Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to initiate child protection enquiries and place children in his care on a child protection plan. He also complained about the conduct of social workers. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to place the children in his care on child protection plans. There was some fault in how the Council recorded discussions with partner agencies and a missed Child in Need visit, but these did not cause Mr X an injustice. The Council agreed to remind its officers to appropriately document discussions and to ensure Child in Need visits are completed in line with its policy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s child protection investigations regarding children in his care. Mr X says the Council’s reports contained multiple errors which led to the children being placed on a child protection plan. Mr X also complained about the conduct of the social workers working with the family.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him distress, uncertainty, and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. We cannot question whether a council’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)
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. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.
7. 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)
8. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, 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 spoke to Mr X about the complaint and considered information he provided.
11. I considered information provided by the Council.
12. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments received before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

Private fostering

13. Children may not live with their parents because of an arrangement known as a private fostering. This is when the child lives with someone not closely related to them. The parent and the carer will have arranged this between them privately. In such cases the child’s parents remain responsible for any financial support the child might need. However, the child could still be a child in need and receive support services from the council, including financial support under Section 17 of the Children Act.

Child in Need

14. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. 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.
15. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a Child in Need (CIN) plan.

Child protection

16. 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)
17. The council 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 the council 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 discussion.

Strategy discussion

18. Whenever there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, the council should initiate a strategy discussion. This should include council’s children’s services department (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.
19. The outcome of the strategy discussion may be to initiate further enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.

Section 47 enquiries

20. The council is responsible for ensuring section 47 enquiries are carried out by undertaking or continuing an assessment. Social workers have a statutory duty to lead assessments. 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 remains at risk of significant harm, the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference within 15 working days of the strategy meeting.

Council policies

21. The Council has a policy document – “Growing Quality in Social Care” which outlines its practice standards when working with children. This includes:
• Visiting all children subject to a CIN plan a minimum of once every 6 weeks.
• Conducting private fostering visits every 6 weeks in the first year and every 12 weeks in the subsequent years.
• Conducting strategy discussions with representatives from health and police as a minimum and recording the outcome on the Council’s systems.

Principles of a good assessment

22. Statutory guidance sets out what makes a good assessment. The guidance says assessment should be a dynamic process and respond to the changing nature and level of need or risk faced by the child. To conduct a good assessment, a council should:
• Put the child at the centre of the assessment;
• Be holistic in its approach, addressing the child’s needs within their family;
• Involve children, ensuring that their voice is heard;
• Involve families;
• Identify risks to the safety and welfare of the child.

What happened

23. Mr X and his wife Mrs Y have cared for F and G under a private fostering arrangement since 2019. The children were subject to a CIN plan since March 2019 and had an allocated social worker. The allocated worker visited in September 2021 and the team manager recorded visits would take place every three months as the children were under a private fostering arrangement.
24. In October 2021 the allocated social worker left the Council, and a new social worker, social worker A, was appointed.
25. In December 2021 the Council received a safeguarding referral from the children’s school due to concerns the children had raised with staff. Records show the Council decided to hold a strategy meeting. It spoke with health and the police. The strategy meeting document does not record these discussions. The discussion with police is recorded separately, but there is no record of the discussion with health. Following these discussions, the Council decided to initiate section 47 enquires.
26. The Council carried out a section 47 investigation. It decided the CIN plans would continue and put in place a safety plan. The safety plan included a summary of concerns and said what should not happen in the home and that it would be reviewed within one week. Mr X told the Council he would not work with social worker A so a different social worker, social worker B, was allocated.
27. Between December 2021 and February 2022, the Council visited and held meetings with Mr X to explore the concerns and progress of the plan. It recorded his views in the case notes and told him of its concerns.
28. Social workers visited the children between December 2021 and January 2022. Records show the children told their school, social workers, and the police of their worries about the care they were receiving from Mr X and Mrs Y.
29. During a visit to the children in school at the end of January 2022 G told social worker B they were upset because they were not allowed to drink water at night, they are not allowed to go to the toilet if they woke up, that Mr X and Mrs Y were not speaking to them because of what they had told social workers and raised other concerns. F confirmed what G had said. Social worker B reviewed the concerns with their manager and decided to hold a second strategy discussion.
30. The second strategy discussion was held in early February 2022. The Council consulted relevant professionals, carried out a second section 47 investigation and decided to progress to an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC).
31. Social worker B completed a report for the ICPC. The report included what the children had told professionals, Mr X’s views and his disagreement with what the children had said. Mr X was provided with a copy of the social worker’s report several days before the ICPC.
32. The ICPC was held 14 days after the strategy discussion. Mr X discussed the social worker’s report with the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) who chaired the conference. The conference decided the children should become subject to a Child Protection Plan (CPP) under the category of emotional harm. Mr X’s views were recorded during the conference.
33. At the start of February 2022 Mr X complained to the Council. He complained about:
• An occasion where the social worker delayed returning the children home after school.
• Social worker A and B’s conduct, specifically around the social workers threatening section 47 investigations, telling Mr X he was using emotional blackmail and making light of his concerns about G making false allegations.
• Concerns about social workers taking the children out of lessons to talk to them.
34. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint saying that it did not have concerns about the practices or conduct of the social workers. It agreed there was a difference between the children’s and the carer’s account of what was happening, but said the Council had a duty to ensure the children were heard. It told Mr X social workers were guided by the school about when to visit the children, and that social worker B had already apologised for the delay in returning the children home on one occasion.
35. Mr X then made further complaints to the Council, which included concerns about the accuracy of social work accounts, professional misconduct, and a lack of communication about the allegations made.
36. In late March 2022 the Council provided its final complaint response. The Council summarised Mr X’s concerns about the social workers’ practice and said it did not agree with his view. It told Mr X it had discussed its concerns with him on multiple occasions, including during visits and through the ICPC process. The Council decided to remove social worker B and allocated another social worker, social worker C, to progress safeguarding for the children.
37. Mr X then provided the Council with a list of 8 points of clarification and 85 points of inaccuracies in the social worker’s report to the ICPC. He requested additional meetings with the Council to discuss the concerns in more detail.
38. The Council said that Mr X was able to voice his opinions during the Initial Child Protection Conference and again disagreed with his view of the situation. Mr X says he was only able to voice some of his views during the meeting and complained that the Council was refusing to correct the errors in its report.
39. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us. In addition to complaints he had already raised, he said the Council had not visited the children between September 2021 and December 2021, which was against its policy. He also said social worker B misinformed him that the first section 47 enquiry was ongoing, when it had been completed by social worker A two days earlier, and it had not reviewed the safety plan after it was put in place in December 2021.

Analysis

40. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Child protection plan

41. The Council has a statutory duty to ensure children in its area are safeguarded. The Council followed the correct process in its child protection enquiries. It acted on safeguarding information provided by the school and obtained the views of the children, Mr X and Mrs Y and other relevant professionals when making its decisions to progress to section 47 enquiries and the ICPC and in deciding to place the children on a CPP. Mr X may disagree with the outcome of the child protection process; however, the Council followed the correct procedure and was not at fault.
42. The strategy discussion record from December 2021 does not contain the details of the discussions held between the Council and other agencies. There is no record of the discussion with health, and the minutes of the meeting with police were recorded on a separate document not linked to the main record. This is poor record keeping and is fault. However, the outcome would be the same regardless and therefore this has not caused Mr X a significant injustice. The Council should act to improve its service to prevent an injustice being caused to others.
43. I cannot know what social worker B told Mr X about the progress of the first section 47 enquiries as I was not present, but there is no evidence of a deliberate intention to mislead. Even if the social worker did tell him it was still ongoing when it had recently completed, the outcome was the same regardless. This did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.
44. Mr X said social workers did not tell him about what the concerns were or what the children had said. The case records indicate social workers did not always share all the information available with Mr X. However, this was because of ongoing police and social work investigations. I am satisfied Mr X was provided with enough information to know what the concerns were. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault.

Social work report

45. Mr X’s complaint included concerns about the accuracy of the Council’s reports. The social worker’s report to the ICPC outlines the identified risks to the children and reaches conclusions based on professional judgement. In reviewing the report, I am satisfied it includes the views of the children, Mr X, and professionals in line with statutory guidance and so was not fault. Whilst Mr X may disagree with the outcome of the report, we are unable to question a social worker’s professional decision making where there is no fault in the way the decision was reached.
46. Mr X provided the Council with a list of what he says are errors in the report. Much of Mr X’s concerns are around professional opinions of social workers, their interpretation of the concerns raised or a general disagreement about versions of events. Further investigation by me will unlikely find fault or achieve a different outcome for Mr X.

Child in need visits

47. Mr X said the Council did not visit the children between mid-September 2021 and December 2021. The Council’s policy says every child on a CIN plan must be visited a minimum of once every 6 weeks with the child seen and spoken to alone. The Council did not complete a CIN visit to the children for 11 weeks. This is fault and is against the Council’s policy. We cannot know whether the children would have expressed any concerns sooner if they had been visited earlier, but the children were ultimately able to raise their concerns with their school. There is no evidence the 11-week gap between visits caused Mr X an injustice, but the Council should review its practice to ensure CIN visits are completed in line with its policy and to prevent any injustice being caused to others.

Safety plan

48. Mr X complained the Council failed to review the safety plan he signed in December 2021.There is evidence the Council discussed the safety plan with Mr X during visits and at meetings and recorded his views about the suitability of the plan between December 2021 and February 2022. The ICPC recommended the plan remain in place and be reviewed during Core Group meetings. The Council was not at fault as it considered Mr X’s views and was satisfied the safety plan should remain in place unaltered.

Social worker conduct

49. Mr X complained about the practice of social workers that worked with the family since the children’s long-term social worker left the Council in October 2021.
50. Mr X said on one occasion the social worker was delayed in returning the children home after collecting them at school. Whilst the delay may have caused Mr X some concern, there is no evidence the social worker acted in a malicious manner. Mr X also contacted the school and knew the children were safe. The social worker apologised to Mr X for the delay when they returned the children home, which was an appropriate action.
51. Mr X also complained the social workers removed the children from their classes which disrupted their education. Evidence shows Mr X agreed the Council could visit the children at school if this did not affect their lessons. The Council responded that it was guided by school about when visits would be least disruptive. This is not fault and, in any case, it did not cause the children or Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Remind relevant officers about the importance of recording discussions with partner agencies appropriately within a child’s records, to ensure a clear record of decision-making during child protection investigations.
• Remind relevant officers that children subject to a CIN plan must be visited at least every six weeks in line with its policy.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has carried out these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. I have found evidence of fault, but this fault did not cause Mr X an injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to improve Council services to prevent injustice being caused to others.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

55. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaints about individual social workers and their practice. This is because social work has a professional body, Social Work England, and Mr X can submit his concerns to them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman