Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about child protection action by the Council. There is not enough evidence of injustice caused by fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained of procedural irregularity, illogicality, bias and unfairness in a child protection process. They complained the Council wrongly shared confidential information to influence a school’s investigation after a child protection conference. They complained the Council failed to tell the school that the social worker wished to change her vote, and failed to tell the investigator appointed by the school that it was not her remit to prove or disprove the allegation against Mr X. They complained that the Council’s decision that the allegation was substantiated was irrational in the face of inconclusive evidence.
2. Mr and Mrs X also complained that Mr X was obliged to leave the family home for a period after an allegation was made, and that this was disproportionate.
3. They said their daughter was subjected to an invasive and unnecessary child protection medical.
4. Mr and Mrs X said the social worker’s report to the Initial Child Protection Conference was biased.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant, including a response to a previous decision.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. It was agreed by the Council that there was fault in providing the report of a social worker to Mr and Mrs X too late before an Initial Child Protection Conference. However, this did not cause any injustice to them as the Council reached its decision based on evidence that entitled it to do so.
9. The purpose of child protection is not to conduct an assessment of guilt or innocence, with both parties making submissions as in a court case. Instead, it is to prevent risk of harm to children. Where a child reports a parent has used physical contact as a possible form of correction or punishment, this creates the possibility that it will be viewed as a risk of significant harm.
10. One of Mr and Mrs X’s children had spoken at school in 2020 of an incident at home. The school made a safeguarding referral to the Council. I have seen the child’s account and views recorded by a paediatrician after seeing the child together with the social worker within a few days of the incident. What the child said alone was sufficient for the Council to consider if there was a risk of significant harm to Mr and Mrs X’s children. It was also sufficient for the Initial Child Protection Conference to decide that, taken with a report from the school about other matters, the allegation was substantiated. It could therefore decide that the children needed to be considered as Children in Need. This was a matter of professional judgement by the Initial Child Protection Conference. That it could have reached another view, or that Mr and Mrs X or their representative take another view of what the school reported is not evidence of fault in the decision reached. Any possible bias in the social worker’s report would not mean the evidence from the child and the school would otherwise have been insufficient for the Initial Child Protection Conference to reach the view it did.
11. Mr X also worked at the school. Given his employment inevitably brought him into contact with children, the Council had to tell the school. That the social worker wished to change her vote after the Initial Child Protection Conference did not remove the Council’s duty to inform the school of its decision. Mr and Mrs X take the view that the Council should have told the school that the social worker wished to change her vote and that it was not the school’s role to prove or disprove the allegation. However, the Council’s duty was simply to inform the school of the decision, not to instruct it. The school’s subsequent action was its own responsibility, not the Council’s. Mr and Mrs X’s representative has made the point that the process seemed circular. It is correct that the school made the original referral to the Council, then acted to end Mr X’s employment. But that does not mean the Council was at fault. It reached a decision any council with social care duties could have reached based on what the child had said, and informed Mr X’s employer accordingly because he worked with children. The Council would then have had to take note of the school’s decision.
12. Where a council decides a referral creates a risk of significant harm to a child from a person who lives with them, it must take steps to remove the risk. That may involve asking a parent to leave the family home for a period, or removing the child and any siblings if the parent declines to leave. Given the school’s referral and what Mr and Mrs X’s child said, the Council could ask Mr X to leave the family home for a period while it assessed. Though Mr and Mrs X disagree with the course the Council took, that is not evidence of fault.
13. Where a child has disclosed physical harm, the Council must check carefully for other signs of abuse. This involves a medical examination by a paediatrician. The evidence I have seen is that this was carried out by an appropriately qualified medical professional and was not fault on the part of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of injustice caused by fault to warrant this. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman