Summary: Miss X complained how the Council managed a child protection matter in relation to her child. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained how the Council managed a child protection matter in relation to her child, Y. She said the Council:
1. did not listen to her concerns about her being a victim of financial abuse;
2. did not investigate her concerns about Y being at risk of abuse;
3. removed Y from the Child Protection Plan when it should not have;
4. did not provide her with support to get legal aid: and
5. told her she was unreasonably contacting it.
2. Miss X said this has caused her distress and has affected her relationship with Y. She wants the Council to put Y back on a Child Protection Plan.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I investigated points A, B, C and E of Miss X’s complaint. I did not investigate point D of Miss X’s complaint and explained why at the end of this decision statement.

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. 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)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
7. I considered the information provided by the Council. This included the Council’s Child and Family Assessment, the Child Protection Plan and the Council’s contact records.
8. Miss X 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 investigation and information gathering

9. 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)
10. 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.
11. 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:
1. no further action;
2. a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
3. a decision to convene a strategy meeting.
12. If the information gathered supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm, the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child.

Child Protection conference arrangements

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. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
17. The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council.

What happened

18. Miss X and Mr W were married and lived together. They have a child called Y.
19. In April 2021, Y informed their school Miss X had physically hurt them. The school made a referral to the Council. Around the same time, Miss X and Mr W separated. Mr W and Y moved out of the family home.
20. Between April 2021 and June 2021, the Council completed a Child and Family Assessment with Miss X, Mr W and Y to identify any risk of abuse Y may have been subjected to and what the Council could do to support the family. The Child and Family Assessment noted:
1. further concerns of abuse towards Y including Miss X’s concerns of Y being at risk of sexual abuse from Mr W;
2. Miss X and Mr W alleged domestic abuse towards each other; and
3. Miss X and Mr W alleged financial abuse towards each other.
21. The Child and Family Assessment recommended the Council:
1. conduct an Initial Child Protection Conference to establish how it could safeguard Y;
2. investigate Miss X’s concerns in relation to Y being at risk of sexual abuse from Mr W; and
3. complete a risk assessment with Miss X and Mr W to determine if they had experienced domestic and financial abuse.
22. The Council conducted an Initial Child Protection Conference in June 2021. It established Y was at risk of significant emotional and physical abuse when they were in Miss X’s sole care. As a result, the Council placed Y on a Child Protection Plan.
23. The Council investigated Miss X’s allegations about Y being at risk of sexual abuse from Mr W. It concluded there were no concerns.
24. The Council completed a risk assessment with Miss X and Mr W to determine if they had experienced domestic and financial abuse. In relation to the alleged financial abuse, the Council said both Miss X and Mr W had taken money from their joint account. It discussed the matter with them individually.
25. Y continued to live with Mr W. They moved in with Mr W’s family to an area which fell under another Council, Council B. The Council provided Miss X with regular updates on Y.
26. In August 2021, Miss X told the Council she was concerned about Y’s wellbeing and that they were at risk of abuse whilst they lived with Mr W and his family. The Council liaised with Council B and asked it to visit Y in their home. Council B visited Y and it had no concerns.
27. In September 2021, Council B visited Y again as part of the Child Protection Plan review. It noted Y was well looked after by Mr W and his family. As a result, the Council ended the Plan as no concerns had been raised whilst Y was in sole care of Mr W.
28. Later, the Council received an anonymous referral in relation to Y. The referral highlighted concerns that Mr W was abusing alcohol and drugs. Subsequently, Council B visited Y. It had no concerns.
29. As part of Miss X’s complaint to us, Miss X said she was unhappy the Council had removed Y from the Child Protection Plan as it would mean Y was at risk of abuse from Mr W.

Miss X’s contact with the Council

30. Miss X initially complained to the Council in May 2021. She had concerns about the Child Protection Plan and the support the Social Workers were providing to her and Y. She then escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council explained to Miss X it had to put Y on a Child Protection Plan to reduce the risk of emotional and physical abuse to them. It said the Social Workers had provided appropriate support. It did not uphold Miss X’s complaint.
31. From July 2021, Miss X contacted the Council numerous times and raised concerns about Y. Miss X requested the Council to respond to each of her concerns. The Council responded to Miss X’s concerns and kept her updated in relation to Y and the Child Protection process.
32. The Council was not able to manage the amount of emails Miss X was sending to it and made Miss X aware of this. As a result, it put in place an agreement where it would respond to Miss X’s emails once a week.
33. However, Miss X continued to send the Council emails. She also submitted another complaint to the Council in August 2021 and a further complaint in October 2021. Her complaints were in relation to her concerns about Y and the Council not responding to her emails. Although the Council had already told Miss X it could not manage the amount of correspondence she was sending to the Council, Miss X said she was entitled to make as many complaints as she wanted to and would do so weekly. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaints and reminded her of its complaints policy and that her behaviour had become unreasonable.

Back to top

Findings

Concerns about financial abuse

34. Miss X said the Council did not listen to her concerns about being financially abused by Mr X. I have reviewed the Council’s records which show it addressed the matter with Miss X and Mr W separately via a risk assessment and a discussion. It concluded no further action was necessary. There is no evidence the Council did not listen to Miss X’s concerns. The Council was not at fault.

Investigation into concerns about abuse

35. Miss X said the Council did not investigate her concerns about Y being at risk of abuse. However, the Council investigated Miss X’s allegation that Y was at risk of sexual abuse from Mr W and arranged for Council B to visit them after Miss X raised new concerns. It also asked Council B to visit Y after an anonymous referral about Mr W abusing alcohol and drugs. I have also seen from the Council’s records that it kept in regular contact with Y and Mr W to monitor Y’s well-being and safety and that they were both receiving appropriate support. The Council took suitable action to investigate Miss X’s concerns and so was not at fault.

Decision to end the Child Protection Plan

The Ombudsman cannot question a council's decision if it is made without fault. Miss X believes the Council is not safeguarding Y from abuse since it removed them from the Child Protection Plan. She wants the Council to put Y back on the Plan. The Council properly reviewed Y’s Child Protection Plan and decided to end it because it had no concerns for their welfare. There was no fault in its decision so we cannot question it. We cannot ask the Council to reinstate the Plan. It is for the Council to decide this as it is the safeguarding authority.

Contact from Miss X

36. In relation to Miss X’s complaint about the Council informing her about her unreasonable behaviour, the Council told Miss X she was sending it excessive emails and it was not able to respond to her emails immediately and so put in an agreement where it would respond to her emails once a week. As Miss X continued to contact the Council and request responses, the Council was entitled to inform Miss X her behaviour was unreasonable. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have now completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Part of the complaint I did not investigate

38. I did not investigate point D of Miss X’s complaint because it has not been investigated by the Council. We cannot investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the Council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman