Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled the child protection process for her child, S, about delays in the statutory children’s complaints procedure and about the Council’s refusal to accept one element of the stage 3 panel’s findings. The Council was at fault for not actively engaging with Miss X’s domestic abuse support worker and for delays in the complaints process. It should apologise and pay Miss X a further £150, making a total payment of £250, to remedy the frustration and distress caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the way the Council handled the child protection process for her child, S. In particular that the Council:
• (element 1) wrongly decided she had mental health issues that were impacting on her ability to parent S;
• (element 2) failed to acknowledge and appropriately address the impact of alleged domestic abuse by S’s father, Mr F, on her parenting capacity;
• (element 3) failed to properly assess and act on two safeguarding concerns Miss X reported;
• (element 4) wrongly refused to share an assessment report it commissioned from a children’s charity regarding contact arrangements between Miss X and S;
• (element 5) failed to consult Miss X about changes to care plans; and
• (element 6) failed to adequately investigate an allegation made about her.
2. Miss X also complained:
• the Council took too long to investigate her complaint and she does not consider its payment of £100 was sufficient:
• the Council did not accept the stage 3 panel’s decision that complaint element 2 was upheld;
• the Council gave her contradictory information about the identity of the person making an allegation about her; and
• the information the Council provided during the complaint process and after she made a subject access request was redacted, which she said indicated it was not sharing information with her openly as it should.
3. Miss X said that as a result of the Council’s failings she has not had appropriate contact with S, negatively affecting both of them. She said neither of them will ever recover from the years they were denied a loving and meaningful relationship.

Back to top

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. 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)
6. 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.
7. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
8. 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)
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. I considered:
• the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the information the Council provided in response to our enquiries;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
11. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision, and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Child protection

12. 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. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
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, 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.
16. Review Child Protection Conferences should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
17. In between the conferences a core group, comprising key family members and professionals, will meet to:
• further develop the child protection plan;
• facilitate the in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and
• implement the child protection plan.

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.
19. 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.

Statutory complaints process

20. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
21. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
22. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
23. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing. If the council does not accept the panel’s recommendations it should explain its reasons.
24. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

Background

25. Miss X parented her child, S, on her own for some years after her relationship with the child’s father, Mr F, broke down. She said this was due to domestic abuse, and that the abuse continued even though the couple had separated.
26. By late 2018, she was receiving support from a domestic abuse organisation, but was finding it difficult to cope with S’s increasingly challenging behaviour. The Council made enquiries and arranged an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) in March 2019, which decided S needed a Child Protection Plan (CPP). Around that time, S went to live with Mr F, a decision Miss X says she disagreed with. In May 2020, a Review Child Protection Conference (RCPC) agreed S did not need to be on a CPP and they were subsequently supported with a child in need plan.

Scope of my investigation

27. The Council investigated the complaints set out at paragraph 1 above using the children’s statutory complaints process. At stage 2 the investigating officer partially upheld the complaint referred to as element 2 but did not uphold the other complaints. The Council accepted those findings.
28. Miss X was unhappy with the outcome and the complaint was considered by a stage 3 panel. The panel upheld element 2 rather than partially upholding it. The Council did not accept the panel’s conclusion in relation to element 2 for reasons it set out in a letter to Miss X. It paid her £100 to remedy the delays in the complaints process.
29. I have considered whether the complaints were properly investigated. Having reviewed the documents, I find no evidence of fault in the way the stage 2 investigation was conducted, nor in the way the stage 3 panel handled the complaint. Therefore, I decided not to re-investigate the complaints except for element 2. I also considered whether the Council has provided an appropriate remedy for the delay in investigating the complaint and whether it gave Miss X contradictory information about the allegation made about her.
30. Miss X was also unhappy with the amount of information redacted from the documents sent to her following her subject access request (SAR) in relation to element 4 of her complaint. The Information Commissioner is better placed to decide whether the Council has appropriately shared information with Miss X in response to the SAR. Therefore, I will not consider that issue further.

Analysis and findings

Assessing the impact of domestic abuse (element 2)

31. At stage 2, the investigating officer concluded the Council had acknowledged the impact of the domestic abuse Miss X reported and had taken the allegations seriously. However, it had been too quick to conclude this did not affect its decisions about S, without seeking evidence from the domestic abuse support workers who supported Miss X and provided counselling for S, and without proactively engaging them in discussions during the child protection process. However, the investigating officer did not consider this had in fact impacted the decisions made about S’s care. Therefore, they said the complaint was partially upheld.
32. At stage 3, there was some discussion about the role of children’s services, which was to focus on the needs of the child, and the role of domestic abuse support workers, whose focus was Miss X. These represented two very different perspectives. The minutes also noted Miss X was not the parent who was caring for S, which was unusual. Generally, where domestic abuse support workers are involved in child protection cases, they consider how to keep the child safe in light of the allegations made. In this case, the child was living with their father, the alleged perpetrator of the domestic abuse, but the Council did not have concerns about the safety of S in Mr F’s care. It recorded that may explain why the domestic abuse support workers considered they were not engaged in child protection discussions in this case in the way they were in other cases.
33. The stage 3 panel decided the stage 2 report indicated only minimal consideration was given to Miss X’s allegations of domestic abuse. Whilst the Council acknowledged allegations of domestic abuse were made, the panel found this was not appropriately addressed in relation to Miss X’s ability as a parent.
34. In considering this complaint, I have reviewed the Council’s daily records for the period January 2018 to December 2020, the child and family assessments completed in that period, the parenting assessment, the minutes of the ICPC and all the RCPCs, as well as all the complaint handling records.
35. The records show Miss X reported domestic abuse in relation to Mr F and in relation to other partners. The Council discussed the disclosures with Miss X on several occasions and also discussed them with relevant professionals, including her domestic abuse support worker. It considered Miss X’s vulnerability as a result of the disclosures, both in its parenting assessment and in its general dealings with her.
36. The records show it did not invite the domestic abuse support worker to the ICPC in time for them to attend the meeting, or seek reports from them before the meeting, although there was a discussion afterwards. Further, Miss X did not feel able to attend that meeting, although the Council met with her later to discuss the outcome and the CPP. Miss X and the domestic abuse support worker did attend the RCPCs in June 2019, November 2019, and May 2020, however, the Council did not seek reports from the domestic abuse support worker.
37. The records show the Council considered the domestic abuse, along with several other factors, including:
• serious concerns about S’s inappropriate behaviours, and concerns about Miss X’s ability to appropriately address those behaviours;
• concerns that S’s inappropriate behaviour increased around times they had contact with Miss X;
• concerns that S presented as very controlling of Miss X; and
• Miss X reported issues with anxiety and being overwhelmed during stressful periods, including stating in March 2019 she was unable to care for S;

In addition, both parents raised concerns about the other’s parenting, which were explored.

38. On balance, based on the records I have seen, more proactive engagement with the domestic abuse support worker would not have changed the key decisions made about S. The Council considered all relevant factors. It was for the Council to decide how much weight to give each of these factors.
39. In March 2019, when it was decided S should be supported by a CPP, Miss X had said she was unable to care for S. She was advised that if she could not care for S, S would need to live full-time with Mr F, since both parents had parental responsibility and parenting was shared in line with a court order.
40. The Council’s primary focus was keeping S safe, which it did by regular visits and other actions under the CPP, including parenting assessments, core group meetings and RCPC meetings. Despite the domestic abuse disclosures, it did not identify any concerns about Mr F’s care of S. In response to concerns that S’s behaviour appeared to deteriorate after unsupervised contact with Miss X, the Council decided their contact should be supervised. Whilst the records show the Council was aware that both Miss X and S wanted more contact, the primary aim was to keep S safe and address any inappropriate behaviours.
41. In conclusion, I find the Council was at fault for not engaging more proactively with the domestic abuse support worker, which would have helped Miss X to fully engage in the process. However, on balance, I agree with the Council and the stage 2 investigating officer that this would not have changed the key decisions about what was in S’s best interests. Therefore, the injustice to Miss X is limited to the frustration and distress of not feeling fully heard.

Not accepting the conclusions of the stage 3 panel

42. The Council is not obliged to accept the findings and recommendations of the stage 3 panel. However, the statutory process says it should explain its reasons and invite comments from all the panel attendees, including the independent person, in developing its response.
43. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained it carried out further enquiries, specifically considering records about the domestic abuse allegations involving Mr F. It confirmed its Head of Service consulted with the adjudication officer before deciding not to accept all the stage 3 panel’s findings.
44. The Council accepted the recommendations of the stage 3 panel, which were to:

• ask staff to be specific in naming the issues that are having an impact on any particular individual rather than using generic terms such as “mental health” as these can lead to ambiguity;
• make a payment to Miss X for the delay in completing the complaints process; and
• review its procedures to ensure significant adults are proactively engaged in the child protection process and ensure there is an evidence trail to confirm this.

The Council has provided evidence showing it has implemented these recommendations.

45. Although the Council acknowledged it did not consult with panel attendees or the independent person before deciding not to accept all the findings, which would be good practice, I am satisfied it did not take that decision lightly, and that it explained its reasons for not accepting the finding in relation to element 2 in its letter to Miss X in August 2021. It was not at fault.

Inconsistent information

46. Although not part of the original complaint to us, Miss X also raised concerns about inconsistent information provided in relation to the complaint referred to as element 6, which relates to an allegation made about her in an email referral to children’s services in January 2020. She said she was repeatedly told the referral was anonymous but on one occasion was told it was from a credible source. She believed the referral was made by, or on behalf of, Mr F.
47. The statutory complaints process at stage 2 considered whether the Council had adequately investigated an anonymous allegation made about her in January 2020. The complaint was not upheld at stage 2 or stage 3.
48. The Council has provided a copy of the email referral to children’s services, which was not from Mr F, nor does it refer to him. The investigating officer at stage 2 interviewed the allocated social worker, who confirmed it did not reference any known associates of Mr F. The investigating officer reported they had “established through review of the relevant records and corroboration of verbal testimonies that there is no factual basis to [Miss X’s] assumption about a connection with her former partner”, although they acknowledged that in the context of the domestic abuse disclosed, it was not surprising she came to that conclusion.
49. At stage 3, the panel considered whether the Council provided Miss X with any contradictory information about the source of the referral, given that it was referred to as “anonymous” and as “being credible in terms of content”. The panel concluded the allegation had not, as Miss X thought, affected the contact between her and S. This was because the decision had already been made to reduce contact and ensure it was supervised before the email referral was received. It therefore concluded the complaint should remain as “not upheld”.
50. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it was not aware it had provided any inconsistent information.
51. There is nothing in the records I have seen that suggests the Council knew the identity of the referrer. There is a record of a conversation between Miss X and the social worker where Miss X reported that there had been an issue between Mr F and a third party associate of Miss X.  This led to Miss X believing Mr F was behind the email referral in January 2020. There was nothing in the information viewed to suggest such a connection.
52. The records do refer to the content being credible. This was because the concerns raised were very similar to other concerns recorded by professionals. This is not the same as saying the referral was from a credible source, which implies knowledge of who made the referral.
53. I can see that referring to credible content may have led to a misunderstanding, but I have found no evidence of contradictory information being provided about the source of the email referral. There is nothing worthwhile I can achieve by pursuing this further.

Delays in the complaints process

54. Miss X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage 2 on 28 May 2020. The stage 2 process should be completed within 65 working days or 13 weeks. The investigating officer issued their final report on 14 January 2021. This is 162 working days or 33 weeks. This is a significant delay, even allowing for some additional time agreeing the complaints to be investigated at the start of the stage 2 process, agreeing an extension of time for Miss X to comment on the draft reports, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This delay was fault.
55. Miss X asked for a stage 3 panel on 12 May, the panel was held on 2 August. The panel should have been arranged within three weeks of the request, but it took 11 weeks. The Council says this was due to the difficulty of finding a date for the meeting that all relevant people could attend. There was no delay in issuing the final response, which was sent on 27 August 2021. Again, even taking into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council took too long to arrange the panel. This was further fault.
56. The stage 3 panel recommended a payment to remedy the delay and the Council paid Miss X £100. I consider this was not sufficient to remedy the frustration caused by the significant delays that occurred. I will therefore recommend a further payment.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
• apologise for the distress and frustration caused when it failed to proactively engage with Miss X’s domestic abuse support worker during the child protection process, and for the delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• pay her a further £150 for the frustration and distress caused by not being able to fully engage with the child protection process, and the long delay in dealing with her complaint. The Council has already paid her £100, which makes the total payment £250, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.
58. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council will review its processes to ensure it completes investigations under the children’s statutory complaints process within statutory timescales.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice. The Council has already implemented the stage 3 panel’s recommendations, but it should also review its statutory children’s complaints process to ensure investigations are completed within statutory timescales.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman