Summary: Mr B says the Council’s actions during a child protection investigation caused him distress. Mr B says the Council was biased, did not investigate properly, and produced an inaccurate assessment report. We found the Council followed the correct process to investigate the concerns. The Council agreed to amend the report to reflect Mr B’s views and correct any factual mistakes, but he did not receive it. These changes would not affect the outcome of the investigation and are not evidence of fault. The Council has now sent Mr B its amended report.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says the Council was biased in its assessment by Children’s Services. Mr B says the Council accepted his ex-wife’s version of events and decided he was an abuser with no evidence to support this finding. Mr B says the Council did not consider relevant evidence such as information from his GP or professionals who contacted the Council in support of his version of events. In response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it would add his views where he disagreed with what it had recorded and send him an updated version within ten days; Mr B says he has never received this.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions have caused him distress, he is now on medication for depression, has felt very low, and has not seen his children for six months. Mr B is worried about the impact on his relationship with his children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered:
• Information from Mr B, including during a telephone conversation.
• Information from the Council in response to my enquiries.
• The Children Act 1989.
• ‘Working together to safeguard children’ statutory guidance.
• The Council’s ‘Children’s Services Procedures Manual’
6. Mr B 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

What should happen

7. While it is parents and carers who have primary care for their children, local authorities, working with partner organisations and agencies, have specific duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area.
8. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
9. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
10. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
11. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in:

• no further action;
• a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• a decision to convene a strategy meeting.

12. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
13. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.
14. Harm means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development, including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. (The Children Act 1989 31(9))  
15. Where a child’s need is relatively low level, individual services and universal services may be able to take swift action. Where there are more complex needs, the council may offer a service under section 17 (child in need) or section 47 (child protection) of the Children Act 1989.  
16. When a council has concerns about a child, the law requires it to take action to find out more. It only has to have ‘reasonable cause to suspect’. This is a lower burden of proof than that used by the Police or the Courts who require evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

What did happen

17. The Council received a referral from the Police. This was about alleged domestic abuse in the home, where two young children lived. The Council visited the school to hear the children’s views, the eldest child confirmed his parents are fighting in the home.
18. The Council held a strategy meeting with relevant professionals and decided the threshold was met for a Section 47 investigation. This is where there are child protection concerns. Part of the purpose of the assessment is to provide support to address the child’s needs and to improve the child’s outcomes and welfare, and where necessary to make them safe.
19. Assessments should include the children, ensuring their voice is heard, and should include the family. The Council’s records show it spoke with the children independently at their school, and twice visited the children’s mother and Mr B.
20. Mr B believes the Council should have listened to the views of others, such as neighbours. The assessment document has a section for key family members and support networks experience, but the Council has left this blank. The assessment does state contact from some of Mr B’s friends, in support of Mr B and confirming he was the children’s main care giver.
21. Mr B says the Council’s report does not give any context. Mr B explains his relationship with his wife was strained due to her actions, this had affected his mental health and they were arguing. Mr B used alcohol as a coping mechanism but denies ever putting the children at any risk or driving under the influence of alcohol. Mr B accepts he destroyed wedding photographs, but this was a one-off incident following an upsetting argument and not something the children were continually exposed to. Mr B says the Council’s report makes no mention of the previous eight years where the family was happy. The Council explained the assessment focusses on the presenting concerns and current situation leading to its involvement but can amend the report to confirm Children’s Services had not previously been involved with the family.
22. Mr B has provided evidence of e-mails he sent to the Council during the assessment period. The e-mails refer to telephone calls he had with the social worker. These show the Council was aware of Mr B’s views, and the background and reasons for the marriage breakdown and arguing, but that the Council’s priority was the safety and care of the children.
23. The mother moved her and the children to another council area. The mother was refusing contact between the children and their father (Mr B) and was not having contact with Mr B herself.
24. The Council decided it did not need to arrange an initial child protection conference because the children did not remain at risk of significant harm. The children were no longer living in an environment where they were overhearing their parents fighting and there was no ongoing role for Children’s Services.
25. Mr B made clear to the Council during the assessment that he felt the children would be better living with him as he was the main care giver, and the children would not have to move schools. Mr B was seeking legal advice to address this. The Council decided it did not need to take any further action. The issues around contact with the children, and the children’s residence, was a matter for the Family Court.
26. Mr B wrote to the Council to complain about the way it handled the assessment, and factual mistakes in the assessment report. The Council acknowledged it could amend factual mistakes, such as the ethnicity of the children, but not issues such as the report it received from the Police. However, the Council confirmed it could record Mr B disputed the information the Council received. The Council says it sent an amended report to Mr B; Mr B says he did not receive it. The Council has not provided evidence it was sent but has now sent it again.

Was there fault by the Council which caused Mr B injustice?

27. I must now consider whether there was fault in the Council’s actions which caused a significant injustice to Mr B.
28. Firstly, I would recognise the situation itself was a stressful one for Mr B. He and his wife were arguing, and their marriage was breaking down. Mr B’s wife made allegations about him to the Police, so the Police were investigating and had involved Children’s Services. Any parent or carer would worry about outside agencies becoming involved in their family life, which would add an extra layer of stress to an already upsetting situation.
29. The Council followed the correct process to investigate the concerns the Police raised with it. I cannot say there is fault in the Council’s actions, even though Mr B thinks the Council should have investigated differently. I cannot say that even if the Council had acted differently, for example speaking with some of the people Mr B thinks it should have, that it would have resulted in any different outcome. Ultimately the Council decided to take no action.
30. I have seen no evidence to support the Council was biased and have seen no record of it labelling Mr B as an abuser. The documents list the views of the family and relevant professionals about events that have taken place.
31. Mr B says he has not seen his children for many months and is worried about the impact on his relationship with them. I accept this is a major worry for Mr B, but this is not caused by the actions of the Council. Mr B is taking the correct steps to resolve his contact with his children, through the legal system.
32. Mr B says the Council’s actions have caused him distress and he is taking medication for depression. As explained above, the situation itself was a stressful and distressing one for those involved. I have not found any significant fault in the Council’s actions to decide it was solely because of the Council that Mr B is depressed and distressed.
33. Mr B challenges certain aspects of the Council’s report, for example where it states the children have witnessed domestic abuse. Mr B does not see arguments as part of the breakdown of his marriage as domestic abuse. Although there is a reason why the parents are upset and arguing, that does not prevent their actions from being domestic abuse. The Council followed the correct process to complete its report, by speaking with the children and the parents, so there is no reason for me to criticise it.
34. The Council says it sent the amended report to Mr B but has not shown this. Given the lack of evidence, and that Mr B says he did not receive it, I must consider it more likely than not the Council did not send it. I do not consider this fault is a significant one and it does not cause Mr B any significant injustice. The Council has now sent him the amended version.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no significant fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman