Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s children’s social care assessment of his family. He said it included incorrect information and was discriminatory. The Council has already accepted the assessment inappropriately referenced religious texts and made assumptions about his faith. That was fault. That caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council has made appropriate recommendations for social workers to ensure assessments are evidence based to prevent recurrence of this fault. It has also agreed to apologise to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not follow correct procedures after it received a safeguarding referral about his children’s welfare. He said the Council included incorrect information in his children’s assessment and that the assessment was discriminatory because of information it included about his religion.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions has caused him significant distress and that he had to take time off work.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the evidence he provided including an audio recording of his conversation with the social worker completing the section 47 enquiries.
7. I asked the Council questions about the complaint and considered the evidence it provided including the relevant case records and the Single Assessment.
8. I referred to the statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ 2018 (the Guidance) and the Council’s internal procedures.
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

Child in need

10. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are ‘in need’. The Council undertakes an assessment of the needs of the child to determine what services to provide and what action to take.

Children’s safeguarding procedures

11. The Council has a duty to investigate if it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. This duty comes under Section 47 of the Children Act.
12. Following a referral, the Council must decide within one working day whether it is going to begin an investigation. Before starting an investigation, the Council must hold a strategy discussion with the Police to decide what action to take.
13. If the Council decides to investigate, it must complete an assessment within 45 working days. The assessment will help the Council decide whether the child and family need help to keep the child safe.
14. Where the Council’s concerns that the child is likely to suffer significant harm are substantiated, it must arrange an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) within 15 working days of the strategy discussion. This is a multi-agency meeting to explore the safeguarding concerns and decide whether the child needs a child protection plan to ensure their safety.

Children’s social care assessments

15. The purpose of the assessment is to gather important information about the family and the child. This information is then used to analyse the child’s needs, any potential risks to their safety and wellbeing and whether they are likely to suffer any harm.
16. Assessments should be holistic and consider the child’s developmental needs, the parenting capacity and wider family and environmental factors.

The Equality Act

17. The Equality Act 2010 protects the rights of individuals and supports equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
18. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts.

What happened

19. Mr X and Mrs X have three young children. They decided to separate for a short period at the start of 2020 and Mr X moved out of the family home. Shortly after this, Mr X told his children’s school that he had concerns Mrs X had physically chastised their children.
20. The school made a safeguarding referral to the Council. The Council decided the family met the threshold for support as child in need. A social worker contacted Mr X. He gave them a video recording of Mrs X using physical chastisement against one of their children. He confirmed he had made the recordings the previous month using CCTV.
21. The social worker visited Mrs X the next day. Mrs X told the social worker she had just discovered the CCTV after living at the property for several weeks. The social worker discussed their concerns about Mrs X’s use of physical chastisement. Mrs X agreed to use different methods to enforce boundaries. Mrs X said Mr X had also smacked the children.
22. In that meeting Mrs X said she experienced physical and emotional abuse by Mr X and his extended family. She said she had ended the relationship because of the abuse. She said she lived near Mr X’s family and that they had keys to her property therefore she could not lock them out.
23. The social worker visited Mr X. He said he set up the camera to observe building work and he forgot it was still recording after Mrs X moved in. Mr X said he was not heavy handed with the children and that any type of physical chastisement was wrong.
24. Following its conversations with Mr and Mrs X, the Council held a strategy meeting that afternoon. It invited the Police, the children’s school and health. The meeting discussed the concerns about Mrs X’s use of physical chastisement. It also discussed Mrs X’s reported experiences of abuse from Mr X and his extended family.
25. The attendees at the meeting considered the greatest risk to the children’s safety and wellbeing was them being exposed to domestic abuse. They agreed the threshold for section 47 enquiries was met. To manage the immediate risks, the Council asked Mrs X to stay with a family member whilst it completed its assessment. Mrs X agreed.
26. The social worker visited Mr X to discuss its safeguarding action. Within this meeting they discussed the placement of the camera with Mr X and how long it had been present in Mrs X’s home. The case records state in that visit Mr X “inadvertently disclosed” he placed the camera as he was concerned about the welfare of his children.
27. Mrs X contacted the Council the same day and said she wanted to resume her relationship with Mr X. She moved back into the family home the following week.
28. The social worker completed an assessment of the children. It included:
• information from health and education;
• observations of both Mr and Mrs X’s interactions with their children;
• information about Mrs X’s use of physical chastisement;
• Mrs X’s disclosures around domestic abuse, her lack of familial support and social isolation; and
• Reference to Mr and Mrs X’s faith and its religious text.
29. The Council assessed the children as being at risk of physical harm from physical chastisement from both Mrs X and Mr X. It also identified ongoing risks around domestic abuse as Mrs X had disclosed prolonged abuse by Mr X and his family. It assessed the risks as escalated because of what it described as ‘honour’ based violence due to Mr and Mrs X’s faith. That is a term used to describe violence used to protect or defend the ‘honour’ of the family. It decided the risks met the threshold to hold an initial child protection conference (ICPC).
30. The Council arranged the ICPC within the 15 working day timeframe. Mr and Mrs X, the children’s school and health visitor attended the meeting. The attendees of the meeting recommended the Council place the children on a child protection plan. The Council agreed the children were at risk of domestic abuse and needed a child protection plan under the category of emotional abuse.
31. Mr X subsequently complained to the Council with several concerns. These included complaints about the Council’s assessment which he said:
• contained inaccurate information, such as Mrs X stating she had asked for a divorce and that he had disclosed he had installed the camera to observe Mrs X’s behaviour with the children.
• made generalisations about his religion that were discriminatory and that were included to reinforce the social workers narrative around ‘honour’-based violence.
• failed to include an incident where he had contacted the Police because of Mrs X’s behaviour.
32. He said that despite him providing evidence to the Council that the children were at risk from Mrs X, the Council placed the children with her.
33. The Council’s first complaint response did not uphold his complaints and did not address all his concerns. Mr X asked the Council to investigate it further and to address each complaint he made.
34. The Council’s second stage response upheld two parts of his complaint. It said it was not appropriate for the Council to reference religious texts within its assessment and that the assessment included assumptions about Mr and Mrs X’s religion and the consequential risk of domestic abuse. It made recommendations that social workers used a clear evidence base in their decision making and not to make assumptions about religious beliefs or preferences.
35. It accepted the assessment should have included the incident where Mr X had contacted the Police. It said that all reported incidents of domestic abuse should be included within assessments to include a fuller understanding and analysis.
36. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s other complaints. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman. He believes the Council’s assessment was inaccurate and resulted in the Council wrongly placing the children on a child protection plan.

My findings

How the Council dealt with the safeguarding referral

37. After receiving the safeguarding referral, the Council decided the family met the threshold for support as children in need. It made that decision within one working day.
38. After speaking to Mrs X and her disclosures about domestic abuse, it decided to arrange a strategy meeting to discuss whether its concerns met the threshold for a safeguarding investigation. That was the correct course of action based on the information available. The Council was not at fault.
39. The attendees at the strategy meeting considered the video evidence provided by Mr X and the information provided by Mrs X about her relationship with Mr X. It decided the potential risk to the children were greater if they were exposed to further domestic abuse. Although Mr X disagrees with the Council’s actions, we cannot criticise the Council’s decision when it followed the correct steps to make it. The Council was not at fault.

The Council’s assessment

40. Mr X said the assessment incorrectly stated Mrs X had asked for a divorce. Neither I nor Mr X was present at the meeting between the social worker and Mrs X. Although the case records of that meeting do not explicitly state divorce, the information provided by Mrs X was that she had ended the relationship. The Council was not at fault.
41. Mr X also complained the assessment was inaccurate as it said he revealed placing the camera to check the children were safe whilst with Mrs X. The assessment is not a transcript of Mr X’s conversation with the Council but reflects the view the social worker formed from meeting with Mr X. Mr X did not explicitly state he placed the CCTV to monitor the welfare of the children, however, from listening to the recorded discussion, it is probable that is what the social worker understood from their discussion with him. The Council was not at fault.
42. However, even if I had of found fault, I do not consider it has caused Mr X a significant injustice. The reason for the installation of the CCTV was not a determining factor in the Council deciding to proceed to the ICPC. That were its wider concerns about domestic abuse and physical chastisement. In addition, the Council shared the assessment with Mr X before the ICPC. He put forward his explanation for the CCTV within that meeting. Therefore, any disagreement is recorded in the Council’s case records.
43. The Council has already accepted that a previous Police callout where the Police were called in response to Mrs X should have been included within the assessment. It has also accepted the assessment made assumptions about Mr and Mrs X religion and how that impacted on the risk of domestic abuse. Both these were fault. The Council has taken steps to address this internally. It should also apologise to Mr X for any avoidable distress this caused.
44. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding on whether the Council unlawfully discriminated against Mr X. Such decisions about discrimination are for the Courts. Therefore, I have considered whether the Council’s fault in respect of its characterisation of faith-based practice affected its decision to hold an ICPC. Because of Mrs X’s disclosures about domestic abuse and the physical chastisement of the children, the Council decided the threshold for an ICP was met. Although it assessed the potential of ‘honour’-based violence as escalating the risk it was not the only factor for recommending the ICPC. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process in its decision making. The Council was not at fault.
45. The Council’s decision to place the children on a child protection plan was informed by feedback by attendees at the meeting. The attended all agreed a child protection plan was necessary. The Council set out its reasons for needing the plan. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to write to Mr X and apologise for any avoidable distress caused by assumptions it made about his religion in its assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

47. We find the Council was at fault for making assumptions about Mr X’s religion in its assessment. It has already taken action to address the fault identified. It has also agreed to apologise to Mr X for any avoidable distress caused. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman