Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions during a child protection investigation about their child. We have not found the Council to have acted with fault. It followed the procedure we would expect to be followed.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about the way the Council carried out child protection enquiries in response to an anonymous referral regarding their daughter, Child Y. They also complain about the Council’s failure to correct errors in its assessment.
2. They say the abusive and inappropriate way in which the enquiry was carried out has caused significant ongoing distress and anxiety to themselves and their daughter.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have not investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about breaches of personal data. This is because paragraph 6 below applies, and Mr and Mrs X are aware of their right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner should they wish to do so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. 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)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke with Mr and Mrs X and reviewed the information they provided.
9. I made enquiries with the Council and reviewed the relevant law.
10. Mr X, Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and practice

Child protection

11. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
12. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.

Acting on a referral

13. 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.
14. 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 meeting.

15. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.

Child and Family Assessments

16. Child and Family Assessments gather information about the child and their family to make decisions about:

• whether any interventions are required, and if so, what they should be; and
• whether the child meets the criteria for ongoing services as a child in need.

Complaints about individual social workers

17. 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.

What happened

18. I have summarised below some of the key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
19. In June 2021, the Council received an anonymous referral about the welfare of Child Y. This raised concerns about physical and emotional abuse. The Council held a strategy meeting to decide what action to take. The police advised the Council a risk assessment was required prior to further enquiries being made. This was because there was a concern about firearms being kept at the family home. This risk assessment advised the Council to have police officers accompany the social worker.
20. Two social workers and the police made an unannounced visit to Mr and Mrs X’s home. Mr X explained Mrs X was unavailable and asked the Council to make an appointment in writing, together with a reason for its concerns.
21. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X, advising them a further visit would take place on a specified date.
22. Mr and Mrs X have explained this date was particularly inconvenient. They both live and work on a farm. At the time of the visit, they were the subject of a compulsory livestock injections taking place that could not be rearranged. Mr and Mrs X’s friend and advocate, Mrs F, was also in attendance.
23. Child Y was not present and was being cared for by a babysitter (Miss P). Mrs and Mrs X agreed for Miss P to return Child Y. Child Y played on her trampoline while the social workers observed her appearance and spoke to Mr and Mr X.
24. Mr and Mrs X allowed the social workers to speak to Child Y privately, although they say they were given little option but to agree. Child Y showed the social workers around the farm and took them into the family home. She was asked several questions and played her piano.
25. Mr and Mrs X were keen to observe Covid-19 safety precautions throughout the course of the visit. Mrs and Mrs X say the social workers did not comply with all their requirements, including wearing gloves while inside. They were also unhappy the social workers did not engage with Mrs F and excluded her from private discussions with Child Y.
26. Following the visit, Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to talk with Mr D, their elected home education advisor.
27. The Council carried out and assessment. As part of this assessment, the Council spoke to Mr D.
28. The assessment concluded that Child Y was not at risk. The concerns raised by the anonymous referral were not substantiated and the case was closed.
29. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about how the investigation was carried out. For brevity, it is not my intention to detail all their concerns, but have summarised the main themes below:

• Inconsistent information about why the investigation was started.
• Inappropriate observations of Child Y.
• Carrying out the assessment in the workplace, that was not private.
• Failure to comply with Covid-19 precautions.
• Refusal to engage with Mrs F and consider information provided by third parties.
• Failure to provide financial compensation for loss of business earnings.
• Failure to produce an accurate assessment.

30. The complaint was not upheld. But the Council did agree to record their disagreement with the content of the assessment on Child Y’s record.
31. Disappointed with this outcome, Mr and Mrs X brought their complaint to the Ombudsman. The say the investigation process has had a devastating impact on the family. Child Y was left traumatised, and it triggered a recurrence of Mrs X’s PTSD. They also incurred significant financial losses because of the interruption to their farming activities.

Analysis

32. When considering complaints about child protection matters, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether we agree with the judgment of the council’s officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which decisions were made. A child protection investigation will inevitably be distressing for any parent. It is therefore important to try to ensure things are done properly.
33. For this reason, my assessment of this complaint focuses on the aspects of the complaint that relate to child protection procedures and procedures and decision making.

Response to the initial referral and initial visit

34. The Council has a duty to safeguard children from potential harm. It is within its rights to use these powers to investigate any concerns that may be referred to it, regardless of where they originate, even if it they are done so anonymously.
35. The Council’s initial decision making was partly informed by its its previous knowledge of the family and police intelligence. The Council correctly sought clarification and advice from the police as to how to carry out the first visit. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X say the police presence was unnecessary because the historical allegations about firearms were unfounded. But this was a matter for the police, not the Council to decide.
36. Mr and Mrs X were understandably shocked and surprised by the visit and were keen to know the source of the referral as they believed it could have been malicious. The Council has accepted, at some point during the investigation, Mr and Mrs X were incorrectly told the referral came from a children’s charity. The Council has apologised for this error. This is an appropriate response, and I can add nothing further here.
37. It is not unusual for an initial visit to be carried out unannounced. Neither the Council, nor the police had powers of entry, they agreed to provide notice in writing of the next visit. Again, this is what I would expect to have happened.
38. I appreciate Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s response to the anonymous referral and the way the initial visit was conducted. However, the Council was acting on information that had been provided by the police and in line with its duties under section 47. For this reason, there was no fault.

The second inspection visit

39. Mr and Mrs X and the Council have provided differing accounts of what happened during the second visit. It is essentially one person’s word against that of another. The Ombudsman makes decisions on the balance of probabilities. In the absence of any independent witnesses, it is difficult to properly investigate some aspects of this complaint and arrive at a safe conclusion particularly as they are also, arguably, subjective.
40. Mr and Mrs X say they were asked to ensure Child Y was returned in “revealing clothing” and made to perform on the trampoline so her body could be inspected for evidence of physical abuse. She was also asked to perform cartwheels and handstands. They say this was akin to child abuse, particularly as Child Y could be seen by others on the farm and from the adjacent road. They say this type of sensitive investigation should not have taken place in what was effectively a place of work and/or enquiries made of Child Y’s GP.
41. The Council has a different account as to what happened. It has explained the initial discussion and interaction with Child Y took place outside at the request of Mr and Mrs X due to concerns about Covid-19. There is no evidence in the case records I have seen to support the claim about Child Y being asked to wear revealing clothes. There are two clearly different accounts of what happened.
42. But even if such a request had been made, it is highly unlikely I would make a finding of fault because this would have been an example of the social worker exercising their professional judgement by making a suggestion to Mr and Mrs X about what would be the least intrusive method of assessing whether Child Y had marks of her body. This was a dialogue the social worker was entitled to have and one which the Ombudsman would not criticise unless it was entirely unreasonable. I do not consider it was. The Council has a broad discretion as to how it carries out its duty to investigate and was not obliged to do so in the way expected by Mr and Mrs X.
43. I appreciate it was not an ideal day or location for the visit to take place but the Council had duty to investigate promptly and so I do not criticise the Council for insisting the visit take place when and how it did, including the way it interacted with Child Y and Mrs X’s nominated advocate.
44. I understand Mr and Mr X say the whole family all were left severely traumatised by the Council’s intervention. But this, in itself, is not evidence of fault.
45. In reaching my conclusion, I have considered all the available evidence including the Mr and Mrs X’s and the social worker’s detailed accounts of what happened.
46. It is clear some considerable time was spent explaining the process and reason for the investigation. It was noted in the report that Mrs X was reassured to such an extent that she stopped recording the visit by way of body camera. It is also clear that the social workers took time to build up a rapport with Child Y so as to minimise any anxiety to her. The Council was not obliged to address questions through the advocate as expected by Mrs X.
47. Overall, I am satisfied the Council acted without fault during the second investigation visit.

Failure to follow Covid-19 safety precautions

48. Mr and Mrs X also complain about the officers’ failure to following their requested Covid-19 protocol by not wearing gloves in their home and touching items within their home. They have explained this was extremely important to them for personal, family reasons.
49. The Council’s records provide detail about the officers’ action in respect of Covid-19. They confirm they wore masks and were advised not to touch anything. Evidentially, it is not possible for me to reach a safe conclusion about whether there was fault here. I cannot exclude the possibility of the social worker’s having touched items within the home. But even if they did, I do not consider this would have amounted to fault, as I am satisfied the social workers demonstrated their best endeavours to comply with Mr and Mrs X’s requirements throughout the rest of the visit.

The assessment process

50. Mr and Mrs X strongly disagree with both the content of the assessment and the way it was carried out.
51. I have found no fault here. The Council made enquiries it considered were necessary. Mr and Mrs X also have the support of a friends and a minute taker during the assessment visit.
52. I have noted there was an ongoing dialogue about whether Mr X had parental responsibility that Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with. From the records I have seen, the Council attempted to establish what the true position was. Mr and Mrs X were able to clarify this matter from the outset but did not do so. For this reason, I have not found fault by the Council having to make certain assumptions based on its previous knowledge of the family.
53. The specific content of the resulting assessment was for the Council to determine. Having read the notes from the investigation and assessment process, I found it to be fair, reasonable and evidence based. This is what we would expect to see. I appreciate Mr and Mrs would have preferred to the Council to have carried out the investigation differently and written a different report, but these were matters for the Council to decide.
54. In response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, the Council agreed to include a record stating the Mr and Mrs X did not agree with its content. This is an appropriate resolution to this type of disagreement.
55. Mrs X has also claimed the assessing social worker made racist comments during the assessment. I have seen no evidence of this, but nor would I necessarily expect to do so. But in any event, it is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether there has been discrimination or racial bias by the Council or its officers. Only the Courts can decide whether unlawful discrimination has taken place.

Conclusion

56. For the reasons I have explained above, I have not found fault in the Council’s actions, even though Mr and Mrs X strongly believe they were being unfairly treated. They think the Council should have investigated differently. I cannot say that even if the Council had acted differently, for example speaking with some of the people Mr and Mrs X think it should have, that it would have resulted in any different outcome. Ultimately the Council decided to take no further action and the case was closed.
57. Mr and Mrs X say they should be reimbursed for financial loss incurred by having their farming activities interrupted. As I have not found fault with the Council’s actions, I am not able to consider making such a recommendation to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have not found the fault with how the Council carried out a child protection enquiry in respect of their child. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman