Summary: Mr X complained of racism, mental health discrimination, and other bias by the Council during a child protection investigation. He said the Council’s faults caused harm to his child, caused him to lose his livelihood, and affected his health. The Council accepted fault about provision of an advocate, information sharing and communication prior to the Ombudsman’s intervention. It has apologised for this. We are satisfied this remedy is appropriate and there is no further fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complains:
1. of racism and bias during a child protection investigation and initial child protection conference (ICPC);
2. that throughout the process there was a failure to take into account needs arising from his and his child’s autism and mental health. He says he requested adjustments and informed the ICPC chair that he was struggling mentally and no accommodation was made;
3. that the Council has taken his former partner’s allegations at face value without subjecting them to scrutiny;
4. that his case was transferred to a social worker at a different council who was a long-term acquaintance and who had previously studied with the previous social worker; and,
5. that the Council made a referral to his employer which resulted in him losing his job.
2. Mr X says the Council’s faults have caused harm to his child as well as causing him to lose his livelihood and impacting his physical health. He wants the Council to admit fault and remove all references to him related to domestic abuse from its records. He also seeks financial compensation for the distress caused to his children and for the loss of his employment and professional reputation.

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

6. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
8. 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)

9. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. We spoke to Mr X and considered information provided by Mr X and by the Council. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection investigations

11. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018 provides guidance on how councils should protect and support children. The document states that “whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, there should be a strategy discussion.” The purpose of the strategy meeting is to decide a plan of future action to safeguard the child’s welfare.
12. If the strategy discussion concludes the child is at risk of, or has suffered, significant harm the council must carry out a child protection investigation known as a Section 47 enquiry. If the investigation concludes that the threshold of risk of significant harm is met, the council must then hold an initial child protection conference (ICPC). This is a multi-agency meeting chaired by an independent person. The conference may conclude that the child needs to be placed on a child protection plan in order to protect them from harm. If the threshold for significant harm is not met, but professionals think the child concerned needs additional support from the council, the child may be placed instead on a Child in Need plan.

What happened

13. Mr X has three daughters with his estranged wife, Ms Y. At the time of the complaint, the oldest child was a teenager and the youngest was pre-school age. Both parents were employed by the Council. Neither parent worked in Children’s Services.
14. In 2019, the Council received safeguarding referrals about the children and Ms Y from the older children’s schools and from a domestic abuse organisation. The oldest child’s school attendance was low and she was also failing to attend appointments with NHS mental health services. Ms Y had reported psychological and financial abuse by Mr X.
15. The Council decided to hold a strategy meeting. The meeting decided the threshold for a Section 47 enquiry was met. The Council began child protection enquiries and conducted an assessment. Concerns remained, and social workers were finding it hard to complete a safety plan for the children. So, the Council referred the case to an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The Council also referred both parents to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). The LADO is responsible for co-ordinating the Council’s response to concerns about adults who work for the local authority and may pose a risk to children.
16. Mr X and Ms Y attended the ICPC and the older children were invited to attend. The conference minutes state Mr X said he did not wish to participate verbally in the meeting and that it was agreed he would write comments to the chair for later distribution to conference members. Mr X’s and Ms Y’s views are reflected in the conference minutes, which show Mr X did respond to questions from the conference chair.
17. The conference minutes show professionals’ main concerns were about how the parents were interacting with each other. The professionals unanimously decided all three children were at risk of emotional abuse and should be placed on a child protection plan. The plan involved actions to be taken by both parents.
18. Mr X later made a referral about one of the children, alleging historic physical and possibly sexual abuse by Ms Y’s relative. The Council held another strategy meeting and decided to take no further action as the children were already on child protection plans. In December, due to concerns raised by Mr X about conflicts of interest due to Ms Y’s employment with the Council, the Council transferred the case to a different council, Council 2. The children all remained on child protection plans throughout 2020 after further assessment by Council 2.
19. Mr X made a large number of complaints about the Council’s handling of the child protection process. The Council investigated his complaints under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. Stage two of the process took longer than the statutory timescale of 65 days. The Council apologised for the delay, which it said was due to staff availability.
20. Mr X complained that staff involved in the assessment and ICPC did not take into account factors requiring “reasonable adjustments” to be made, including Mr X’s and his family’s cultural background, autism, his mental health issues and his communication style. His complaint that the Council failed to provide an advocate for the ICPC was upheld at stage two. The remainder of the complaints were not upheld. Mr X had asked for a “cultural expert” to attend the child protection conference a few days before the conference was held. He said this was due to “grey areas around the cultural cognitive risk” but did not provide further explanation.
21. The stage two report noted that neither Mr X nor his children had been diagnosed with autism at the time of the matters concerned, and that the social worker dealing with the family had experience of working with children and adults with autism. Mr X had not asked for reasonable adjustments prior to the ICPC.
22. Mr X also said he had been subject to discrimination due to his mental health, autism, sex, and race. He said that when he worked for the Council he had given training to the family social worker who had made a racist comment during the training session. The investigating officer was unable to reach a finding of Mr X’s claims of discrimination due to insufficient evidence. The social worker denied having made a racist remark and there was no evidence that any complaint was made at the time of the training.
23. Mr X also complained of bias in Ms Y’s favour throughout the child protection process. He said Ms Y’s claims were accepted without question and his version of events omitted from reports. The stage two report noted that the views of the mother and father were captured in the child protection assessments and that concerns were raised about both parents. Both parents were present at the ICPC. It also noted there was no evidence of a prior personal or professional relationship between the investigating social worker and Ms Y. Neither parent was able to access their own case records.
24. Finally, Mr X complained about the conduct of the assessment and ICPC, including not being given a timely right of reply to the assessment report. He complained that a male social worker gained admittance to his house without permission and pressured him to allow him to interview his daughter alone in her room. The stage two report upheld Mr X’s complaints about information sharing. It found that he was not shown the full social worker assessment until just before the ICPC. It did not uphold the complaint about the male social worker as it accepted his testimony that he had been invited into the house by the children’s grandmother. It made no finding on the complaint about the interview with the daughter as the parties provided differing accounts of the situation. The stage two report also upheld a finding relating to an email from Mr X about his safeguarding concerns for his daughter. The Council did not respond to the email and the report found Mr X was justified in feeling his concerns were ignored, though action was in fact taken.
25. The Investigating Officer recommended the Council apologise for the failings identified and made recommendations on case recording and the production of a leaflet for families going through child protection proceedings. The Council agreed to the stage two recommendations. Mr X was unhappy with the findings and asked for escalation to stage three.
26. Mr X said he had evidence that one of the children’s social workers had behaved unprofessionally and that Ms Y had previously worked with the Children’s Services team. He also said that he had not been fit to proceed with the ICPC due to his disability-related issues. The stage three review panel upheld the stage two findings. The Council set deadlines for implementing the recommendations and issued an apology to Mr X.
27. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman. He repeated his view that the child protection process was racist and discriminatory, and that his mental health difficulties and autism had not been taken into account. He said Ms Y had a personality disorder that had not been fully considered. He also complained that he had lost his job as a result of the “false abuse claims”. He said that the case had been moved to Council 2 and complained that the social worker who took over was a personal acquaintance or friend of the Council’s social worker. He requested financial compensation, for references to domestic abuse by him to be removed from the record, and for financial compensation for his loss of employment.
28. Mr X also asked for his point about the social worker’s unauthorised entry to his home and interview with his daughter to be re-examined. I did not investigate the unauthorised entry as I could not add to the Council’s own investigation.

Analysis

29. I consider the Council’s complaint investigation to be comprehensive and thorough. I have not seen evidence that contradicts its findings or indicates further investigation is necessary.

Racism and bias during child protection procedures

30. Mr X complains of racism and bias during the child protection investigation and initial child protection conference (ICPC) (part a of the complaint).
31. The Council was unable to reach a finding on Mr X’s complaint about racism. I am unable to investigate further as there is no additional evidence to consider.
32. The Council has sent me copies of its records on the case, including case notes, records of strategy discussions and ICPC minutes. There is no evidence of bias towards Ms Y. The documents show Mr X’s views were recorded and taken into account at each stage of the child protection process. I do not find the Council at fault.

Failure to take account of Mr X’s needs

33. Mr X complains that throughout the process there was a failure to take into account needs arising from his and his child’s autism and mental health. He says he requested adjustments and informed the ICPC chair that he was struggling mentally and no accommodation was made (part b of the complaint).
34. The Council has accepted fault in that Mr X was not provided with an advocate for the ICPC and has apologised. The Council’s minutes show Mr X and his daughters were able to express their views throughout the child protection process and these were taken into account. I do not consider that provision of other reasonable adjustments such as a cultural expert or further accommodation for the family’s mental health issues and autism during the assessment or ICPC would have resulted in a different decision. I therefore do not intend to investigate further. I find there is no additional fault by the Council. An apology is an appropriate remedy for the fault already identified, given there is limited injustice to Mr X.

Taking allegations at face value

35. Mr X complains that the Council has taken Ms Y’s allegations at face value without subjecting them to scrutiny (part c of the complaint).
36. The Council’s records include notes of Ms Y’s allegations about Mr X, including records of statements made to the police and a domestic abuse organisation, and also Mr X’s response to these. There is no evidence of bias towards Ms Y. Mr X sent us a copy of a psychologist’s report on the family members. The report includes allegations from Ms Y about Mr X’s controlling behaviour and its impact on her mental health. Mr X feels the psychologist’s conclusions should have been given more weight by the Council when evaluating Ms Y’s statements. The report describes Mr X’s and Ms Y’s personality style but does not identify any disorder.
37. In my view, the psychologist’s report is not evidence that the Council should have subjected Ms Y’s evidence to closer scrutiny, as Mr X suggests. I also do not consider that subjecting Ms Y’s statements to further scrutiny would have resulted in a different decision at any stage of the process. I therefore do not intend to investigate further. I find there is no fault by the Council.

Social worker

38. Mr X complains that his case was transferred to a social worker at a different council who was a long-term acquaintance and who had previously studied with the previous social worker (part d of the complaint).
39. As I have said in paragraph five, we cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. Mr X complains about the relationship between the social worker employed by Council 2 and the family’s former social worker at the Council. I find this is a personnel issue. For this reason, it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction so I will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Referral to Mr X’s employer

40. Mr X complains that the Council made a referral to his employer which resulted in him losing his job (part e of the complaint).
41. Mr X complains about the Council’s referral to the LADO and subsequent loss of his job. We explained to Mr X that we are not able to investigate or compensate him for employment decisions. The correct forum for employment-related complaints is the employment tribunal.
42. This part of the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph seven). Therefore, I have not investigated this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. The Council accepted fault and remedied this prior to the Ombudsman's intervention. I find that the remedy already offered is appropriate and there is no further fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman