North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 091)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 16 May 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss P complains about the conduct of Council social workers while it maintained Child in Need Plans for her two daughters. She says the Council sought to remove her children from her care, visited her family home without her consent and acted inappropriately. At this stage, we have identified some minor fault by the Council in the way social workers visited the children without being entirely clear about Miss P’s wishes. We have not identified any other fault and there are some aspects of Miss P’s complaint which we cannot investigate. In any event, there is some injustice in this case and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I refer to as Miss P, is complaining about the way Council social workers handled a child protection matter for her two daughters. Specifically, Miss P alleges the following:
      1. Her eldest daughter (Young Person A) was prescribed medication against her wishes and which, as she understood, the Council had promised to stop.
      2. Health professionals and the Council excluded her from treatment planning and support in relation to Young Person A’s health problems.
      3. Council social workers visited her home while she was at work and accessed her back account without her authorisation.
      4. Council social workers intimidated her youngest daughter (Young Person B) by locking her in a car without her consent.
      5. The Council wrongly removed Young Person A from her care and inappropriately sought to remove Young Person B also.
  2. In summary, Miss P says the alleged failings have significantly impacted on her wellbeing and emotional stability. She also says she had to close her business due to not being able to cope. As a desired outcome, Miss P wants the Council to acknowledge its failings and provide compensation for financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the National Health Service or other health providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended).
  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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have read Miss P’s complaint to the Ombudsman and Council. I have also had regard to the responses of the Council, supporting documents and applicable legislation and statutory guidance. I invited both Miss P and the Council to comment on a draft of my decision. Each of their comments received were fully considered before a final decision was made.

Back to top

My findings

Background and legislative framework

The Children Act 1989

  1. The Children Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) says the child’s needs and welfare are paramount and the needs and wishes of the child should be put first. This is so the child receives the support they need before a problem escalates. Section 17 of the 1989 Act imposes a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of “children in need” in their area.
  2. Sections 17(10) and (11) of the 1989 Act defines a ‘Child in Need’ (CIN) as a child who is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable level of health or development, or whose health and development is likely to be significantly or further impaired, without the provision of services; or a child who is disabled. Should a local authority consider a child is in need, it can implement a CIN Plan.
  3. Under the 1989 Act, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter.

Child in Need Plan (CiPN)

  1. A CiPN is drawn up by a local authority following a Single Assessment which identifies a child as having complex needs and where a coordinated response is needed in order that the child's needs can be met.

Child Protection Plan (CPC)

  1. A CPC is made when a child is judged to be at risk of significant harm, significant harm being a level of harm that affects the health, welfare and development of a child. The CPC will say what the specific risks are to the child and the actions that will be needed to keep the child safe. The CPC is made following a meeting called a Child Protection Conference to which all of the people who are involved with the child including the parents are invited. It is the task of the Conference to decide whether there are significant risks to a child, what those risks are, and what is needed to be done to reduce or remove those risks.
  2. The CPC will then be put into action and reviewed at regular intervals by a further Conference. When the risks to the child have been assessed as having been eliminated or reduced then the Conference will decide to close the CPC and any further help will be provided by the usual child care services.

Statutory guidance

  1. ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ July 2018 (‘Working Together 2018’). This is statutory guidance for local authorities and other agencies on how they should work together to assess children’s needs and make arrangements for promoting and safeguarding their welfare. It sets out the principles, processes and timescales for carrying out child protection investigations.

Strategy discussion

  1. Whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, there should be a strategy discussion involving local authority children’s social care (including the residential or fostering service, if the child is looked-after), the police, health and other bodies such as the referring agency. This might take the form of a multi-agency meeting or phone calls and more than one discussion may be necessary. A strategy discussion can take place following a referral or at any other time, including during the assessment process and when new information is received on an already open case. A strategy discussion should inform whether the local authority should initiate a Section 47 enquiry in accordance with the 1989 Act (s47 enquiries).
  2. The timescale for the assessment to reach a decision on next steps should be based upon the needs of the individual child and no longer than 45 working days from the point of referral into local authority children’s social care.

Section 47 enquiry

  1. The Council is responsible for ensuring s47 enquiries are carried out by undertaking or continuing an assessment. Local authority social workers have a statutory duty to lead assessments under section 47 of the 1989 Act. In some cases, children’s services will carry out single agency enquiries. In cases where a criminal prosecution is being considered, there will be joint enquiries with the police. If the information gathered under section 47 substantiates concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm, the social worker will arrange a child protection conference within 15 working days of the strategy meeting.

Child protection conference

  1. Following s47 enquiries, an initial child protection conference (ICPC) brings together family members (and the child where appropriate), with the supporters, advocates and practitioners most involved with the child and family, to make decisions about the child’s future safety, health and development. If concerns relate to an unborn child, consideration should be given as to whether to hold a child protection conference prior to the child’s birth. In effect, the CPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include making a recommendation that the child should be subject to a Child Protection Plan. After the ICPC, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended or discontinued.
  2. Core Group meetings are to check how the Child Protection Plan is working and to make changes to it, if changes will help the child. If the local authorities’ Core Group thinks the Child Protection Plan is not working, they might hold the Child Protection Case Conference Review early.

What happened

  1. Young Person A suffered with complex health difficulties which resulted in her being prescribed medication from the family GP.
  2. In 2020, the Council carried out a Single Assessment and decided, with Miss P’s consent, to maintain a CiNP for both Young Person A and B. Miss P believed the Council supported weaning Young Person A off her medication.
  3. To support the family, Council social workers would visit Young Person A and B to establish their needs. On one occasion, Miss P consented to Council social workers visiting her home to talk to Young Person A and B while she was at work. However, Council social workers continued to visit both Miss P’s children without her present and without establishing whether they had consent to do so.
  4. During these visits, Miss P alleges Council social workers intimidated Young Person B and attempted to access her bank account without authorisation.
  5. Towards the end of 2020, Young Person B decided to seek alternative accommodation away from the family home with the support of the Council.
  6. In December 2020, Miss P requested the Council end its involvement with her family. Because a CiNP only works with the consent of those with parental responsibility, the Council closed the case and stopped providing support.

My assessment

Medication and treatment planning

  1. This part of the complaint concerns the appropriateness of prescribed medication by Young Person A’s general practitioner (GP). Health care and treatment is a matter for health care professionals exercising their professional expertise and judgment. Neither I nor the Council have the authority to judge what medication is suitable for a patient. Further, I have no jurisdiction to investigate a GP or any other service provider of the National Health Service (NHS). The Council is entitled and encouraged to act on the advice of healthcare professionals.
  2. In addition, Miss P claims Young Person A was prescribed medication against her own wishes (against parental consent) and was excluded from treatment planning. At the time, Young Person A was above the age of consent, meaning she had sufficient capacity to decide on her own medical treatment. Further, Young Person A had the legal right to patient confidentiality. In summary, while there is no doubt that Miss P was trying to act in the best interests of her child, she had no right to reject any course of treatment health professionals deemed to be in Young Person A’s best interests and which she had consented to. Further, Miss P is not entitled to receive Young Person A’s medical information, including treatment planning. The Council has correctly observed the law and I have not identified any fault relating to these parts of the complaint.
  3. Separately, Young Person A is, today, over the age of 18 and we have no written consent from her for Miss P to bring a complaint on her behalf. If Young Person B wishes to make a complaint about this matter, she may do so by complaining to her GP or discussing the issue in further detail with the Council.

Social worker home visits

  1. In order to conduct reviews of the family circumstances, the Council obtained Miss P’s consent to visit her two children at home alone while she was out working. However, following this visit, Council social workers continued to visit Young Person A and B at home, without Miss P being present. The Council’s social workers were acting under the presumption that because Miss P had consented on the first occasion, they had consent for further visits in these circumstances. The Council acknowledge there is no evidence to support that Miss P gave consent for further visits without her being present. I do therefore find some fault by the Council. I am also persuaded that during a volatile period in Miss P’s life, this failing did cause her serious upset and distress.
  2. During one visit to the family home by a social worker, Miss P says Young Person B was locked in a car by the social worker without consent. Miss P was not present at the time of this alleged incident and is therefore relaying what she has heard from Young Person B. In response, the Council says a social worker asked Young Person B whether it would be possible to talk in her car given she could not enter the family home due to Young Person A self-isolating from Covid-19. Further, the Council says Young Person B consented to a discussion in the social workers’ car and this matter had not been presented as an issue until such a time that Miss P brought a formal complaint about other issues.
  3. There is a clear conflict of accounts from Miss P and the Council. This means I must make a decision on what I consider more likely happened than not. I have not been presented with any evidence from Miss P or her daughter that Young Person B was locked in a car without her consent. Moreover, I cannot uphold a complaint in circumstances where it is one word against the other, without additional evidence to substantiate the allegations. Following a request for evidence from Miss P in relation to this matter, she explained this would be limited to a statement from Young Person B. For the reasons outlined, I am not persuaded that there exists enough evidence to substantiate the allegations made. I cannot make a finding of fault against the Council in these circumstances.

Bank account hacking

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is to remedy maladministration which causes an injustice. We do not investigate criminal activity and cannot provide a remedy for when a criminal offence has been committed. Unauthorised access of sensitive financial information through an online bank account is a criminal offence. Should Miss P wish for this matter to be investigated, she would need to contact the police and make a formal report about it. In any event, I have not been presented any evidence by Miss P that a Council officer attempted to access her online bank account without authorisation.

Removal of children

  1. In her complaint to the Council, Miss P alleges Young Person A was removed from her care. The only way the Council can take a child into care is by way of a care order given by a court. In this case, Young Person A was above the age of consent and made an informed decision to seek supported accommodation arrangements. The Council did not seek a care order from a court and this course of action was not applicable in the circumstances. I have not found any evidence of fault by the Council as it was assisting Young Person A in accordance with her wishes and rights as person above the age of consent.
  2. Separately, Miss P alleges the Council sought to remove Young Person B from her care under s17 of the 1989 Act. At the time, Young Person B was not above the age of consent and Miss P held parental responsibility for her.
  3. In summary, s17(1) of the 1989 Act imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. It means the Council, with the consent of the parents, will maintain a CiNP for the child and work to promote their wellbeing. A CiNP does not mean, in any circumstances, that a local authority is seeking to remove a child from the family home.
  4. If the Council felt Young Person B was in danger or risk of harm, it would need to initiate s47 enquiries in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act. Further, the Council would need to adopt a CPC for Young Person B and consider an appropriate course of action at a Child Protection Conference, involving Miss P. The Council has not judged these actions necessary and I have seen no evidence that the Council has sought to remove Young Person B from Miss P’s care. As stated, s17 of the 1989 Act is about promoting the needs of children with parental consent, not removing children from their parents’ care.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the fault and injustice identified at Paragraph 28 (above), the Council has agreed to perform the following the actions by 1 July 2022:
      1. Provide a written apology to Miss P which acknowledges the fault identified.
      2. Pay Miss P £150 to serve as an acknowledge of the distress and upset she suffered because of the failing identified.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The complaint is partially upheld. I have identified some minor fault by the Council in the way social workers visited Miss P’s children without being entirely clear about her wishes. I have not identified any other fault and there are some aspects of Miss P’s complaint which I cannot investigate. In any event, there is some injustice in this case and the Council has agreed to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings