Summary: Miss M complains the Council opened up a new child protection assessment based on a malicious referral with no new evidence. She also complains about several aspects of the assessment and its outcomes. We do not uphold the complaint. The referral mentioned an escalation of behaviours, so the Council had reason to carry out an investigation. And we cannot question the merits of the outcomes of its investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss M, is being represented by her father (Mr N). They complain the Council opened a new enquiry about her and her children’s circumstances, despite the referral being entirely based on old information. Their complaints include that:
• a Children Centre’s referral back to the Council’s Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) team was malicious;
• there was nothing in the initial referral about a bruise that was added two months later;
• the Council had already made up its mind to try to remove one of her children;
• the Council’s social worker said in her assessment Miss M’s mental ill-health was affecting her ability to care for her children. But:

• the social worker did not have the expertise in mental health to make that judgement;
• she has never been diagnosed with a mental health condition, so it is hard to see where the social worker’s view came from;
• contrary to what the social worker said, any issues she has with her own food and drink intake has not affected how she cares for her children;
• the Council forced entry into her home; and
• the Council illegally accessed her medical records.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr N;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Miss M;
• considered our decision on an earlier complaint;
• sent my draft decision to Mr N and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

The 1989 Children Act and Working Together to Safeguard Children

5. The Act and its guidance (Working Together to Safeguard Children) says anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care. When a council receives a referral, the law requires it to take action to find out more, if it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm or neglect.
6. Councils carry out assessments in liaison with safeguarding partner organisations. A 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 a council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. Outcomes can include that no further action is needed, provision of family support, that a child is in need, or that there are child protection concerns.
7. The guidance says data protection law and Regulations do not prevent information sharing that is needed for the purposes of keeping children safe. And:

“It is not necessary to seek consent to share information for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of a child provided that there is a lawful basis to process any personal information required. The legal bases that may be appropriate for sharing data in these circumstances could be ‘legal obligation’ or ‘public task’ which includes the performance of a task in the public interest or the exercise of official authority.”

8. If the result of an assessment is that a child is in need, a council will provide support through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly. A child is in need if:
• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

What happened

9. The amount of information provided by Mr N and the Council was considerable. In this statement, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.

Background

10. Miss M lives with her partner (Mr P) and her three children (whom I shall refer to as Q, R and S). At the time the complaint relates to, Q and R were infants and S was just over a year old. The Council’s children and young people’s service had previously been involved with the family. Its last Child in Need Plan ended in June 2020.

The referral

11. In September 2020 a Family Support Worker at a Children’s Centre raised concerns with the Council’s MASH. Her main concerns were about:
• Miss M’s eating disorder behaviours, which Miss M advised had worsened since S’s birth;
• Q’s behaviour which was worsening. Miss M said she could not control the behaviour. The referral said Miss M had reported to the support worker that Q throwing things had led to bruising to S.

The assessment

12. The Council considered the referrral and concluded it met the threshold for an assessment. Over the next two weeks a Council social worker spoke to Miss M several times. A social worker also spoke to Mr P, the children and the Headteacher at Q and R’s school.
13. The Council’s records of those contacts noted:
• the children’s attendance at school was a concern, due to lateness. Miss M noted how this was because of Q’s behaviour. But also that Miss M was engaging well with the school;
• Miss M advised she had an eating disorder. But she did not believe it affected her parenting;
• Miss M and Mr P were initially resistant to the contact from the Council. But they did engage with the social worker.
14. In mid-September, a social worker wrote to Miss M’s family’s GP surgery noting it was carrying out an assessment and needed some information from the surgery. The surgery supplied the information the following day.
15. In the early part of November, the Council completed its assessment. Its record says its concerns were about:
• the escalation of Miss M’s eating behaviours and the psychological and emotional risk to the children from witnessing the behaviour;
• Miss M had not engaged in the past with mental health support;
• Q’s challenging behaviour and the danger from it to R and S. The records of the assessment noted that Q’s behaviour had led to S getting a bruise.
16. The assessment and a multi-agency review meeting’s view were the concerns met the threshold for a new child in need plan. Included in the action plan were:
• the need for Miss M and Mr P to engage with universal services (school, health visitor and GP) and social worker;
• the social worker would explore the family’s request for a keyworker;
• for the parents to make sure Q and R got to school on time;
• Miss M to engage with a referral for support around her body image and eating disorder.
17. Shortly after the Council finalised the child in need plan, the social worker visited Miss M with a health visitor, to share with her what the results of the assessment were. Miss M says the social worker forced entry. The social worker’s records of that visit do not have any record of forced entry.
18. The Council’s records show it remained involved with the family for some months, including arranging a keyworker to begin to work with the family.
19. In March 2021 the Council ended its involvement. Its closure record notes the social worker who had been working with the family had to stop this work. And Miss M and Mr P had not engaged with the social worker that took over. But:

“…parents have slowly built up trust with the family keyworker and although engagement has not been great, they are to some extent working with her around parenting support. Therefore, rather than attempt to continue fruitlessly to force social worker involvement in with this family, management decision has been taken to close the [Child in Need] plan and give the family a period of working with the family keyworker at a support level. Social work management team will support keyworker and will ensure professionals understand the rationale to this decision.”

The complaint

20. At the end of 2020 and into 2021 Mr N, on Miss M’s behalf, complained to the Council about its assessment. The Council’s response said its view was the assessment was necessary due to several needs.
21. Mr N complained to the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised:
• at the November 2020 multi-professional meeting, all agreed the children were at risk of significant harm (neglect);
• it did not have evidence that Miss M’s food and drink intake affected how she cared for her children. But it would like her to access support around this issue; something she had refused to do.

Analysis

The referral was malicious

22. Miss M and Mr N’s view is the Council should not have opened up a new file, as there was nothing new in a malicious referral from the Children’s Centre. I agree that the issues the Children’s Centre raised were not new. But the referral did report escalations. The Council’s view was these were enough of a concern to warrant a new assessment.
23. We cannot question a decision the Council has made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence. My decision is the Council did have concerns that were enough to justify its decision.

The initial referral did not mention bruise

24. I have seen the initial referral and it does record that Miss M had told the Family Support Worker about a bruise. So I cannot uphold this part of the complaint. Mr N has sent me several photographs of the children, from around the time of the referral, that do not show a bruise. But this is not conclusive, as the information does not say S’s bruise was contemporaneous with the referral. Rather the referral is reporting what Miss M told the officer.

The Council had already decided to try to remove one of the children

25. I see no evidence to support this concern. There is no mention in the Council’s records of possible removal of the children. Instead the focus of the Council’s actions was to provide Miss M and Mr P with support.
26. The fact the Council moved to a child in need plan (rather than child protection) is also an indication the Council had no intention at that stage to remove any of Miss M’s children.

The social worker could not make a judgment about mental health

27. To be clear, the social worker’s concerns were that Miss M had a history of not engaging with mental health support she had been offered. The Council’s file supports this statement. I do not agree the social worker was making a diagnosis of Miss M’s mental health conditions.

Miss M’s food and drink intake does not affect her parenting

28. Miss M is wrong to say that the Council’s concerns about her eating disorder was about how it affected her ability to care for her children. The Council accepts it does not have evidence of this being a barrier to her caring for her children.
29. But the Council was concerned about the emotional and psychological effect on the children of them witnessing some aspects of Miss M’s behaviours associated with her eating disorder. That was a concern that was supported by evidence. So it is not something the Ombudsman can question the merits of.

The Council forced entry to Miss M’s home

30. Miss M’s account and the social worker’s records differ on this. In the absence of other evidence, I cannot reconcile the conflicting accounts of what happened. So I do not have the evidence to make a finding of fault on this complaint.

The Council illegally accessed Miss M’s medical records

31. The law allows for organisations to share information with councils investigating the wellbeing of children. It would have been good practice for the Council to have let Miss M know it had sought this information. But the nature of the concerns means the Council was justified in seeking the information it did. To be clear, the decision to share the information was by the GP’s surgery and not the Council. So I do not uphold this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I do not uphold the complaint and have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman