Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider a report he made about his children’s welfare in 2019. We found there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to properly consider a report he made about his children’s welfare in 2019. He considered council officers were biased towards his ex-partner in their handling of the report. Mr X also considered the Council had not provided adequate support to him or his children to promote positive contact between them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I spoke to Mr X and considered the complaint he made and information he provided. I asked the council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
5. 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

Working Together to Safeguard Children

6. This document sets out practice for dealing with allegations of potential harm to children. It requires a local authority to do an assessment with one day of a report to determine the appropriate course of action. The Council has to determine whether there has been or is likely to be significant harm caused to a child.
7. If the Council considers there is or may be significant harm being caused to a child, it must take further action. If the Council decides the child is not at significant harm, it may take no further action. It may also refer a child, or family for other services or assistance depending on the circumstances.

Sunderland Safeguarding Children’s Board Procedures

8. The Board has a thresholds document which sets out numerous factors which social workers should consider when assessing reports presented about children’s welfare. The report sets out levels of needs from Level 0 (where a child’s needs are being met) to Level 4 (where there are acute or serious concerns about a child). The note explains that the factors in the guidance are indicators and not exhaustive. The decision as to whether criteria are met or intervention is needed is a professional judgement.
9. The note states that the Children’s Act 1989 introduced the concept of significant harm as the threshold that justifies compulsory intervention in family life.

What happened

10. Mr X complained in 2019 that the Council failed to properly consider concerns he raised when he asked it to do a welfare check on his children.
11. Mr X made his report in May 2019. A social worker called him and discussed it. Mr X expressed concern about his children’s welfare while in the care of their grandparents. He considered they may come to harm. Mr X explained why he considered this was the case. He noted that court proceedings were taking place about contact and said he not seen his children for over a year. He advised a social worker that it had been members of his family who had shared these concerns with him.
12. A social worker then spoke with Mr X’s ex-partner. They discussed the situation and the welfare of the children. After considering the issues raised, the social worker determined that the threshold for the Council to intervene or assess the children had not been met. The Council did not consider the children were at risk of significant harm. As a result, they took no further action.
13. Mr X’s subsequent complaint stated the Council should have contacted the children directly and members of his family to discuss his concerns and he considered the issue he raised had not been properly investigated. Mr X believed the Council’s investigation had been biased against him based on his gender.
14. The Council received Mr X’s complaint on 8 July. It acknowledged it and updated Mr X that the response would take more time later that month. The Stage One response was provided on 9 August 2021. The Council stated it did not consider there had been grounds for intervention.
15. Following a request from Mr X, the Council considered his complaint at Stage Two of the complaints process. The complaint was considered by an Investigator and an Independent Person oversaw the investigation. As part of the investigation the staff who dealt with Mr X’s reports were interviewed. They confirmed that the social worker had spoken with her team manager when reaching her decision to take no further action. The investigation found that staff acted properly, in accordance with procedures. They found no evidence of bias against Mr X based on gender or as a non-resident parent. They also considered the Council had no basis to intervene in contact arrangement between Mr X and his ex-partner.
16. A panel considered Mr X’s complaint at the final stage of the complaints process. They agreed with the findings, but regretted that Mr X had been concerned because officers did not speak to his mother about the matter. The panel made three recommendations which the Council considered and it fed back its response to Mr X. They stated the Council was constantly reviewing the effectiveness of its processes and this included whether thresholds were being robustly applied and how feedback could be given to people making reports.

Was there fault by the Council

17. Working together to Safeguard Children requires councils to respond to reports about potential harm to children within one day. The Council responded within that timescale in this case.
18. The Council’s procedures contain a thresholds document that lists issues for social workers to consider. These are a guide to factors that might indicate a child is coming to harm. The Council provided us with the records of its discussions with Mr X and his ex-partner and the evidence relied upon when the investigation took place into the issue Mr X raised. It also provided copies of its correspondence with Mr X. The social worker spoke only to Mr X and his ex-partner when considering the reports he made, but they also considered information on the Councils records. I am satisfied the social worker’s response to Mr X properly considered the issues he raised and decided they were not such that led to significant harm to the children. They spoke to a team leader when reaching this decision. I recognise Mr X wished for the social worker to speak to other family members. However, I found the decision about the level or harm, and the steps needed to investigate were professional judgements the social worker was entitled to make. I found no fault in the way this matter was considered. There was no evidence of bias.
19. I found there was no fault in the Council’s actions in relation to contact. At the time of the complaint court proceedings were taking place regarding contact arrangements between Mr X and his children. These were private proceedings between Mr X and his ex-partner and the Council was not involved.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I found no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman