Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council carried out its child protection duties for his daughter. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure Mr X received timely information following child protection meetings and telling him his daughter was safe when he raised urgent welfare concerns. These failings caused frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and remind its staff they must provide parents timely information about child protection cases and in response to urgent concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council carried out its child protection duties in relation to his daughter. In particular, he said the Council:
1. delayed telling him it classed his daughter as a ‘child in need’;
2. produced an inadequate child protection plan;
3. did not take suitable action when he had urgent concerns about his daughter’s welfare;
4. failed to include him or his views in its core group meetings;
5. did not keep him suitably updated on his daughter’s case;
6. failed to provide a full and fair response to his complaints;
7. sent a private document to his ex-partner; and
8. sent him an incomplete Subject Access Request.
2. Mr X said this meant he lost contact with his daughter and experienced severe distress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated complaints (a) to (f). The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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. 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

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered:
• all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.

9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Child in need

10. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
11. A child is in need if:
• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; or
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

Child protection

12. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 says where a council has reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare.
13. After making enquiries, where the council considers a child is at risk of significant harm, the council may hold a strategy meeting. At the meeting it discusses with relevant professionals whether to hold an initial child protection conference (ICPC).
14. The ICPC is a multi-disciplinary meeting whose attendees decide what action is needed to safeguard the child. The ICPC may decide to make the child the subject of a child protection plan which details what action is necessary to reduce the risk of harm.
15. The Council is part of the Manchester Safeguarding Partnership (the Partnership), which brings together key bodies involved in ensuring the safety of children such as the Police and local hospital trusts. The purpose of the Partnership is to monitor and control the safeguarding practice of the bodies in the Partnership. It does not make decisions in its own right. The Partnership uses the safeguarding policies of the Greater Manchester Safeguarding Partnership (Greater Partnership).
16. The Greater Partnership’s policy on child protection plans out what they should contain. This includes:
• when and in what situations the child will be seen by their social worker;
• the roles and responsibilities of professionals, including how often they will see the child and for what purpose; and
• a contingency plan for if circumstances change significantly.
17. The statutory guidance on child safeguarding, ‘Working together to safeguard children’ says after the ICPC, the council should convene a core group meeting within ten working days. The purpose of core group is to:
• further develop the child protection plan;
• facilitate the in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and
• implement the child protection plan.
18. The core group is made up of key family members and professionals involved with the child and/or family. The Greater Partnership’s policy says copies of the notes and written agreement from the core group ‘must be circulated to core group members as soon as possible’.
19. The Greater Partnership’s policy says the Council is responsible for ensuring that parents who are excluded from the core group are informed of discussions and outcomes as appropriate. Parents with parental responsibility tend to receive more information than those without it. This is because parental responsibility gives the person the power to make important decisions for the child like where they go to school and their medical treatment.
20. The first RCPC should be held three months after the ICPC. Subsequent conferences must be no more than six months apart. The RCPC’s consider the progress taken to safeguard the child and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
21. The Greater Partnership’s policy says the child’s social worker should prepare a report before the RCPC. The Council should send the report to parents at least three working days before the date of the conference for comment. The report includes records of parental views, an evaluation of the progress made in reducing the risk to the child and a view on whether the plan should continue.
22. Minutes of the RCPC’s should be sent to all relevant family members ‘as soon as possible’ after the meetings.
23. If a person (or council) fears a child is in imminent danger they can apply to the court for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). EPO’s are only used in exceptionally serious situations and give the person who receives the order the right to remove the child from their current location.

Complaints

24. ‘Children's social care: getting the best from complaints’ (the Guidance) is the statutory guidance on children’s complaints. The Guidance says the process can be used to look at complaints about how a council provides services for a child in need. Child protection issues are largely exempt.
25. Councils are required to consider representations made by a parent of a child in need where they are made on behalf of or in relation to that child.
26. The Guidance says that where a complaint includes elements that are both inside and outside the scope of the procedure, councils have discretion to consider all parts of a complaint in a single investigation and response. This can be the statutory or corporate process.

What happened

27. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
28. Mr X’s daughter, Y, lives with his ex-partner, Ms W. Mr X had contact with Y from birth. In 2018 and 2019 the Council provided some support to Ms W and Y. An assessment and support referral form from that period show the Council had Mr X’s name and address.
29. In March 2020, the Council decided Y was a child in need. It asked Ms W to give Mr X’s contact details. The Council said Ms W was not willing to as she was concerned about how Mr X would react. The Council considered her view, including that she had alleged Mr X had been abusive in the past, and decided to wait until she felt comfortable enough to give Mr X’s information.
30. Ms W later told Mr X about the Council's involvement and he contacted it in early April 2020.
31. In early May 2020, the Council carried out an unplanned visit at Ms W’s property. No-one was at home. Mr X told the Council he was worried Ms W had taken Y and was staying with Ms W’s new partner, who it had significant concerns about. Mr X asked the Council to arrange a welfare check at Ms W’s partner’s house. A welfare check is where a safeguarding organisation, often the Police, visits a property to speak to the person or people who live there and check they are alive, immediately safe and well.
32. The Council asked the Police to do the welfare check and later in the afternoon, held a video call with Ms W. It saw Y and was satisfied she appeared safe. It did not have any immediate concerns Y was with Ms W’s partner.
33. Three days later the Council called Mr X to confirm it had seen Y safe and well that day. A week later, Mr X contacted the Council to raise his concerns the Council had not taken suitable action on his concerns about Y being with Ms W’s partner. He said the Council had not asked the Police for a welfare check. The Council clarified it had.
34. Later in the month, Mr X contacted the Council for an update on Y. He asked the Y’s social worker to update him before and after its visits to Y. The social worker replied to say “of course I will inform you of all visits and [the] outcomes and any concerns raised”.
35. In late June 2020, the Council decided to put Y on a child protection plan. The Council's plan identified what actions were needed to reduce the risks to Y and who was responsible for them. It did not include a contingency plan of what it would do if the main risk to Y increased. It also did not include when and why Y would see their social worker or other professionals and family members.
36. The Council held the first core group meeting in early July. Mr X was not a member of the group, so the Council verbally updated him after the meeting. There were nine core group meetings throughout the period the child protection plan was in place.
37. In early September 2020, the Council held the first RCPC. The social worker did not produce a separate summary report to give to Mr X for his comments before the RCPC. In response to the Ombudsman's investigation, the Council said it used the core group minutes as the report.
38. At the meeting, the chairperson recommended the Council allow Mr X to attend the core group meetings. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Ms W initially agreed to Mr X attending the meetings but later changed her mind. It has no record of the conversation. The Council did not invite Mr X to any of the following meetings.
39. In late September 2020, Mr X sent the Council a letter setting out his intention not to return Y to Ms W after a contact session. It included his partner’s private information. The Council sent the letter to Ms W.
40. A few days later, Ms W did not drop off Y for scheduled contact with Mr X. Mr X called the Council's social services team several times to report Y missing. The Council called Mr X and confirmed it would arrange a welfare check. Mr X said twenty minutes later he called the Police to ask if the Council had asked it to do a welfare check. The Police confirmed it had not so Mr X asked for one himself.
41. The Council visited Ms W at home that afternoon and saw Y in her care. It was satisfied Y was safe and well. Council records note the social worker attempted to call Mr X and left a voicemail, although Mr X disputes this. The Council did not consider it needed to take safeguarding action because it saw Y with Ms W.
42. The following morning, Mr X says he asked the Council to issue an EPO. The Council did not agree an EPO was necessary.
43. The Police visited Ms W’s home later that morning. They could not confirm anyone was at home. The Police told Mr X who said he again asked the Council to issue an EPO. The Council did not agree to apply for one. Late in the evening, the Police visited again and confirmed Y was safe.
44. In early October, Mr X again asked the Council to update him after every visit to Y. It had not been sending him updates as it had agreed. The Council said it would not as Ms W had a right to privacy but offered to update him after the core group meetings.
45. In late October, Mr X asked the Council why he was not a member of the core group. The Council said it was because Ms W was the primary carer of Y and she did not feel comfortable with Mr X there due to the nature of their relationship. The Council does not have any record of Ms W’s views.
46. I asked the Council how it ensured it included Mr X’s views on Y’s care and the child protection plan in the meetings. The Council said Mr X gave his views to Y’s social worker between meetings. The minutes of the core group meetings did not include Mr X’s views or how it considered them. The Council said this was because Mr X’s updates were untrue or considered malicious. It did not want to perpetuate the abuse between Mr X and Ms W by including them. In addition, Mr X did not have contact with Y for some time so would not have been able to give any updates.
47. In December 2020, Mr X told the Council that he was unhappy with the frequency of its updates. The Council agreed to send him an informal update within one week of the core group meetings and follow up with the full minutes before the next meeting.
48. Of the nine core group meetings, the Council sent Mr X the minutes of seven on or after the date of the following meeting. Several arrived months after the meeting took place. The Council sent the minutes for one of the RCPC’s on the day, the other six weeks after.
49. The Council said two of the minutes were delayed due to human error. One was delayed due to having to manually redact information from the files which was affected by issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
50. The Council held a final RCPC in February 2021 and decided to end the child protection plan. The Council continued to work with Y as a child in need.

Complaints response

51. Mr X complained in late September 2020 and added further issues in early October. Some of Mr X’s complaints related to the Council’s actions while Y was classed a child in need. Most related to child protection. The Council responded using its corporate complaints process in early October 2020.
52. Mr X remained unhappy and throughout October added new elements to his complaint. He complained about delay in sending him the child protection conference and core group minutes and that the child protection plan did not include a contingency plan. The Council issued its stage two response in late October 2020. Mr X disputed some of the statements the Council made and raised more concerns.
53. The Council issued a new stage one response in mid-November 2020. It explained it would not consider all of Mr X’s points, but was focusing on the key matters. Mr X replied a week later and expressed his dissatisfaction with the Council's response and general communication with him. He later sent a detailed letter setting out his points of disagreement.
54. The Council sent its stage two response in early December 2020.
55. In late-December Mr X wrote to senior Council management to say its complaints process was flawed, it had not answered his complaint fully and had not understood the information he gave. He made a further complaint to the Council, which further detailed his dissatisfaction with its complaints handling and previous responses.
56. In mid-January 2021, the Council wrote to Mr X to warn him it considered his behaviour was becoming vexatious. It explained he was making repeated overly detailed complaints about issues it had already responded to and was not accepting the Council's decision. It said if his behaviour continued, it would apply its vexatious and unreasonably persistent complaints policy.
57. Mr X replied to challenge the Council's view. He felt it should have considered his complaints under the statutory process.
58. The Council told the Ombudsman it did not consider Mr X’s complaint was suitable for the statutory complaints procedure because his complaints were mainly about issues that affected him rather than about Y.

Findings

Communication about start of involvement with Y

59. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if it is made without fault.
60. In March 2020, when the Council decided Y was a child in need, Ms W initially refused to give Mr X’s details as she was concerned about how Mr X would respond. The Council considered Ms W’s view and the information it had about Mr X and Ms W’s previous relationship and decided to wait until Ms W gave Mr X’s contact details. Ms W later told Mr X about the Council's involvement and he contacted it for more information. The Council considered the relevant information in deciding to wait until Ms W gave Mr X’s details. There was no fault in how it made its decision so I cannot question it.

Child protection process and core groups

61. Parents of children under child protection plans frequently want regular updates from social workers if they are not the primary carer. Mr X wanted the Council to update him after its planned and unplanned visits to Y. In May 2020, Y’s social worker agreed and said they would tell Mr X about all visits and the outcomes of them. The social worker did not do this. This was fault and caused Mr X avoidable frustration.
62. However, social workers have to carefully balance their heavy workloads and it is not always feasible for them to provide updates after every visit. In addition, as Y was living with Ms W, the Council had to balance sharing information with Mr X and maintaining Ms W’s privacy. It was not fault for the Council to later refuse to update Mr X after every visit and rely on the core group meetings and RCPC’s to keep him informed. But, there were issues in how the Council did this.
• The Council held a core group meeting in July, which it did not invite Mr X to. There is no record of Council's decision to exclude Mr X. The Council says following the RCPC in September 2020, Ms W agreed Mr X could attend before changing her mind. The Council does not have any records of the discussion with Ms W. The Council can choose to exclude someone from the core group if it feels it is necessary. However, the Ombudsman expects it to keep proper records of its decision and promptly communicate that decision to the person excluded. The Council did not do this, which was fault.
• The Greater Partnership’s policy says it should send core group notes and agreements to core group members as soon as possible after the meetings. Mr X was excluded from the core group, but as Mr X had parental responsibility, the Council should have shared the meeting minutes on the same timescale as in its policy. The Council sent Mr X seven of the nine core group minutes on or after the date of the next core group meeting. The Council also took around two months to send Mr X the minutes of one RCPC. I have considered the Council's explanations for some of the delays but still consider the delay to be fault.
• In early October and early December, the Council suggested two more arrangements for giving Mr X informal updates after the core group meetings, while it prepared the meeting minutes. There is no evidence the Council gave the updates.
63. The Council's failure to properly record its decision to exclude Mr X from the core group caused Mr X uncertainty as he cannot know whether it was a decision properly made. The failure to send Mr X timely meeting records or updates according to its October and December agreements caused him frustration as he could not be certain he was receiving up to date information on Y’s wellbeing and progress under the child protection plan.
64. The Council said Mr X gave his views to Y’s social worker in between core group meetings. There is no evidence the Council specifically sought his views for inclusion in the meetings, which was fault. Mr X was communicating with Y’s social worker, so in this case I am satisfied he had adequate opportunities to give his views before the meeting. However, I am concerned the Council uses such an approach in other cases and that this might disadvantage some people excluded from core groups.
65. The Council said it did not record Mr X’s views in the core group meetings because it considered them to be malicious or untrue and so not appropriate for sharing in the meeting. It also said some were not relevant as Mr X did not have contact with Y after September 2020. The Council is entitled to decide not to include a parents view in a core group meeting. When it makes that decision, it should record its reasons and explain those reasons to the parent. The Council did not do this which was fault. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice because it would not have affected whether his views were stated in the meeting.
66. The Greater Partnership’s policy states the Council should send a report to parents at least three working days before the date of the next RCPC. The report should summarise parental views and whether the core group feels the child protection plan should continue. The Council says it uses the core group minutes preceding the RCPC to fulfil the function of the report. The minutes provide the information the report requires, and the Council is entitled to decide the format of the report. It was not at fault for not producing a separate report.
67. However, as set out in paragraph 62, the Council delayed in sending the core group minutes. It did not send Mr X the minutes at least three days before either RCPC. This was fault. It did not cause Mr X significant injustice because he attended the RCPC’s and received the minutes from them. He was therefore aware of the views of the Council and other individuals involved with Y’s welfare and whether they thought the plan should continue.

68. The Greater Partnership’s policy states the plan should include a continency plan for if circumstances change substantially and need a rapid response. Y’s plan does not contain this. It is also missing details of when and in what situations Y would see their social worker as well as how often Y would see other professionals and for what reasons. This was fault and caused Mr X frustration as he could not be assured the Council had a suitable response planned for if Y’s circumstances changed.

Response to urgent concerns

69. In May 2020, Mr X had concerns about Y’s welfare. He asked the Council to arrange a welfare check at Ms W’s partner’s house. The Council requested the Police carry out a welfare check the same day. It also carried out a video check and was satisfied Y was safe and well. I am satisfied the Council took appropriate action to investigate Mr X’s concerns and was not at fault.

70. However, the Council took three days to tell Mr X it had seen Y and was satisfied she was safe and one week to confirm it had requested the welfare check he asked for. This was fault and caused Mr X some uncertainty.
71. In September 2020, the Council sent Ms W Mr X’s letter. Two days later, Ms W did not bring Y for a contact session with Mr X. He has not had contact with Y since. Mr X feels that by sharing the letter, the Council caused the end of his contact with Y. The Council's primary duty is to Y. As Ms W was Y’s main carer, the Council should share important information about Y with her. This includes Mr X’s intention not to return Y to Ms W after a contact visit and to start care proceedings. It was not at fault. That Ms W has not allowed Mr X to have contact with Y since then is a private matter and not for the Ombudsman. I am not investigating the sharing of private data for the reasons set out at the end of this decision.
72. After Ms W did not bring Y for a contact session Mr X told the Council he wanted to report Y as missing. He asked the Council to arrange a welfare check. The Council was not at fault for not requesting the welfare check before Mr X called the Police twenty minutes later. I do not consider it unreasonably delayed and in any event, Mr X was able to request the check himself.
73. The Council visited Y at Ms W’s to check on her welfare. It was satisfied she was safe and well and had no safeguarding concerns. Council records say the duty social worker attempted to call Mr X and left a voicemail. Mr X disputes this. I cannot make a judgement on whether the calls took place.

74. The following day, Mr X asked the Council to request an EPO. The Council did not agree there was evidence of imminent danger to Y. It did not explain to Mr Y this was because it had seen Y with Ms W. Mr X requested another EPO after the Police failed to get a response to their welfare check. The Council again refused but did not say it had seen Y safe.
75. The Council took appropriate action to check on Y’s welfare and once it saw her and was satisfied she was safe, took no further action. There was no fault in its actions or decision not to issue an EPO. However, the Council failed to tell Mr X it had seen Y and was satisfied she was safe when he repeatedly requested an EPO. This caused Mr X unnecessary uncertainty.

Complaints response

76. Mr X complained the Council's complaint response did not fully answer his complaints. The Ombudsman does not expect councils to respond to every part of someone’s complaint. It is sufficient if they address the key points. Mr X made detailed and lengthy complaints to the Council. I am satisfied the Council responded to the key points in sufficient detail. It was not at fault.

77. Mr X’s complaints to the Council were mainly about child protection matters. They are exempt from the statutory children’s complaint process. However, some of the issues he complained about were when Y was a child in need, which can be considered using the process.
78. The Council said it did not use the statutory process because Mr X mainly complained about issues that affected him. However, the guidance says councils should accept complaints from parents of children in need where they are on behalf of the child and where they relate to a child but are not on the child’s behalf. I consider therefore that the Council was at fault for applying a flawed rationale to its decision to use the corporate complaints procedure. However, I cannot say that but for the Council's fault, it would have decided to use the statutory process. The injustice to Mr X is therefore uncertainty about whether the Council would have used the statutory process and whether it would have achieved a different outcome.

Back to top

Agreed actions

79. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and frustration caused by:
1. its failure to properly record its decision to exclude Mr X from the core group;
2. the delay in sending him the core group and RCPC minutes;
3. its failure to give him informal updates according to the agreements it offered;
4. the flaws in its child protection plan; and
5. its failure to tell him what action it took in response to his concerns in May and September 2020 in a timely way.
80. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will remind its staff:
• they should keep proper records of the Council's decision to exclude an individual from a core group and ensure that decision is communicated to the person promptly;
• they should do the same when the Council makes the decision not to record the person’s views in the core group meetings;
• they must provide parents with minutes of meetings as soon as possible, particularly where the parent is excluded from the core group;
• they must give parents copies of the preceding core group minutes at least three days before a RCPC;
• that where they offer informal update agreements, they must adhere to the plan. If the plan becomes unsuitable, the Council should record its decision and communicate it to the person receiving the updates;
• they must ensure child protection plans include all the information required by the Greater Manchester Safeguarding Partnership’s policy; and
• to ensure they give parents timely information on the action the Council has taken in response to urgent concerns.
81. The Council will also consider whether to introduce a template form to give to people excluded from core groups when seeking their views in advance of core group meetings. It will do this within three months of the date of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

82. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

83. I have not investigated parts (g) and (h) of Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is about how the Council dealt with his private data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the body best placed to deal with such complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman