Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's assessment of her parenting when it decided to place her children on child protection plans. The Council was at fault for making two poorly evidenced statements about Miss X’s mental health and for not sending reports in advance of child protection conferences. This caused Miss X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and place a note of the Ombudsman's concerns about the accuracy of the statements about Miss X’s mental health on the children’s records. The Council will also remind its staff they have to send reports to parents before child protection conferences. The Council was not at fault in the other matters Miss X complained about.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council's child protection planning for her children. Specifically, Miss X said:
1. the Council wrongly said she had mental health issues including personality disorder and panic attacks;
2. the Council did not consider the impact of her children’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) and wrongly attributed their needs to her parenting;
3. the Council said it had concerns she had been coaching her children to tell lies;
4. the Council did not send her feedback after it carried out a parenting assessment;
5. the Council refused to offer her eldest child respite; and
6. a health visitor made statements she did not like.
2. Miss X said the Council's actions were extremely distressing, meant she lost her job, accrued significant debt and almost became homeless.

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the complaint points (a) to (e) above. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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.

6. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)

7. 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)

8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. Miss X complained about issues dating to around 2018. There is no good reason to look further back than 12 months from the date the Ombudsman began its investigation.

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered:
• all the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.

10. Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Child protection

11. The statutory guidance, ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ says everyone who works with children has a responsibility for keeping them safe. If children and families are to receive the right help at the right time, everyone who encounters them has a role to play in identifying concerns, sharing information, and taking prompt action.
12. 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.
13. If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference.
14. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
15. After the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC), there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences (RCPC’s) to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
16. The Council is part of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Safeguarding Children’s Partnership Board (the Board), which brings together several councils, hospital trusts, the Police and other bodies to safeguard children. The Board’s policy says the Council should produce a report setting out information it has relating to a child, including:
• a chronology of events;
• a summary of the child’s needs;
• the family’s capacity to protect the child; and
• an analysis of the risks to the child and whether they should be supported with a Child Protection Plan.

17. The Council should send the report to the child’s parents two working days before the ICPC. It should also ensure parents receive reports prepared for RCPC’s in advance of the meetings.

Child in need

18. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. 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.

19. Councils do this by ‘providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs’. Caselaw has set out that councils have wide choice to decide what services to provide to a child in need.

What happened

20. Miss X’s children had previously been on Child Protection Plans and in April 2021, the Council placed them on Plans again. It felt they were at risk of significant harm from emotional abuse. The Council was primarily concerned about Miss X’s relationship with her eldest child and the impact the conflict arising from that relationship had on her other children.
21. Miss X was unhappy about the Council's decision to place the children on Child Protection Plans and disputed its rationale for doing so. She contacted the Council repeatedly until August 2021, when the Council said it would not respond further as it had nothing to add. In summary, Miss X said:
• she initially needed help with her eldest child. She said she no longer needed that help and would not tolerate the Council's allegations;
• the Council falsely said she had a diagnosis of personality disorder and the children’s social worker had said she experienced reported panic attacks;
• the Council said she had coached her children to tell lies;
• the Council had not acknowledged her children had Special Educational Needs and therefore attributed their difficulties to her parenting; and
• the Council had carried out a parenting assessment and never sent her any feedback.
22. The Council responded to say:
• the minutes of the April 2021 ICPC noted the agencies present did not have a full understanding of Miss X’s mental health. The minutes stated Miss X reported experiencing panic attacks and said she was emotionally affected by her eldest child living at home. The Council said it spoke to the children’s social worker who said Miss X had not directly expressed having panic attacks to her. The Council encouraged Miss X to share more information about her mental health by giving it access to her GP records. Miss X later agreed to do so;
• the children’s Child Protection Plans stated the ICPC had heard “there may have been a previous diagnosis of personality disorder”. The Council said it did not know where that information had come from and said it would ask for the Child Protection Plan wording to be amended to reflect that. It said professionals were nonetheless concerned about her ability to regulate her emotions and the impact that had on the children;
• it had been concerned in the past that Miss X had told the children to share information in the way she wanted them to. It noted the Police had recently recorded one of the children looked to their mother when giving their account. Miss X had refused to have a new parenting assessment as part of the new child protection process, so it did not have a full understanding of the current risks to the children, including in terms of coaching; and
• it felt it had properly considered the impact of the children’s SEN during the child protection process. It had set out their SEN needs in its child and family assessment, which it relied upon in producing the Child Protection Plan. At the July RCPC, the children’s school gave the conference an update on the their SEN provision. The Council nonetheless felt the children’s SEN was not the only factor putting them at risk.
23. Records of the Council's child protection planning show all professionals involved had concerns about the children’s behaviour, events in the home and Miss X and her partner’s parenting ability. Professionals felt there were numerous areas where the children were at risk of harm. This included Miss X’s ability to cope with the children’s challenging behaviour and regulate her emotions. The documents confirm the Council considered the impact of the children’s SEN on their behaviour in deciding to continue the child protection plans.
24. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Miss X had not agreed to a parenting assessment and had not completed one since 2016. It acknowledged it had not sent Miss X its reports before the ICPC or one of RCPC’s.

Respite

25. In February 2021, Miss X’s eldest son was classed as a ‘child in need’. Miss X complained the Council had said her eldest son was not eligible for respite. She said his behaviour was out of control and harmful to other family members. Miss X was seeking respite in the form a period where her son lived elsewhere.
26. The Council responded that month to say it had carried out three assessments of Miss X’s son’s needs since 2018. As a result of the assessments, it had put significant support in place, including from teams designed to support children at risk of exploitation and parental training courses. It said respite was normally for children with significant disabilities who require 24 hour support. Miss X’s son did not meet that criterion.

Findings

Child protection planning

27. Miss X feels the Council's understanding of her wellbeing, parenting ability and children’s needs is flawed and they should not be on child protection plans. In particular, Miss X said she does not have any mental health issues. The Council accepted it did not know where the statement that Miss X may have a diagnosis of personality disorder came from. The Council also accepted it did not know the origin of the statement in the ICPC that Miss X reported panic attacks. The children’s social worker confirmed Miss X had not told them she had panic attacks and Miss X is adamant she did not have them. On balance, I consider Miss X did not report experiencing panic attacks. The inaccurate reference to personality disorder and panic attacks was fault and caused Miss X avoidable distress. The Council acted appropriately by removing the reference to the personality disorder from subsequent child protection plans. However, I consider further action is needed to remedy the distress Miss X experienced, as set out in paragraph 33.
28. However, overall, records show professionals involved with the children raised repeated concerns about Miss X’s ability to manage her emotions and cope with the environment at home. These concerns were not based purely on the possible mental health diagnosis or the report of panic attacks. They considered the difficulties the children’s behaviour presented and Miss X’s responses to them. Miss X also initially refused to give the Council access to her GP records to give it more information about her mental health and confirm whether she had received a mental health diagnosis. The Council was therefore unable to check the legitimacy of its concerns. If a council is concerned a parent’s mental health may be a risk factor for their children, it should record its concerns and consider what action is required in response. The Council did this; it was not at fault.
29. Several of Miss X’s children have SEN. The Council considered the impact of the children’s SEN in its child and family assessment, child protection plans and at a RCPC. The Council did not agree the children’s SEN was the only factor placing them at risk and records show there were significant other concerns about the risk of harm to the children. There was no fault in how the Council considered the impact of the children’s SEN on their needs and the risk of harm to them.
30. Whether or not Miss X coached the children to make certain statements is a matter of professional judgement. The Council's complaint response explained its rationale. It had historical concerns about coaching and recent events had suggested it may still be an issue. Miss X’s refusal to engage with a new parenting assessment meant it could not gain a full understanding of whether the children were still at risk. The Council properly considered the relevant information, and tried to get additional relevant information, so was not at fault.
31. Miss X complained the Council did not send her the outcome of its parenting assessment. The Council was not at fault; it did not carry out a parenting assessment after the child protection planning began in April 2021 because Miss X would not agree to one. However, the Council has accepted it did not send reports to Miss X in advance of the ICPC and one of the RCPC’s. This was not in compliance with the Board’s policy, which states reports should be sent at least two working days before conferences. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration.

Respite

32. The Ombudsman cannot question a council's decision if it is made without fault. In meeting the needs of a child in need, the Council has wide choice to decide what support is necessary. The threshold for respite where a child is placed elsewhere for a short time is very high. In considering Miss X’s request for respite, the Council looked at the outcome of its assessments of her eldest son’s needs and the support it had already put in place. The Council explained it did not think Miss X’s son met that threshold. The Council considered the relevant information in deciding not to offer respite and so was not at fault.

Agreed action

33. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Miss X for the distress and frustration caused by the fault identified in this decision; and
• add a copy of this decision to the children’s records to reflect the Ombudsman's concerns about the reference to personality disorder and panic attacks.
34. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will remind its staff they have to share reports with parents at least two working days before child protection conferences.

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent the fault occurring again.

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

36. I did not investigate complaint (f) because Miss X complained about the actions of a health worker. The health worker was an employee of the local hospital trust so their actions are not in our jurisdiction. Miss X has already complained to the hospital trust so can now complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). PHSO is the body best placed to consider Miss X’s complaint about this issue.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman