Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to safeguard his children from their mother, facilitated his child’s removal from him and wrongly advised him to lie to his son. He also complains that his complaint was not handled adequately. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complains that the Council:
1. Facilitated the removal of his son from his school by the child’s mother;
2. Advised him to lie to his son;
3. Failed to take his concerns seriously about the children’s safety in their mother’s care;
4. Failed to investigate his complaint properly.
2. Mr X says that the relationship between himself and his children has suffered due to the Council’s actions and that the unplanned removal of the children into their mother’s care was detrimental to them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr X and considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and the Council and considered comments from both parties before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Human Rights Act

7. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act protects a person’s right to a family life, which means a right to enjoy family relationships without interference from authorities. This includes the right of a person to live with their family or, where this is not possible, to have contact with them. Public authorities may interfere with Article 8 rights in certain circumstances. For example, councils may interfere in family relationships in order to protect a child’s health, rights or freedoms. Councils must show their actions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Proportionate means the action must be no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

Child protection and Child in Need

8. If a council is concerned a child is at risk of, or has suffered, significant harm, it may conduct a child protection investigation. A child protection conference, which is a meeting of professionals involved with the family, will then decide whether the child should be placed on a child protection plan. This is a plan that sets out the risk to the child and what needs to be done to keep the child safe. If a child does not meet the threshold for child protection, but the council thinks they need additional support, they may be classed as a child in need. A child in need plan explains what support is needed and why, and what the council will do to meet that need.

What happened

9. Mr X is separated from Z, who is the mother of his three school-age children. In 2020 police arrested Z due to concerns about her treatment of them, and took the younger children to stay with Mr X. The Council did not apply for a court order to remove the children from Z or to say that they should live with one parent or another. Both parents kept parental responsibility.
10. The Council carried out a child protection investigation to establish whether the children were at risk of significant harm. It decided to support the children to stay with Mr X while it conducted a further assessment of Z.
11. The Council held a child protection conference, which decided that the children were not at risk of significant harm in their father’s care. It decided to put a Child in Need plan in place instead. This is a plan for children who need additional support from the Council but who do not meet the threshold for child protection.
12. The Council’s assessment of Z concluded that she could resume supervised contact with the children. Following several supervised contact sessions Mr X decided to end direct contact between his children and Z and allow only telephone contact.
13. A few months later Z sent the Council and her solicitor an email stating that she had collected her children after school. The email stated that Z had decided to exercise her parental responsibility to take the children. The Council has been unable to provide a copy of this email. It is therefore unclear at what time of the day it was sent. It has provided a Council record that included the transposed text of the email.
14. Z collected the two older children, both girls, and took them to live with her. She did not collect the youngest child, B, a boy, who attended a different school.
15. Later that afternoon Mr X says Z called him to say she had taken the girls from school to her home. The Council’s records state that a social worker called Mr X at 3.15pm and explained she had received an email from Z. The record of the telephone call states that Mr X was very upset and asked for the children to be returned to him. The social worker replied that she could not do this as both parents had the right to exercise parental responsibility but that she would visit the children to ensure they were safe. She stated that social care would have preferred the children’s contact with their mother to have been managed via a “transitioned phase”. She also advised that B had told her he did not like living with his siblings. It is recorded elsewhere on Council records that B stated he was bullied by one sister.
16. Mr X says the social worker advised him to lie to B about where his siblings were, which he did. He said this decision had affected his relationship with his son. The Council said it advised Mr X to say that they were “sleeping out”. The Council’s note of the phone call does not record this advice.
17. Mr X contacted the police. The Council and police agreed that there were no grounds for the police to remove the children from their mother and that the matter could be managed through a revised safety plan.
18. The social worker discussed the issue with her manager, who noted that the Council’s assessment of Z and her transition to unsupervised contact had stopped because of Mr X’s decision to end contact. The Council’s record of the discussion stated that a shared care arrangement would be “better than this situation” and that “both parents need to be spoken to clearly in that if this behaviour continues it is emotionally harmful and the Local Authority may have to consider intervening”. The manager advised the social worker to update her safety plan and to ask the children where they wanted to live.
19. The social worker then visited the older children at home with Z, finding no safeguarding concerns. The social worker decided immediate action to remove them was therefore not warranted. The record states the social workers asked the children if they wanted to spend one week with their mother and the next with their father. Both girls agreed to this. Z also then agreed to this.
20. The next day Mr X called the girls’ school to advise he would be collecting them that day. The social worker then called Mr X. The Council’s note of the conversation states the social worker advised that if he were to collect the girls: “I would be discussing whether the children should be subject to a Child Protection Plan as this would be emotionally harmful”. She also said that she would need to write a report for the Court and would need to inform it of actions taken by himself and Z. Mr X said shared care had not worked previously. The social worker said it was what the children wanted. Mr X then said the social worker could tell the school that Z would collect them. The social worker’s report summarising the conversation stated that she was clear with Mr X that he should not collect the children and added: “[Mr X] needs to come round to the idea of a shared care agreement while social care are involved.”
21. Mr X told me the social worker threatened him with a negative report to court if he were to collect the girls from school and that he felt he had “no option but to give in to her demands not to pick the girls up”.
22. The social workers visited B in school. The note of the meeting states they advised him that the Council and his father had decided not to inform him of his sisters’ exact whereabouts the following evening so as not to unsettle him. The Council reports that he accepted this. A social worker told B his sisters wanted to live with both parents during the week. The note records B then said he would like to live with both parents on a week-on/week-off basis. The social workers next asked B how he would feel about going to stay with Z that night until the weekend. He replied that he would and asked the social worker to arrange for his father to pack some things for him. The Council has not provided a record of any discussion with Z or Mr X about this plan for the evening prior to the discussion with B.
23. The social worker then called Mr X. The Council has not provided any record of this conversation. The Council stated that Mr X was “clear he wished for all of the children to return to his care” but agreed to pack a bag for his son. Mr X told me he agreed to B going to his mother under duress. He told me he suspected the social worker of having orchestrated a plot with Z to remove his son. He said that the social worker had not discussed B going to his mother’s house previously.
24. The Council told me that having spoken to Mr X the social worker contacted Z to advise that Mr X had agreed she could collect all three children from school and that he would leave a bag on the doorstep for B. The Council has not provided any record of this conversation.
25. The following day the social worker spoke to Mr X again. The Council’s note of the conversation states she informed him she would be sending him a plan for shared care. She said that Z was working and therefore “one week on and one week off was positive”. Mr X stated he wanted to have the children at weekends and the social worker stated that this was not what the children wanted. The social worker’s record of the conversation noted that Mr X was being unreasonable. Mr X told me he had never had a meeting or discussion about the “one week on/one week off” child arrangement plan, which did not suit him, and he felt this was being forced on him by the social worker. He said the social workers later told him his alternative proposal for weekend care was unfair to Z and that he could only have the children on alternate weekends. Mr X told me that after this he saw the children on alternate weekends until March 2021 when his son and one of the girls opted for his home to again become their primary residence.
26. Mr X complained to the Council about the social worker’s conduct. The Council said it had found no issues and that social care’s position was that both parents needed to reach a mutual agreement around care arrangements. It handled the complaint through its corporate complaints process. It did not uphold any of Mr X’s complaints.
27. I asked the social worker for an account of her actions. She told me that Z had made no specific request to collect B from school but had discussed a wish for shared care. She told me that she had interpreted Z’s email in which she disclosed she had collected the girls from the bus station as a statement of intention to remove all three children. The social worker said she had discussed this with Mr X and Mr X had agreed to shared care for B as well as the girls.

Analysis

28. Taking Mr X’s complaints in turn:
1. The Council facilitated the removal of Mr X’s son from his school by his mother
29. The Council decided, on the basis of an email from Z advising that she had removed her daughters from school, which was silent as to her intentions regarding B – to propose to B that he should go to his mother’s the following night. There is no evidence that the Council discussed this plan for B with Mr X or Z before proposing it to B himself. The social worker told me by way of justification that Mr X had agreed to shared care of B. This is not the same as agreeing to B going to his mother’s house that same evening. I am satisfied that the social worker made a unilateral decision to propose to B that he should stay with his mother that evening and that in doing so she overrode Mr X’s parental rights without justification. It is also unclear what powers the social worker was acting under at the time.
30. In response to my draft decision, the Council said it accepted the social worker should have talked to Mr X before proposing to his son that he stay with his mother. But it said that after speaking to B the social worker did contact Mr X to discuss the plan. The Council said Mr X was aware of his rights as a parent and could have refused the social worker’s proposal. The Council has failed to take account of the power imbalance between Mr X and the social worker. Mr X’s decision-making was influenced by the same social worker’s warning of child protection proceedings and concern about the ramifications of any disagreement.
31. The Council is at fault and caused injustice to Mr X.

b) The Council wrongly advised Mr X to lie to his son

32. There is no record of exactly what the social worker said to Mr X. The Council’s record of a discussion with B shows he was told he had not been informed of the full facts the night before so as not to unsettle him. There is no evidence of fault.
1. The Council failed to take his concerns about the children’s safety seriously
33. The documentation shows Mr X did not raise specific concerns about the children’s safety, but about their mother’s decision to remove them. There is evidence that the Council considered the girls’ safety in Z’s care and decided there was insufficient evidence to justify their removal. There is no fault in this regard.
34. However, there is evidence that the Council did not properly consider the risks to B before deciding he should go to stay with his mother. The Council had previously found the children were at risk of harm from unsupervised contact and while Z had been progressing towards unsupervised contact, contact had ended before this stage. The social worker had also previously told Mr X that the unplanned collection of the girls by their mother was not what the Council wanted and that there should have been a “transition phase” before their move to their mother’s home as they had not had contact with her for some time. There was a significant gap between the previous supervised contact session and the mother’s collection of the children in December.
35. The social worker essentially rescinded the decision on supervision with regards to contact between Z and B without discussion with senior managers. She arranged for B to stay unsupervised at his mother’s home within a short time of the matter first being discussed with him, without the “transition phase” her own records said was necessary. The Council is at fault and caused injustice to B and Mr X, whose views and needs were not fully considered.

d) The Council did not handle Mr X’s complaint properly

36. The Council’s investigation of Mr X’s complaint was superficial and did not probe the relevant events. This is fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X who has had to spend longer than necessary to achieve a satisfactory resolution to his complaints.

Additional faults

37. I have found the following additional faults:

e) The Council interfered in family affairs and imposed contact arrangements on the family

38. The social worker warned Mr X about a child protection plan if he collected his daughters from school again. The Council was at fault for interfering in a family affair and for warning of child protection intervention when a previous conference had found no evidence Mr X posed a risk of harm to his children. The Council treated mother and father inconsistently. It facilitated contact with the mother who had collected the children unannounced, despite the fact there were child protection concerns, and then warned the father of very serious negative consequences if he did the same.
39. The Council told me it was concerned about emotional harm caused by Mr X’s decision to stop the children’s contact with their mother. It said that decision had led Z to exercise her parental responsibility in an unplanned way. If the Council was concerned the children were at risk of significant emotional harm due to Mr X’s decision to end contact it should have convened a strategy meeting.
40. The social worker also proposed a week on/week off residency arrangement to Mr X and recorded that he was unreasonable in suggesting an alternative. The Council was interfering in private family arrangements without a legitimate basis. It is for the courts to make contact and residency decisions where parents cannot agree, not the Council. The social worker was acting over and above her powers by imposing arrangements on Mr X rather than waiting for the courts to resolve the impasse. This is fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X.

f) The Council failed to keep appropriate records

41. The social worker failed to keep a record of several phone calls to Mr X and Z. She also failed to keep a full copy of the email from Z. This is fault by the Council which has not caused injustice to Mr X.

Summary

42. Mr X has suffered significant and serious injustice as a result of the Council’s actions. The Council’s interference in private family arrangements suggests it failed to take account of Mr X’s right to a private family life. The Council also failed to deal with Mr X’s complaint adequately. He has suffered unnecessary time, trouble and distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed it will:
1. Apologise to Mr X; and
2. Pay him £1,000 to reflect the injustice caused. This it at the higher end of our recommendations to take account of the significant impact.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault that caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to an apology and a financial remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman