Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection investigation. It is unlikely we would find further significant fault and we would not achieve a significantly different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains on behalf of his daughter Miss Y, with her consent. They complain about the Council’s decision to carry out a child protection investigation, the information it provided the family and related matters.

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. We must consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint and the Council’s replies to his complaint which it provided. I considered Mr X’s detailed comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In August 2020, Miss Y, a teacher, took her four month old child to a baby clinic. Because of a bruise near their eye the Health Visitor referred the case to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Unit (MASH). It decided that to comply with its non mobile baby procedure it had to carry out a child protection investigation, known as a s47 investigation.
6. The same day as the referral, a social worker visited Miss Y’s home. Miss Y as a result took her baby to the hospital to be examined by a paediatric doctor. That doctor advised the same day the bruise was consistent with the explanation given by Miss Y and was therefore not none accidental.
7. The Council’s children services team decided that it needed to see Miss Y’s other older child. The family had a short holiday for a few days and the older child was therefore not seen until five days later. The Council then confirmed it would be taking no further action and closed the case in early September, less than a month after the referral.
8. Mr X complained on Miss Y’s behalf. He said the s47 investigation was not necessary. He said the Council had failed to properly explain what was happening to Miss Y throughout. He says the Council failed to support Miss Y and the family throughout. He said the Council had failed to recognise the impact the investigation had on the family. He says the Council’s actions have caused the family, and in particular Miss Y, great distress. Mr X wanted the Council:
1. to remove all the documents and records of the s47 investigation;
2. to accept its decision to carry out a s47 investigation was disproportionate and
3. to fully apologise for all of this.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint within its Children Act complaints procedure. S47 investigations are not required to be considered within that procedure. The Council opted to do so. It is a more detailed investigation than Mr X was entitled to.
10. The law sets out a three stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints within the Children Act procedure. At stage two of this procedure, the Council appoints an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the result of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review. This is a panel made up of three independent people who are neither Council members nor officers.
11. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider that investigation was fundamentally flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
12. The Council’s stage three overall decided:
• The decision to start a s47 was not disproportionate but was reasonable within the procedures.
• Some communication could have been clearer but crucially:

“What is clear however is that the family was aware that a referral had been made by the Health Visitor because of a safeguarding concern and that the contact made by the Local Authority and the request for ( the baby) to have a Paediatric examination was in response to this. In addition, Mr and Mrs (Y) would have been asked at the hospital to sign a consent form regarding the medical examination and the reason for it taking place would have been confirmed by the Paediatrician.”

13. It recommended that:
• The Council give a more thorough apology for the deficiencies identified, which included poor communication. The Council has done this.
• Mr X and Miss Y to be part of a wider consultation, about service improvement and delivery, specifically about information sharing and communication. The Council has offered this.
• Auditing of case records which reference the initiation of s47 enquires. This should be as part of management oversight and quality assurance. The Council say this is happening.
14. Mr X remained unhappy. He says the Stage Two reports have errors in them. He wants as an outcome:
1. the removal of all records relating to the case;
2. the opportunity to draft a summary of their experiences, along with the findings at Stage two and three of the complaints processes. This would go with and form an integral part the record of the s 47 investigation to provide a complete picture of events;
3. a full and unreserved acknowledgment from all parties the actions taken were disproportionate and seek a full and unreserved apology for the distress caused to the family; and
4. the family would like to be involved in the offered consultation but they are only prepared to do so after the Council has fully accepted what the family allege are it’s failings.

Analysis

15. We should not investigate this complaint because:
1. It is unlikely our investigation would on the balance of probabilities find fault in the Council’s professional decision to carry out a s47 investigation in the circumstances it was presented with.
2. We cannot investigate the Health Visitor’s decision to refer the case.
3. We cannot investigate how the medical examination was carried out.
4. We would not recommend the records be removed. They form part of the child safeguarding records. National guidance on retention of documents for the compliance with data protection laws is that they should be kept for 35 years.
5. The complaint’s file will be held with the s47 investigation record, as part of it. It is unlikely we would recommend any further remedy than this and the apologies offered for the accepted faults.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find further fault and we would not achieve a significantly different outcome than that already obtained.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman