Summary: Miss X complains that the Council wrongly removed her children, coerced her into signing an agreement for their care, failed to return them for almost five weeks and made inaccurate statements about her family to court. The Council’s initial proposed remedy of £500 is inadequate. It has agreed to pay Miss X a further £1,000.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complains that the Council wrongly removed her children into its care, coerced her into signing an agreement for their accommodation, failed to return them for five weeks and provided inaccurate information to court during its application for an interim care order. The Council upheld parts of Miss X’s complaints and offered a remedy of £500, which Miss X says is inadequate.

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. 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)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Council and Miss X. I sent the Council and Miss X my draft statement and considered their comments before finalising my decision.
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

6. The 2018 guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children says that immediate action to secure the safety of a child should be taken “where there is a risk to the life of a child or a likelihood of serious harm”.
7. A Police Protection Order (PPO) is an emergency measure taken when a child is considered to be at immediate risk of harm. PPOs enable the police to remove a child from their home.
8. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (S20) allows a Council to provide accommodation for children without a court order when they do not have somewhere suitable to live. This is known as voluntary accommodation because the parents must agree to the child being accommodated.

What happened

9. Miss X has six children, four of whom had previously been taken into care. In 2019 the Council received a child protection referral from a different council after two of the older children made allegations against Miss X and her partner. The Council contacted Miss X by phone to discuss the allegations. The Council has said Miss X was “upset and unco-operative” but Miss X has denied this.
10. The police then removed Miss X’s two daughters under a Police Protection Order. Two days later Miss X agreed to the girls being accommodated by the Council under S20 of the Children Act.
11. The Council then applied for an interim care order. Dismissing the application, the judge said removal of the children had not been a “proportionate response”. The children’s Independent Reviewing Officer also recorded that the “threshold for removal may not have been met”. The Council returned the children to their parents. They were in foster care for almost five weeks.
12. Miss X complained that the removal should not have occurred. The Council investigated Miss X’s complaint under the statutory three-stage process for complaints about children’s services. An independent investigator upheld the complaint at Stage 2. The Stage 2 report said that although the decision on whether to remove the children was made by police, it was “clear that the girls were removed at the instigation of Social Care”. The guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children makes clear that police protection powers should only be used in “exceptional circumstances” when there is a risk to the life of a child or of serious immediate harm. As these criteria had not been met the Stage 2 report concluded these powers had been used inappropriately.
13. Miss X complained to the Council that the Council did not meet the threshold to remove her children and had “abused their powers by holding my girls on a Section 20 for over one month”. Responding, the Council said: “I have investigated the four and a half week period in which the children were subject to Section 20. This period was due to the social worker’s statement being completed, quality assured and the case requested to be heard at court”. It said it was also waiting for information from the other local authority.
14. Miss X’s complaint that the girls could have been returned sooner was not explicitly investigated at Stage 2. However, a complaint that following the girls’ removal, communication and support from the Council was inadequate was not upheld.
15. The Council awarded Miss X a £500 payment for distress caused, which it said was in line with our guidance, and apologised in relation to the matters upheld. It told me it had also offered support from a family intervention worker who would work with the children regarding their anxiety if necessary.
16. Miss X complained to us that the financial remedy was insufficient to compensate for the Council’s wrongful removal of her children and its failure to promptly return them. She told me she had been coerced into signing the S20 agreement with a threat that if she did not agree, her failure to work with the Council could be used against her in court.
17. In response to my enquiries the Council said: “There is no record that Miss [X] was told that her failure to co-operate would be used against her in Court. Miss [X] initially refused to sign s.20 …. Miss [X] then approached the Local Authority advising that she wished to sign the agreement as can be seen in case notes.”
18. It added that both parents had access to legal advice and the written agreement informed them of their right to remove the children from Council care. It added: “A Court would be an appropriate adjudicator of any Human Rights breach for any alleged misuse of s.20 voluntary accommodation.”
19. The Council provided documentation showing that two weeks after the children’s removal Miss X stated an intention to revoke the S20 agreement. However, this was not acted on.
20. Documentation from Council also showed the children’s Guardian did not support the Council’s decision to proceed with the care order application.
21. The Council’s documentation details the levels of distress suffered by the children and parents during their accommodation under S20. This included the parents being “frightened” by the Council’s discussions of permanence plans for the children within a short time of their removal.

Analysis – removal of the children

22. It was the police’s decision to use a Police Protection Order. The Stage 2 report said the police action was instigated by the Council and that the police protection powers were used inappropriately. However I cannot investigate the police decision to exercise emergency powers that evening as the police’s actions are not within our jurisdiction.
23. In response to my draft decision Miss X pointed out that the police officer who granted the PPO did so before attendance at the property based on concerns received from the Council. However, I remain of the view that I cannot make a decision on whether emergency powers were appropriately exercised where the body that exercised them is not within jurisdiction and cannot be investigated.
24. While the Council’s advice to the police was inappropriate, the injustice following from this is inextricably linked to the police officer’s decision to remove the children, which is out of jurisdiction.

Analysis – failure to return the children

25. I have seen no evidence Miss X was coerced into signing the S20 agreement.
26. The Council retained the children in foster care for almost five weeks when the threshold had not been met for removal. The children’s Guardian did not agree with the Council’s decision to apply for an interim care order.
27. Miss X signed the S20 agreement and did not revoke it and the Council has said that it spent the time preparing the care order application. However, this does not alter the fact that the children were separated from their parents for more than a month without good reason. This is fault by the Council.
28. The separation caused distress to both children and parents as detailed in the case notes. The parents’ anxiety was compounded by the Council’s premature discussions of permanence which “frightened” them.
29. In my view, £500 is an insufficient remedy. In my draft decision I recommended a further payment of £1,000 making a total payment of £1,500. In response to my draft decision Miss X stated that this was insufficient. She said she had diagnoses of anxiety and other psychological conditions as a result of the Council’s actions for which she was receiving counselling and medication. She said the children and their father were also suffering from anxiety and were receiving counselling.
30. I am satisfied that £1,500 is a sufficient sum to compensate for the distress caused. Our published remedies guidance states that in cases of family separation we should consider funding counselling, however in this case Miss X and her family are already receiving counselling and the Council has offered support from a family intervention worker.

Agreed action

31. The Council has agreed that within one month of my final decision it will pay Miss X a further £1,000 to compensate for the distress resulting from its fault.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council, for which it has agreed to provide a further financial remedy.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

33. I did not investigate the Council’s statements to court as these are outside of our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman