Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act in response to his concerns about the risk posed to his daughter by her mother’s new partner. Mr X says the Council failing to act resulted in his daughter suffering a sexual assault. We did not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take effective action in response to his concerns that his daughter was at risk from her mother’s new partner. Mr X says the Council’s failure to act led to his daughter suffering sexual assault.
2. Mr X also complained the Council unreasonably restricts his contact with his children.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to act in response to his concerns.
4. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council restricting contact his children. I have not investigated this part of Mr X’s complaint because this is subject to court proceedings. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint when a court is handling a matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
8. 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

9. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
10. Mr X provided comments on my draft decision which I considered before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Protecting Children from harm

11. The Council has a duty to investigate if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. This duty comes under Section 47 of the Children Act
12. The government has issued guidance to Councils managing cases where there are concerns about a child’s safety or welfare.
13. The Council must have reasonable cause to suspect that a child is likely to suffer harm before it can enquire. The Council cannot investigate to see if there is a problem unless it has reasonable cause for suspicion.

Council’s policy and procedure

14. The Council’s policy outlines what the Council should do when a member of the public contacts the Council to raise concerns about the safety of a child. The Council should note down the details of the caller and the concern with any other relevant information. The Council should then pass this matter to a manager to decide on further action.
15. The Council may consider that it needs to complete an assessment following contact if they consider a child is at risk of significant harm. The Council will refer a contact to the relevant social workers to make this decision. Within one working day the Council should decide what action to take, for example starting a child and family assessment, or child protection enquiry.
16. Following contact, the Council should tell the parent or carer of the child about the contact unless doing so would put the child at risk.

What happened

17. At the start of 2020, a referral was made to the Council for Mr X’s daughter, Y, for a Child and Family Assessment because of issues in the home setting.
18. Mrs X denied Mr X access to his children around this time.
19. The Council’s assessed Y, with her siblings, and decided it should make the children subject to a Child in Need plan. The Council followed this with a child protection assessment concluding it should make all the children subject to a Child Protection Plan.
20. In June 2020, the Council reviewed the situation and decided to preserve the Child Protection Plan.
21. On 17 July 2020, Mr X contacted the Council to advise his brother posed a risk to his children. Mr X told the Council his brother had sexually abused children in his home country, and he was now having a relationship with Mrs X.
22. The Council contacted Mrs X following the allegation. Mrs X told the Council she was not aware of the allegation. The Council told Mrs X that Mr X’s brother should not have access to the children. Mrs X agreed to this.
23. The Council conducted a meeting about the allegation and discussed how to proceed with the investigation. The Council confirmed it had already told Mrs X not to allow contact and noted the children were already subject to a Child Protection Plan.
24. At the end of July 2020, the Council completed a visit to Mrs X and enquired about Mr X’s brother. Mrs X told the Council she did not know the information the Council needed and had not seen him in a while. Mrs X reaffirmed she would not allow him near the children.
25. The Council produced a written safety plan for the children confirming Mr X’s brother should not have access to the children or enter the home. The Council completed further visits with Mrs X and reaffirmed Mr X’s brother should not have access to the children.
26. In October and November 2020, the Council discussed the allegations in further meetings. The Council noted it had enquired but could not find the relevant information about Mr X’s brother. The Council noted the children remained subject of a Child Protection Plan.
27. In September 2022, Y’s school referred her to the Council for a safeguarding investigation following allegations that Mr X’s brother had sexually assaulted her a few years ago and had done so more than once. The Council opened a safeguarding investigation into this matter.
28. Mr X complained to the Council in October 2022 about its failure to act in response to his allegations in July 2020.
29. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint to advise it responded to Mr X’s allegations in July 2020 before confirming with Mrs X’s that his brother should not have contact with the children. The Council said none of the children disclosed any harm from Mr X’s brother throughout 2020 and 2021. The Council said it has been monitoring the situation through its social workers and considered it has followed the correct procedures.
30. Mr X responded to advise he considered the Council should have done more. Mr X said the Council’s lack of action has resulted in his child being sexually abused.
31. The Council provided a Stage 2 complaint response to Mr X. The Council said:
• It contacted Mrs X on the same day Mr X made an allegation in July 2020 to advise of the risks. The Council said it confirmed to Mrs X to not allow contact.
• It sought details of Mr X’s brother from both Mr X and Mrs X to undertake checks but neither provided his details.
• Mrs X confirmed with the Council she was not having further contact with Mr X’s brother.
• It continued to work with the children, who were subject to a Child Protection Plan, and Mrs X who continued to deny she had any contact with Mr X’s brother.
• Throughout its involvement there was no indication the children had contact with Mr X’s brother.

Analysis

32. When Mr X raised his concerns about the safety of his children, because of his brother, the Council had a duty under Section 47 of the Childrens Act to investigate the matter. This duty engaged if the Council had reasonable cause to suspect Mr X’s children would likely suffer significant harm.
33. Section 47 of the Childrens Act is a duty to complete a Child Protection investigation. Mr X’s children were already subject to a Child Protection Plan following a previous Child Protection investigation by the Council a few months prior. Given the children were already subject to this Child Protection Plan, the Council decided it could include the allegations raised about Mr X’s brother within this Child Protection Plan. This was a suitable response to the allegations and I do not find fault.
34. The Council’s policy says it should tell a parent about safeguarding concerns raised. The Council contacted Mrs X on the same day as Mr X contacted it. The Council told Mrs X about the allegations and ensured she agreed not to allow further contact between Mr X’s brother and the children. The Council followed its policy by contacting Mrs X and took suitable steps to ask she prevented access.
35. As part the Child Protection Plan the Council continued to have regular contact with Mrs X. The Council has shown it repeatedly reiterated to Mrs X to not allow contacted between Mr X’s brother and the children. The Council also drew up a safety plan in which it confirmed the same. The Council acted appropriately to reaffirm the need for Mr X’s brother not to have contact with the children.
36. The Council, along with other professionals, also continued to support the children and made routine visits to the property as part of the Child Protection Plan. None of the professionals involved in the Child Protection Plan, including the Council’s social workers, raised any concerns about Mr X’s brother being involved with the children. The children also failed to disclose contact with Mr X’s brother at any point. The Council had no evidence of further contact so it would have no reason to take further action.
37. The Council also attempted to complete further enquiries about Mr X’s brother by asking Mrs X and Mr X for his details. Neither Mr X nor Mrs X provided any details about Mr X’s brother to enable the Council to complete further enquiries.
38. The Council has appropriately supported Mrs X and the children and followed its policies and procedures. The Council’s actions were proportionate given the lack of information about Mr X’s brother or evidence of any contact between Mr X’s brother and the children. I do not find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman