Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with concerns Mr B raised about his children. It considered each allegation and decided what, if any, action to take. Although Mr B is unhappy with the Council’s decision-making, we cannot question it – as we have no power to question decisions made without fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, says that, since late 2019, he has been raising concerns about the welfare of his children (who live with their mother and her boyfriend). In his view, the Council has ignored those concerns and failed to protect his children.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have only investigated matters between late 2019 and the date of Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman (in August 2022). He will need to direct any later complaints to the Council before approaching the Ombudsman again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr B and the Council. This included Mr B’s children’s social care records.
6. I considered the 2018 children’s social care statutory guidance document, ‘Working together to safeguard children’.
7. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

‘Working together to safeguard children’

8. When a council receives a referral, it has one working day to decide what to do. If a child may be suffering significant harm, the council must hold a strategy discussion.
9. The discussion should be used to share available information, agree the conduct and timing of any criminal investigation, and decide whether child protection enquiries must be undertaken.
10. If child protection enquiries are to be undertaken, the council must complete an assessment and decide next steps within 45 working days of receiving the referral. The assessment must be based upon the needs of the child and completed in line with local procedures.

What happened

11. In January 2020, Mr B called the Council to express concerns about his children. He said his ex-partner (his children’s mother) was not sticking to their contact agreement. He said she favoured their eight-year-old son and bought him gifts while not doing the same for their six-year-old daughter. He also said he had seen each child playing (separately) with their own genitals.
12. The Council told Mr B that the information he provided did not meet its threshold for intervention.
13. In September 2020, the Council was contacted by the Police. Mr B had reported that his daughter had been pinched by her stepfather, causing a bruise. Mr B had also reported other matters which suggested his children were uncomfortable with their stepfather’s behaviour.
14. The Council held a strategy discussion with the Police on the same day. Both agreed to conduct further enquiries – together – to establish the children’s safety. They agreed to see the children at school.
15. The Council spoke to the local health department, which had no concerns about the children’s safety or development. It then – seven days after the strategy discussion – visited the children. Mr B’s daughter confirmed that her stepfather had pinched her; however, by that time there was no evidence of a bruise.
16. The Council and the Police then visited the children’s mother, who agreed to supervise any contact between the children and their stepfather while enquiries were undertaken.
17. The Council visited the children’s home again a few days later – unannounced – and observed that they were supervised by their mother. She said the pinch of her daughter’s arm was ‘playfighting’ which had gone too far.
18. The Council completed its assessment within 45 working days. It decided the children’s mother could protect them. It noted that she had asked the children’s stepfather to leave the family home. No further action was taken.
19. A month later Mr B told the Council that his children’s stepfather had returned home. He said he knew this because he had seen the stepfather’s car close by. He did not have any other evidence. The Council refused to go and check the family home, and said Mr B could report this to the Police if he was concerned about the children’s welfare.
20. Shortly after this a social worker – who was completing a court report in relation to Mr B’s application for contact with his children – spoke to the children’s mother, who denied that their stepfather had returned home. The social worker said the Council would be concerned if he did.
21. The social worker then spoke to Mr B. He said his children had been subjected to seeing their mother and stepfather have sex. When questioned further, he said they had told the children they were 'going upstairs to have some time together’. Mr B assumed this meant they were having sex. The children did not go upstairs with them.
22. In February 2021 the social worker, who was still completing the court report, visited Mr B. He said the children’s home was untidy. The social worker visited the children and noted that their home was slightly cluttered, but decided this was not of concern.
23. In June 2021 Mr B told the Council, again, that his children’s stepfather had returned home. He said his daughter had been asked to lie about this.
24. A duty social worker spoke to Mr B – who repeated allegations he had been making over the previous year – and to the social worker who had completed the court report. The social worker said that, although the children’s stepfather had been asked to leave their home, there did not appear to have been any issues since.
25. The duty social worker then spoke to the children’s mother, who claimed their stepfather only visited the family home, and did not live there.
26. The Council decided there had been no new evidence provided, no court orders preventing the children from seeing their stepfather, and no ongoing concerns about the children. It noted that a court would hear Mr B’s application for contact in December. No further action was taken.
27. A month later, Mr B contacted the Council again with similar concerns. The Council’s ‘out of hours’ team told him to report these to the Police if he felt the children were in immediate danger. He did, and the Police visited, but had no concerns.
28. The day after, a duty social worker called the children’s mother to discuss the referral. No concerns arose from the call.
29. The Council decided the threshold was not met for further action.
30. At the end of July Mr B called the Council again with concerns about his children. The Council’s case note is cut off in the middle of a sentence, so it is not clear how it responded.
31. The Council heard nothing more until May 2022, when the Police reported that
    Mr B had turned up at his son’s school demanding to see him. The Council decided it had no identified role and therefore would take no further action.

My findings

32. Mr B has been raising safeguarding concerns about his children with the Council since early 2020. Although these concerns were possibly not unrelated to his prolonged and acrimonious court battle with his ex-partner, the Council still had to consider any concerns he raised and decide what, if any, action to take.
33. The evidence provided by the Council shows – with one exception – a clear consideration of, and response to, Mr B’s concerns on each occasion he raised them. On some occasions the Council felt the concerns did not meet the threshold for further intervention, and told Mr B so. On other occasions some further enquiries were completed by duty social workers before the Council decided to take no further action. On one occasion a strategy discussion was held, and a child protection enquiry completed, which also led to no further action.
34. I cannot decide whether Mr B’s claims were valid, or whether his children are or were at risk of significant harm. This was for the Council to decide. My role is to ensure that, in making such decisions, the Council properly considered evidence and acted in line with correct procedure. In Mr B’s case the Council generally did so. This means I have no power to question its decisions.
35. The one example of unclear decision-making was in July 2021, when Mr B called the Council with concerns and the Council’s case note is cut off mid-sentence without any detail of how it responded.
36. I have considered whether this justifies a finding of fault, as I cannot assess what the Council did on that occasion. But, in my view, this would not be proportionate. The concerns Mr B raised were generally quite repetitive and I consider it unlikely, having viewed the case as a whole, that anything he brought to the Council’s attention remains unaddressed.
37. One issue of note is that the Council decided, after receiving a report that Mr B’s daughter had a bruise caused by her stepfather, to wait seven days before visiting her. Unsurprisingly, there was no evidence of the bruise by then.
38. There is no statutory timescale in which to visit a child after a strategy meeting and it is not my role to provide guidance on how to conduct child protection enquiries. Furthermore, it is uncontested by all parties that there was a bruise and that it was caused by the child’s stepfather, so the Council’s failure to actually see the bruise did not cause the child a significant injustice.
39. For these reasons, I have found no fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

40. There was no fault in how the Council dealt with concerns Mr B raised about his children.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman