoided. He also wanted clarification of some specific issues:
    • whether the Council would have kept the case open if the court had not ordered the involvement of a different organisation to carry out an assessment.
    • the Council’s understanding of the involvement of the voluntary organisation with Mrs E and the children. Mr D had concerns that the social worker was supporting Mrs E rather than the children and did not have a coherent plan of work.
    • the details of the service the organisation was providing.
    • why the Council was satisfied to close the case in November 2017 even though it had no formal arrangement with the voluntary organisation and required no feedback or progress reporting.
  6. The Council responded in July 2020. It said it could not say what action would have been taken if the Court had not referred the family to another organisation to carry out an assessment; there were too many unknown factors to consider.
  7. In respect of the voluntary organisation, it said it was satisfied that the decision to allow it and the schools to provide support was based on the Council’s view that its staff had the skills experience and knowledge to support the family. That view was based on the Council’s previous experience of working with the organisation and positive feedback from other families who had used the service.
  8. The Council said it understood that the social worker had just started working with the family, had met the children and Mr D and that he wanted to be involved in the the process. The Council had closed the file on the understanding that the social worker would explore the concerns of domestic abuse raised by Mr D as well as addressing the parenting issues which had led to Mrs E hitting F. It also said that while the decision not to inform Mr D of the referral was influenced by the social worker, it was also based on F’s and Mrs E’s wishes and feelings. Overall, the Council considered the risk of further harm to F was low.
  9. Mr D remained unhappy and wanted to pursue his complaint. The Council informed him in August 2020 that the events were too old to consider through the formal complaints process. It considered he had had ample opportunity at the time to raise his concerns. Despite this it had tried to assist him by providing information outside the complaints process.
  10. Mr D complained further to the Council. In September 2020 it confirmed that it would not consider his complaint for the following reasons:
    • It had reflected on the failure to inform him of the referral in November 2017 and accepted it would have been better to have done so. But that practice had improved since then and was being continually reinforced.
    • The Council had informed Mr D in February 2018 about the referral in November 2017 and he could have raised his concerns at that time but did not do so.
    • The court proceedings were about the contact and residence of the children and the children’s family court adviser considered the welfare of the children on behalf of the court during this process.
    • The Council’s complaints procedures cannot consider matters that have been subject to legal proceedings or matters which arose more than a year ago.
    • The voluntary organisation was not working on behalf of the Council and any concerns about its actions should be taken up with the organisation directly.
    • The formal complaints process could not achieve a different outcome for him now.
  11. It directed him to our office and Mr D contacted us in October 2020. As well as the issues detailed in the complaint summary, Mr D expressed specific concerns about the involvement of Agency Z. He believed the social worker was appointed by the Council in response to the incident, to support Mrs E and used as a reason for the Council not to take any action. He also had concerns about whether Agency Z obtained consent of both parents to work with the children and failed to keep proper records of the work done. He considers the Council failed to take any follow-up action to ensure Agency Z’s work was appropriate and successful.
  12. The Council said in response to my enquiries that Agency Z is a leading charity supporting over 4000 vulnerable children and their families. The Council has no current contract with the Agency, but it does contract its services for individual projects. The Council has referred families to the Agency for early help services, to support children with disabilities, including holidays and short breaks and worked alongside the Agency when its staff are already providing services to children who are subsequently referred to Children’s Services. The Council says that it was not aware of any concerns being raised about Agency Z and families who had used the service gave positive feedback.
  13. Mr D has provided evidence from family therapy and CAMHS that there have been lasting effects for F from living with her mother which are significant and ongoing. Although she is now a teenager, professionals have recommended that she is supervised at all times.

Analysis

Referral in November 2017

  1. The Council has acknowledged it should have informed Mr D of the referral in November 2017. The failure to do so was fault which caused Mr D distress and uncertainty as to whether action could or should have been taken at an earlier stage.
  2. I consider it is likely that if Mr D had known of the referral, he would have taken steps in November 2017 to enable the children to live with him as he did in February 2018. This means that F and G would have stopped living with Mrs E three months earlier.

Safeguarding checks

  1. In respect of the action taken in response to the referral, the Council carried out checks with statutory agencies, consulted with both schools, Mrs E and Mrs E’s social worker and considered the views of F. As support was already in place from Agency Z and the schools were now aware and involved it, decided no further intervention was needed. This action followed the Council’s safeguarding procedure.
  2. However, the Council did not obtain available information regarding Mr D’s and Mrs E’s health which may have affected the Council’s conclusions.

Agency Z

  1. Agency Z became involved with Mrs E independently of the Council and prior to the referral made in November 2017. Agency Z was not working on behalf of the Council and its involvement was not conditional on completing required actions or tasks so there was no requirement to obtain feedback.
  2. The Council was satisfied that Agency Z had the skills and experience to offer effective support to the family in these circumstances and was satisfied that, along with the support from the schools, it was sufficient to avoid any more formal interventions. I cannot identify fault with that view.
  3. But I consider it was confusing for the Council to have said in its records that the allocated social worker from Agency Z would explore the allegations of domestic abuse further, when it had no control over the work the social worker was doing, and the Council had made no contact with Mr D.
  4. It is also not clear whether the Council had full information regarding the extent of the work the social worker was completing. The Council referred to work with the family, but Mr D had not given his permission for the social worker to work with the children and he did not participate himself. These were material facts which may have affected the Council’s view on the situation.
  5. But I have also noted the social worker made clear she was working with Mrs E and the Council’s decision to take no further action was not dependent on work being carried out with the children; it was more concerned to see Mrs E engaging with Agency Z to reflect on and improve her parenting skills. I do not consider the Council’s decision was dependent on Agency Z specifically working with the children and so I have not found fault on this point.
  6. However, I consider the situation for all parties would have been a lot clearer if the Council had informed Mr D of the referral and sought his view.

Complaint

  1. The Council should have made clear to Mr D in January 2020 that it was not going to consider a formal complaint form him. I accept it was trying to be helpful in answering his queries and providing further information, but it took a long time to do this (over six months) and misled him in to believing it was dealing with a complaint. This was fault which caused Mr D frustration and inconvenience in pursuing the matter.

Injustice to F

  1. Mr D has provided clear evidence that living with Mrs E has had lasting impacts on F, for which she requires ongoing treatment. If Mr D had known about the referral in November 2017, it is likely he would have taken action as he did in February 2018 which would have resulted in F and G living with him, three months earlier, thereby removing F from the harmful situation.
  2. The failure to inform Mr D meant F was exposed to harm for a further three months.

Agreed action

  1. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr D I recommended the Council pays Mr D (within a month of my final decision):
    • £1000 for the harm F experienced between November 2017 and February 2018;
    • £350 for the uncertainty and distress caused by the failure to inform him of the referral in November 2017; and
    • £250 for the frustration and inconvenience, caused by the fault in dealing with the complaint.
  2. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr D and F and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

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