Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for its response to safeguarding concerns for Child X. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not providing conference reports within the appropriate timeframes. The Council has agreed a service remedy for this. As Mr A has died the Ombudsman is not able to provide a personal remedy for the fault.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs Y complain the Council has not adequately responded to safeguarding concerns about their granddaughter.
2. Mr & Mrs Y complain the Council did not respond to theirs or their late son’s emails and communication and did not keep their son updated about the welfare of his child.
3. Mr & Mrs Y complain that their son did not receive child protection reports until after conferences had started, and the Council continuously copied and pasted the contents of the reports.
4. Mr and Mrs Y also complain the Council delayed starting the process for a Family Group Conference (FGC) and did not share reports for the FGC beforehand.

Back to top

What I have investigated

5. I have investigated the Council’s responses to concerns raised about Child X’s welfare, and whether the communication with Child X’s father and paternal grandparents was flawed. I am not investigating the Council advising Mr A to take private court proceedings as this was a decision for him to make.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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

8. I considered Mr & Mrs Y’s complaint and the information they provided. I also considered information and records provided by the Council. I also considered comments on my draft decision from Mr and Mrs Y and the Council, and further information provided by the Council.
9. 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

What happened

10. Mr & Mrs Y are the parents of Mr A. Mr A died in April 2020.
11. Mr A was the father of Child X. He was separated from the mother of Child X.
12. Between the period of 2015 and 2020, the Council received multiple referrals raising concerns about the care and wellbeing of Child X by both Mr A and the mother of Child X. Some of these referrals were concerns both parents raised about each other, as well as concerns raised by professionals about the capacity of both parents to safeguard their child.
13. The Council placed Child X on Child Protection and Child in Need support plans. This was to address the concerns raised and support Mr A and Child X’s mother in caring for the wellbeing of their child.
14. The Council worked with Mr A, Child X’s mother, key family members and outside agencies to try and support Child X.
15. Before he died, Mr A communicated to the Council that he felt there was a pattern of allegations from Child X’s mother which were investigated but never found to be true. He felt this action purposefully disrupted contact with Child X. This concern was also expressed by Mr & Mrs Y.
16. After Mr A died, Mr & Mrs Y tried to complain to the Council about the poor communication Mr A received and the Council had not taken seriously his concerns about Child X.
17. The Council could not consider the complaint as Mr & Mrs Y did not have parental responsibility for Child X.
18. Mr & Mrs Y complained to the Ombudsman that the Council did not respond to years of concerns for Child X’s wellbeing. They also complained the Council did not properly communicate with them or their son about Child X.

Analysis

19. I have reviewed all the Council records about the safeguarding actions taken by the Council about Child X. This included Child Protection records and action plans for support provided to both Mr A and Child X’s mother.
20. It is my current view the Council responded appropriately to all allegations and concerns raised about the welfare of Child X. Regardless of whether allegations were concluded to be true or not, the Council has a duty to investigate where there are concerns a child may be at risk. It is my current view that between 2015 and 2020, the Council maintained a high level of support for Child X due to the continuing concerns and allegations.
21. I have also reviewed the communication between the Council and Mr A before he died. Council records for providing Mr A with reports before meetings are poor and it is likely Mr A did not always receive copies of reports before formal meetings taking place. This was fault by the Council, causing Mr A injustice. It is likely Mr A felt unprepared for meetings about his child’s care and the concerns being raised.
22. I have reviewed the email communications between Mr A and the Council in the time leading up to Mr A’s death. I have also reviewed all minutes and plans for Child Protection conferences, and copies of discussions with management. It is my view that Mr A was provided with opportunities to discuss his concerns, and that ongoing concerns were monitored during staff discussions and conversations with Mr A.
23. Mr & Mrs Y also complained the Council continuously copy and pasted information and actions in reports. I have reviewed all Child Protection and Child in Need meetings and action plans. It is not an uncommon practice for information to be repeated in reports as it provides a continuing chronology of previous concerns and support that has been provided. This allows professionals to build a wider picture. In the records for Child X I can see the Council added new information and concerns as they happened, alongside older information. I do not find fault with the Council for this action.
24. I have not been provided with any evidence the Council did not respond to communication with Mr & Mrs Y, therefore I cannot uphold this part of their complaint.
25. I have also reviewed the Council records about arranging a Family Group Conference (FGC). Records show the Council was considering an FGC, due to be actioned in 2018, however this did not happen. It is not clear why this did not happen. Records made after Mr A died show the Council did try to arrange an FGC but Mr & Mrs Y declined to be involved.
26. Mr and Mrs Y say they did not decline to be involved in the FGC. They say they felt the boundaries of the proposed FGC were controlled by Child X’s mother, and therefore they declined to attend.
27. It appears that following the discission with Mr and Mrs Y, and a final Child in Need review, professionals decided that an FGC was no longer needed to support Child X. I therefore do not uphold Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about a delayed FGC, as an FGC did not take place and was not needed to support Child X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

28. Within 4 weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to remind social workers of the need to ensure child protection and core group reports are shared with attendees in good time before meetings and conferences take place.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have now completed my investigation. I do not find fault with the Council for how it responded to safeguarding concerns for Child X. I find fault with the Council for not providing reports to Mr A within the appropriate timescales. The Council has agreed to remind workers of the importance of sharing reports. However, it is my current view any personal injustice caused to Mr A could not be remedied by the Ombudsman. This is because Mr A died and any injustice towards him cannot be remedied.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman