Summary: The Council acknowledged that it had made mistakes in its assessment of Miss B’s family and how the Chair handled the Child Protection Conference. It agreed to apologise and amend the assessment and Conference records, and to share the corrections with other agencies who had been given incorrect information. However, it has taken too long to do so and this has compounded Miss B’s distress. The Council has properly considered whether it should end the Child Protection Plans because of these shortcomings. I have recommended the Council complete the actions it promised within one month.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the Council’s safeguarding actions in relation to her family. Miss B complained to the Council about this but she is not satisfied with its response. Miss B says the Council:
• did not investigate all of her complaint. It has not investigated whether it was necessary and correct to proceed with child protection plans in light of the fact that it was founded on false information about her;
• accepted that it made errors and agreed to amend the records. However, it has not completed all the amendments and she has not had a written apology from the Head of the Service regarding the conduct of the chair of the child protection conference; and
• breached data protection rules when it sent a report about another family to her and her ex-partner.
2. Miss B says that if the Council had acted properly, her children would not be subject to child protection plans. Miss B also says that the way the child protection conference was handled caused her distress.

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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Miss B and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents and its complaints procedure. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered their comments before issuing a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

6. Where a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it has a duty to make enquiries to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
7. In carrying out these duties, the local authority has the power to call on other bodies to help with its enquiries, including the police and relevant health and education professionals.
8. If, following a referral and an initial assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides that the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the local authority convenes a Child Protection Conference (CPC). (Children Act 1989 s.47(11))
9. The CPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include making a recommendation that the child should be subject to a Child Protection Plan. When determining whether a child needs a Plan, the CPC should consider whether the child has suffered significant harm or is likely to in the future.
10. After the Initial CPC, there will be one or more Review CPCs to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended or discontinued.

The Council’s local procedures

11. The Council is also governed by the Southend, Essex and Thurrock Safeguarding and Child Protection Procedures. These say:
• A meeting between the Chair of the conference and the parents should take place before the CPC.
• The appropriateness of a child attending a CPC must be assessed in advance.
• All reports to the conference must be clear and distinguish between facts, allegations and opinions.
• The Chair of the conference will be a local authority children’s social care manager or an independent chair accountable to the Council’s Director of Children’s Services.
• Parents can complain about the process of the conference, its outcome, and the decision about whether there should be a Child Protection Plan.

What happened

12. Miss B lives with her children. Her ex-partner had been living with the family when she found evidence of his abuse of one of the children. Miss B immediately telephoned the police and told her ex-partner to leave the house. She also telephoned the NSPCC for advice.
13. The Council started safeguarding enquiries. The Council’s Social Worker (SW) assessed the family and the risk to the children. The multi-agency strategy meeting decided that the children were likely to suffer significant harm, and so it convened an initial CPC. In accordance with the procedures, the chair met with Miss B and her ex-partner separately before the CPC.
14. Miss B wanted the children to attend the CPC as they were confused about what was happening. The Chair decided it would not be appropriate for the children to attend, but she did not decide this until the day of the conference. The local rules say this should have been decided in advance.
15. During the CPC, the Chair shared the Police evidence, some of which was graphic. Miss B had not seen this evidence previously and she became distressed. The Chair told the conference that Miss B’s ex-partner had implied she knew of the evidence and was only angry that he had not destroyed this properly. Miss B was unaware of this allegation and being presented with this at the CPC caused her further distress. Miss B denies this and later, her ex-partner says he did not tell the Chair this (it seems it was a misunderstanding). In addition, Miss B said the SW’s report to the conference was not accurate.
16. After the conference, the Council sent Miss B and her ex-partner some confidential information about another child. Miss B reported this breach of data protection to the Council and also told the family what had happened.
17. Miss B complained to the Council about the SWs inaccurate report and the way the SW had conducted interviews with her. She complained to the Chair about how she had run the CPC; that information was presented that she had not been previously aware of; and that the Chair misled the CPC when she told it that Miss B knew of the abuse.
18. Miss B said misleading and inaccurate information introduced by the Chair and in the SW’s report meant that her children have child protection plans when this was not necessary, because she took immediate action when she found the evidence, showing that she can protect the children from harm.
19. In response to Miss B’s complaint the Council met with her. The Council responded to Miss B’s complaint on 16 October 2020. It said:
• The Council accepts that some parts of the assessment were factually incorrect and having spoken with other relevant professionals, parts were inaccurate. Where this is the case, the Council has removed these parts of the report and added a note that the information was removed because the Council considered it unreliable.
• The Social Worker did not lie, but his record keeping was not of the expected standard.
• It upheld that it did not treat Miss B fairly and the assessment had factual inaccuracies. It has amended the assessment and will amend the CPC meeting record.
• It upheld complaints about the social worker, that he should not have stated that the abuse had started two years ago because it had no evidence of this, and that he should not have said Miss B had her eyes closed to the abuse, when it was clear she acted appropriately and decisively as soon as she became aware. The Council said it would raise these issues with the SW’s managers.
• The Chair had the Police’s permission to share the evidence, but on reflection she agrees this should have been shared with Miss B privately before the conference to allow her to adjust to this. The Council upheld this complaint. The Council said it would raise this with the Chair’s manager, who would like to meet with Miss B to discuss this. The Council apologised.
• The Council had not communicated well about whether the children should attend the conference. The Chair decided it was not appropriate but this was only decided that day. The Council has asked the service manager to review this and to make sure people have enough time to discuss whether children should attend with the conference Chair.
• The Council accepted that it sent information about another family to Miss B. It is confident that none of her information was shared with others. It has renewed training with the officers on this issue.
• The Council said the chair of the CPC would apologise to Miss B for her shortcomings.

20. Miss B complained to the Ombudsman. She said that the Council has not sent her the amended report or the amended CPC record. The Chair has not apologised to her. Lastly, the Council has not addressed whether the children should be on a child protection plan, when there was misleading and inaccurate information presented at the CPC, particularly that she knew of the abuse.
21. The Council said it sent Miss B an assessment on 29 October 2020, and it met with her on 13 November to discuss her concerns and then began to address the wording of the SW’s report to the CPC. It arranged to meet with her again in February 2021 to discuss its proposed rewording.

Was there fault by the Council causing Miss B and her family injustice?

22. The Council has accepted there was fault by its SW and the chair to the CPC. It promised in October 2020 to amend the report and CPC record, but as of March 2021 it had not done so. This is too long, particularly as other agencies, including the children’s school will not have completely accurate information until the Council send the amended documents. The Council’s delay here has caused Miss B further distress.
23. However, the Council has properly considered whether any inaccurate or misleading information means the children should not have child protection plans, and decided that there would not have been a different outcome. The Council has explained that the CPC considered the children were at possible risk of harm because of Miss B’s ex-partner’s actions, despite that she was not responsible for this. The child protection threshold, that the children had suffered significant harm, was met.
24. The Council has further explained that SW had only made an initial assessment at the time of the CPC and so had not established that Miss B could safeguard them. Further assessment would always have been needed.
25. The Chair said she should have told Miss B that to her understanding, her ex-partner had implied that she knew about the evidence of abuse already. However, I note that it was never stated as fact to the CPC and the Chair also pointed out that this was inconsistent with the fact that Miss B had called the police. Miss B did however miss the opportunity to put her version of events. This was later corrected in the core group and at the review CPC. The Council’s shortcomings caused Miss B distress but did not alter the outcome of the CPC. There was no fault in how the Council decided that it should not reconvene the CPC to end the child protection plans.
26. The Council accepted that it had breached data protection rules when it sent Miss B and her ex-partner information about another family. It has followed its own procedures and investigated this. It has notified the family about this and addressed the cause of the breach with staff training. The Council has properly considered the action it should take to remedy the breach and there is no need for it to do more.
27. Overall, the Council has correctly identified the mistakes it and the Chair of the CPC made. The remedial action it proposed was appropriate, but it compounded Miss B’s distress and frustration by not taking the agreed action in good time.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. The Council has agreed that within one month of this decision it will show the Ombudsman it has:
• Apologised to Miss B for its further fault;
• Amended the SW report and the CPC record as agreed and sent this to the relevant parties; and
• Ensured the chair of the CPC has formally apologised to Miss B.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. There was maladministration by the Council causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman