Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to child protection matters. The Council was at fault for not considering the allegations of abuse which were made against Mr X before it decided the next appropriate steps to take. The Council has already apologised to Mr X however, the Council has agreed it will also remind staff to properly consider allegations of abuse before it decides on what actions to take.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to child protection matters. He said the Council treated him unfairly and was biased towards his ex-partner. He also said the Council did not provide him with proper support in taking care of his child. Mr X said this caused him significant distress. He wants the Council to apologise to him, to listen to his concerns and provide him with the support required to take care of his child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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. I spoke with Mr X’s representative about his complaint and considered the information they provided.
5. I considered the information the Council provided. This included documents in relation to the child protection plan.
6. Mr X, his representative and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

Duty to investigate and make enquiries

7. Under section 47 of the Children’s Act 1989, 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. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
8. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.

Acting on a referral

9. 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.
10. Councils 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 councils 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.
11. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly councils 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”.

Child Protection Conference arrangements

12. 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.
13. 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.

Background

14. Mr X has two children with his ex-partner, Miss X. Child Y lives with Mr X and child Z lives with Miss X.
15. Y has complex health problems. The Council’s Children’s Disability Service Team has provided Mr X with a support package which helps him with taking care of Y.
16. Mr X has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

What happened

17. In September 2021, Miss X was pregnant with her second child, Z, with Mr X. At the time, Miss X and Mr X were already separated as a couple due to a history of conflict between them. During an antenatal care appointment, Miss X reported to her midwife she had continued to suffer with domestic abuse from Mr X. The midwife reported the matter to the Council.
18. Following this, the Council completed a child and family assessment with Mr X and Miss X. This involved the Council visiting and speaking to them both to explore the issues between them in more depth and identify what impact they were having on the children.
19. In October 2021, the Council conducted an initial child protection conference as it was concerned about the domestic abuse and ongoing conflict between Mr X and Miss X and the impact it had on both children. The conference was attended by the Council’s Social Work Team and other various agencies such as the Children’s Community Nursing Team and a domestic service team for women. The Council considered the child and family assessment and reports from other agencies such as the children’s general practitioner and the police.
20. The Council with the other agencies concluded Mr X and Miss X’s children were at risk of emotional abuse. They agreed to implement a child protection plan. As part of the plan, actions were put in place to ensure the children were safe and not exposed to abuse and conflict. Some of these actions included for:
• both Mr X and Miss X to attend workshop sessions with their social workers in relation to domestic abuse and family conflict.
• the Council to refer Mr X to a domestic abuse service for perpetrators.
• Miss X to continue engaging with a domestic abuse service for women.
21. Since the implementation of the child protection plan, the Council has continued to review it. Mr X refused to be referred to the domestic abuse service for perpetrators.

The Complaint

22. Between September 2021 and January 2022, Mr X complained to the Council in relation to the process of the child protection plan. He said the Council had:
• negatively commented on his diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and how it could affect him taking care of his child, Y, in the future.
• not considered he was also a victim of domestic abuse which he had suffered from his ex-partner’s actions. He said the Council had failed to provide him with support in relation to this and instead, it had referred him to a domestic abuse organisation for perpetrators. He said the Council had been biased against him as it had provided support to his ex-partner in relation to domestic abuse. Mr X believed this was because he was a male.
23. Mr X also complained about the Council’s lack of support it had given to him in relation with taking care of Y. He said the Council had not provided him with a suitable house and a hospital bed for Y.
24. The Council responded to Mr X. It said:
• it did not discriminate against him because of his diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder. The Council had only highlighted his condition to recognise areas of support he might need in the future as a parent to his children. It noted Mr X had a rigid routine when he cared for Y. However, it also noted Mr X was taking care of Y very well. The Council said as his children grow and develop, they will need a flexible parenting style to support their development throughout different stages of their lives.
• it noted Mr X had shared with the Social Work Team his experience of being a victim of domestic abuse in his relationship with Miss X. The Social Work Team had advised Mr X to report the incident to the police. However, the Council noted the Social Work Team did not offer Mr X any support such as referring him to other services which could help him. Following this, the Council referred Mr X to a domestic support service for victims and signposted him to other helpful agencies. The Council added it did not discriminate against Mr X because of his gender.
• there was a shortage of housing in Mr X’s area therefore it was taking the Council significantly longer to move families into more suitable housing. It said its Social Work Team would continue to liaise with its Housing Team.
25. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

26. As part of my investigation, I asked the Council:
• on what basis it decided to refer Mr X to a domestic abuse service for perpetrators.
• what consideration it had given to Mr X’s housing matter and the hospital bed he required for Y.
27. In response, the Council did not provide evidence to support its decision to refer Mr X to the domestic abuse service for perpetrators.
28. Since Mr X’s complaint to us:
• Mr X has been awarded the appropriate priority banding in relation to housing. This means he is able to bid on properties which are suitable for him and his child.
• the Council’s Occupational Therapy Team completed an assessment with Y for a hospital bed. The hospital bed was delivered to Mr X’s home in May 2022.
29. In addition, the Council said it has apologised to Mr X for the upset and distress he has been caused by the child protection process including his concern the Council treated him unfairly and did not provide him with the support he required.

Back to top

Findings

30. The Council had planned to refer Mr X to a domestic abuse service for perpetrators. There is no evidence that shows it made this decision considering all relevant circumstances. The Council knew Mr X was a potential victim of domestic abuse. It should have considered this when deciding whether to make a referral. It did not do so which was fault. I cannot say whether the Council would have reached a different decision if it had properly considered evidence about Mr X. However, the fault caused Mr X avoidable distress and led him to believe the Council was biased towards his ex-partner. The Council has apologised to Mr X which is an appropriate remedy for this injustice. I have recommended the Council learns from this incident to prevent the fault reoccurring.
31. Mr X said the Council did not provide him with support in relation to him being a victim of domestic abuse. In response to Mr X’s complaint to the Council, the Council referred Mr X to a domestic abuse service for victims and signposted him to other relevant agencies. I am satisfied the Council’s actions remedy any further injustice from the fault.
32. Mr X said the Council treated him unfairly because of his diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder. The Council was concerned with how it might affect his parenting in the future. The Council was entitled to consider Mr X’s circumstances and their implications for his care for Y. It properly had regard to the potential need to support Mr X caring for Y in the future. I have reviewed the full report and it did highlight Mr X positively when he has been taking care of Y. I did not find fault with the Council.
33. Mr X said the Council did not support him with suitable housing and a hospital bed for Y. However, Mr X is now in the appropriate priority banding for housing so he can bid on suitable housing. The Council has also provided a suitable bed for Y. This remedies injustice from any potential faults so I will not investigate these matters further.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed it will remind staff to consider allegations of abuse made against someone before it decides on what actions to take next. The Council will then provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has done this.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have now completed my investigation. The Council was at fault which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has already remedied the injustice caused however, it will also make service improvements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman