Summary: Mr X complained about the action of children’s services between June and October 2022. We upheld the complaint finding the Council missed a series of opportunities to review an initial decision not to assess his daughter as a potential child a need. It also failed to communicate effectively with Mr X. These faults caused him unnecessary distress. The Council accepts these findings and at the end of this statement we set out the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant, ‘Mr X’. His complaint concerns the actions of Council children’s services between June and October 2022. During that time Mr X’s daughter, a teenager whom I will call ‘Y’, left his home where a court order says she should live, and moved in with his former partner, ‘Mrs Z’. Mr X complains the Council, when alerted to these circumstances:

• did not take seriously his concerns for Y’s welfare, despite the court order and its previous involvement in family life, showing there were concerns for Y’s welfare when in the care of Mrs Z;
• did not change its position in response to changing events; Y took a non-accidental overdose in Mrs Z’s care in July 2022 and later there was conflict between Y and Mrs Z which resulted in the police being called and Mrs Z threatening to remove Y from her home;
• did not communicate effectively with him or explain work it was undertaking with Y.

2. Mr X considers that underpinning the Council’s position was:

• an over-reliance on advice it received from a therapist supporting Y, commissioned privately by Mrs Z; this included forwarding allegations about Mr X who was not told about the allegations at the time;
• institutional sexism; Mr X considers the Council had an inbuilt bias towards him because he was a father.

3. Mr X says because of the above, the Council failed to intervene and Y lived with Mrs Z longer than need have been the case, before returning to his care in October 2022. Mr X considers this caused her harm, shown by the non-accidental overdose and several later confrontations between Y and Mrs Z. Mr X says the Council caused him considerable frustration and distress in his dealings with it.

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. 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

7. Before issuing this decision statement I considered the following sources of information:

• Mr X’s complaint to us and any supporting information he provided, including via emails or telephone calls;
• correspondence between Mr X and the Council which pre-dated our investigation and covered the matters subject to his complaint;
• information provided by the Council in reply to my written enquiries;
• relevant law and national guidance around children’s social services as referred to below;
• relevant guidance published by this office including our guidance on remedies.

8. I gave Mr X and the Council a chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments made before issuing the final decision statement.
9. We have an information sharing agreement with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). Under the terms of that agreement, we will share the final decision in this case with Ofsted before publication on our website.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and Administrative Considerations

Child Protection

10. 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)
11. If a council receives a report a child might be at risk of significant harm, then it should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family. For example, consulting their health visitor, GP or school. This information gathering should help the council 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 which could lead to it placing a child on a child protection plan or taking action to bring the child into care.

12. Another outcome might be for the council to offer ‘early help services’. These are forms of support aimed at improving outcomes for children or preventing escalating need or risk. A council may offer such services at any stage in a child or young person's life, from the early years through to adolescence. It can offer services to parents, children, or whole families. Early help services are often delivered in partnership between councils and other professionals. For example, a child’s school may take the lead in delivering support.
13. Alternatively, if a council considers a child is one ‘in need’, then it may offer services under Section 17 of the Children’s Act. The Children’s Act 1989 defines a child in need as one “unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority”. This is because their “health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision […] of such services”.

Background to this complaint

14. Mr X has had past engagement with the Council’s children’s services. In particular, between summer 2014 and November 2015. At the beginning of this involvement Mr X lived with his now ex-partner, Mrs Z, and their three dependent children of whom Y is the youngest. The Council became involved because of concerns for the wellbeing of the children. There was parental conflict and Mrs Z had mental health illness. All three children were on child protection plans.
15. During the Council’s involvement, Mr X and Mrs Z separated. Mr X became the primary carer for all three children. The Council gradually stepped down its involvement, taking all three children off child protection plans and supporting them for a time as ‘children in need’ before ending its involvement. In 2015 and 2016 following a series of hearings at the family court, Mr X gained residency of all three children with Mrs Z maintaining contact arrangements. The court held all three children should live with him until they turned 16.
16. The Council records receiving further contact in late 2017 due to concerns about Y’s behaviour and welfare during time she spent with Mrs Z. The Council closed that enquiry in summer 2018 resolving not to take further action.

Chronology of key events forming this complaint

17. In early June 2022 Y left Mr X’s home and moved in with Mrs Z. By now she was a teenager aged under 16.
18. Around five days after Y left his care, Mr X contacted the Council expressing concerns for her wellbeing. He told the Council that Y had not gone to school that day and he did not think this was because she was unwell. He said that based on past experience he believed Mrs Z’s history of poor mental health would cause harm to Y.
19. Council children’s services spoke to Y’s school. It did not pass on any information suggesting it had any significant concerns for her wellbeing.
20. The Council came to the view that Y was not at “any immediate risk”. The record of its decision, shows that it took account that:

• Y’s school had no concerns for her wellbeing;
• that Mr X raised historic concerns about Mrs Z’s care of Y;
• that Mr X and Mrs Z’s older children were both now living with Mrs Z (being aged over 16) and it had no recorded concerns about their wellbeing;
• that before moving in with Mrs Z, Y had visited Mrs Z under contact arrangements and it had received no concerns about this;
• that Y’s living arrangements were a matter for the civil courts.

21. The Council noted however that parental conflict could have an impact on Y. It therefore decided to carry out an early help assessment and referred Y’s case to its early help hub.
22. In mid-June 2022 the Council received a contact from ‘Dr Q’ – a therapist privately commissioned by Mrs Z, working with Y. Dr Q said Y had disclosed to them that she had been hit by Mr X and he was verbally abusive to her.
23. The Council recorded in its notes it had recently received another enquiry raising “similar concerns” and noted this had led it to refer Y’s case to early help. It considered it need take no further action in response to Dr Q’s contact.
24. Then, in early July 2023, Mr X got back in touch with the Council. He told it Y had taken a non-accidental overdose. He reiterated his concern for her mental health living with Mrs Y.
25. The Council notes recorded the overdose “previously known”, although did not record who else reported it. The Council has a hospital discharge record for Y, but its contemporaneous notes say the hospital did not contact it. I note the hospital discharge record says the hospital had no safeguarding concerns for Y. Mr X says that when he spoke to the Council, it told him Dr Q had reported the overdose.
26. The notes record the Council considered Mr X was raising the same concerns for Y’s welfare as before. It noted its understanding that Y wanted to live with Mrs Z and was unhappy living with Mr X. It said there were “no safeguarding concerns evident in mum’s care”. It noted the hospital had not contacted it direct and said “support already considered by EHH [Early Help Hub]… NFA as concerns already considered and [Y] is happy with mum.”
27. In mid-July 2022 Dr Q contacted the Council again. They said they had concerns for Y’s welfare. Dr Q repeated the previous report that Y had disclosed about Mr X. But they also now suggested concerns Y was potentially unsafe at Mrs Z’s home and may take another overdose. This report prompted the Council to again refer Y’s case to it early help service and requested it treat the report as a priority. Around the same time the Council also received a report from Y’s school concerned for Y’s behaviour while living with Mrs Z.
28. Just over a week later the Council assigned Y’s case to a young person’s worker (YPW) in its Early Help Service. They completed an early help assessment of Y in August 2022.
29. Before completing the assessment, the Council contacted both parents for their views. Mr X spoke to the assessor and provided a lengthy account of the history of concerns for Y’s wellbeing, the family’s involvement with social services and decisions of the family court. However, the assessment contained none of this detail. It referred only to Mr X having concern for Y’s mental health.
30. The YPW said they would work with Y to encourage “healthy relationships, increasing self-esteem and building resilience, school attendance and exploring mental health”. The Council says the YPW met with Y twice subsequently. I asked for notes of their involvement in Y’s case, but none were provided. There are also no notes of any later communications with either Mr X or Mrs Z.
31. In mid-August 2022 Mr X contacted the Council, concerned Mrs Z may try to leave the UK with Y. A Council social worker visited Y, speaking to her, Mrs Z and Y’s siblings. The Council recorded having no safeguarding concerns, finding no grounds for thinking Mrs Z was planning on going abroad with Y. They commented positively on Y’s presentation and that she appeared ‘happy’.
32. In mid-September 2022 the police told the Council Mr X had been in touch after receiving distressing emails from Mrs Z. Around a week later it received reports of concerning behaviour by Y, involving confrontation both with Mrs Z and one of her siblings. In his complaint Mr X described that on three occasions at the end of September, Y assaulted Mrs Z and sent threatening text messages to her.
33. Four days later the Council learnt the police were called to an incident involving Y and Mrs Z, where Y was arrested. She returned to Mrs Z’s house but there were concerns about if she could remain there.
34. In early October 2022 Y’s school also expressed concerns for Y’s welfare. She was now regularly not attending school. It reported Mrs Z no longer wanted Y to live with her.
35. In mid-October 2022 Mr X spoke to the early help service and expressed his concern for the escalating situation at Mrs Z’s house. He explained that in the past social services had used persuasion with Mrs Z to encourage Y to return to his care and he did not understand why it had not done so here. There was a conversation around Y’s care and discussion of the Council assessing Y’s needs. The service gave Mr Z an emergency number to contact if the situation deteriorated further.
36. Mr X subsequently called that number and spoke to a duty social worker. He rang them after receiving emails from Mrs Z, who told Mr X she would remove Y from her house ‘by any means necessary’. Mr X explained his concern for Y’s welfare and safety.
37. The Council told Mr X it could not enforce the court order and only the police had the power to do this. The Council suggested Mr X could go to the house to collect Y and it recorded him becoming angry at this point, although Mr X says this was not the case. He explained court orders prevented him going to Mrs Z’s house. The Council recorded Mr X becoming further upset when the social worker asked him what evidence he had that Y was not safe in Mrs Z’s care.
38. In the event Y soon returned to Mr X’s care by the police who again attended Mrs Z’s house. Y continues to live with him and subsequently the Council have undertaken a children and families assessment with Y. This concluded in March 2023. The Council did not consider Y a ‘child in need’ as defined by the Children’s Act. But it did offer further support services. The assessment noted that Y was in a stable household environment with Mr X and her school attendance had significantly improved since returning to live with him.

Mr X’s complaints

39. At the end of September 2022 Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He expressed dissatisfaction with how it responded to his contacts from June 2022 onward. In particular he complained:

• that it should have intervened following his contacts, knowing of the family history and the court orders requiring Y to reside with him. He believed its failure to intervene reflected a casual sexism;
• that its early help assessment did not reflect the information he gave the YPW about the family history. Also, that he had received no contact from a second YPW assigned Y’s case;
• that it had given too much weight to information received from Dr Q whom he believed had a potential conflict of interest in advising on the case. Mr X considered Dr Q’s involvement had influenced the lack of dialogue he had with Children’s Services.

40. Subsequently, Mr X also added a complaint about the telephone call in mid-October with its duty social worker. He said he found them “surly, unco-operative and dismissive”.
41. The Council replied to this complaint under its corporate complaints procedure which has three stages. Over the following months Mr X escalated his complaint through each stage.
42. The Council’s replies to Mr X changed over time. But by the end of the complaint procedure, its position on each part of its complaint can be summarised as follows:

• that it defended its initial assessment of Y’s case. It said it could not intervene to remove Y from Mrs Z’s care without evidence she was at immediate risk of harm or been caused harm by a third party. It recognised it had historic involvement with the family, but it could not intervene to enforce court orders. That said, it recognised it could have undertaken a full assessment of Y’s needs under Section 17 of the Children’s Act sooner. Its final response said it should have done this after it learnt of Y’s non-accidental overdose;
• it considered there was no evidence of sexism that affected the service Mr X received. But it recognised “a shortfall in how fathers are engaged” with its children’s services. It worked to improve this and said its senior managers would carry out more work to reinforce the need for this engagement. It has subsequently sent me details of training courses it has offered to staff on engaging with fathers;
• it acknowledged the early help assessment was very brief and should have included some of the background information Mr X provided. It suggested initially it could not have added more detail except when all family members agreed to this, but this was wrong. It could include factually correct information within such an assessment;
• that it was for the YPW to work with the young person and generally do so confidentially. But that it could have involved Mr X more in that service’s work;
• that its decisions around Y’s case did not place an over-reliance on Dr Q’s advice and it did not consider they had a conflict of interest;
• that its duty social worker was reinforcing the view the Council cannot become involved in civil disputes between parents which are for the courts. But that they should have told Mr X to contact the police if concerned for Y’s welfare.

43. The Council also sought to assure Mr X that in its ongoing work with Y it would ensure it had a clear record of her history. It also told him that it had an ‘improvement plan’ for its ‘integrated front door team’ aiming to improve its initial decision making.

My findings

44. I explained above that it is not our role to question the judgement reached by council officers, so long as we consider they have made a decision properly. In practice, what this usually means is that we look for evidence the Council has only taken relevant considerations into account in making a decision and not given weight to anything irrelevant.
45. When I look at the Council’s involvement in Y’s case, I do not consider I could find fault in its initial assessment in June 2022 that Y was not at risk of significant harm, nor that she was potentially a child in need. This is because the Council’s record keeping shows that before reaching this judgment it took a range of factors into account. This included knowledge of the Council’s historic involvement in the case and the court order around residence. This was a decision properly made.
46. In coming to this view, I noted there was little commentary around the history of Y’s involvement with children’s services. For example, in noting the specific concerns for Y’s behaviour expressed in late 2017 when she spent time with Mrs Z. But significant time had passed since then, something the Council clearly put weight on. It also put weight on the contemporary evidence it had from the school about Y’s wellbeing. Further, I note the Council did not decide to do nothing. Instead, it wanted an early help assessment of Y, appropriate to consider if she needed support.
47. I consider any fault in this case therefore lies in considering the Council’s response to the events that followed over the subsequent weeks.
48. First, there was the initial report made by Dr Q. This raised concerns about Y’s wellbeing when residing with Mr X, not Mrs Z. So, this would not have changed the Council’s view that it should not intervene in Y’s then living arrangements. But it is concerning the Council recorded this referral as raising “similar concerns” to those made by Mr X, when clearly it raised different concerns.
49. Second, the Council learnt of Y’s non-accidental overdose in July 2022. The Council has not kept adequate records here. Its note of Mr X’s contact says Y’s overdose was “previously known”. But there is no record of who told it first about the overdose, nor what they said. Mr X has a clear recollection of being told the Council had spoken to Dr Q and it was they who reported the overdose. This appears credible, without any other explanation for the Council’s prior knowledge and the comment made about Mr X’s report that the hospital had not informed it direct (at that time).
50. It is further concerning the Council should record Y “happy” in Mrs X’s care given what had just happened. I accept this could simply be poor wording – the Council having no reason to think Y was not exercising choice in wanting to live with Mrs Z. But to refer to a child with known mental health concerns who has just taken a non-accidental overdose as ‘happy’ suggests a cursory approach to the report or reports it had just received.
51. Third, by mid-July 2022 the Council had received two further reports from third parties – Y’s school and Dr Q – expressing concern for Y’s wellbeing in Mrs Z’s care. It was clear from these reports that tensions had increased in that relationship. These reports followed the recent overdose and aligned with the concerns Mr X expressed. Given also the history known to the Council, I consider it should have reviewed its decision to pass Y’s case to its early help service. This would be to decide if a higher level of intervention was merited. But its records do not suggest that happened.
52. Fourth, by mid-August 2022 Y was engaged with her YPW who assessed her needs. But there is little in the record of Y’s contacts with that service that reflects any contemporaneous concerns for her wellbeing as summarised above. I recognise that service may not have considered it could explore some concerns, as they were more suited for the social work or health services. But there is no record of it considering whether to refer Y’s case at that time for a child in need assessment and if not, why not. However, I also recognise this might have been a more settled period of time for Y. I base this view on what the Council recorded when Mr X expressed concern Mrs Z may try and take Y out of the UK. I accept from that record; the Council had no concerns for Y’s immediate wellbeing.
53. Fifth, by mid-September clearly matters had escalated further. The Council became aware, from multiple sources over a period of two weeks of an increasingly deteriorating relationship between Y and Mrs Z. There is again a lack of record to show any detailed consideration of how the Council thought about services it might offer Y. From Mr X’s account he became aware that Y’s case would be referred for an assessment to consider if she was a child in need. But nowhere have I seen a record of that decision, or the Council communicating it to him.
54. Sixth, there was the contact Mr X had with the duty social work service in mid-October. I think it fair to recognise that worker would not necessarily have to hand the information Mr X might have assumed. I think it fair they asked Mr X to specify his concerns for Y and why he could not collect her from Mrs Z’s home.
55. Although that said, I can also understand Mr X’s frustration by this point. Because clearly not only had the Council not been regularly reviewing the level of service it should provide for Y, but also not communicating with him effectively. I am not clear before he complained that Mr X received any satisfactory explanation for the circumstances where the Council might intervene to take action to safeguard Y. Nor what account it took of changing events following his initial contact in June 2022. I consider these factors would have influenced Mr X’s levels of stress and patience in talking to the Council and caused that conversation to become more fraught.
56. This leads me to consider the injustice experienced by Mr X as a result of the faults I have identified above. I consider even without fault there would have been distress to Mr X. I have set out that I do not consider the Council at fault for not intervening more at the outset of these events. And it would have caused more distress to Mr X had he learnt of the allegations made about him, which he only learnt of after he complained. While, from early July onward, the Council should have undertaken a more thorough review of its position this too may not have resulted in the outcome Mr X wanted. The Council’s judgment is that from early July it should have assessed Y and offered services to her as a ‘child in need’. I consider this fair. But it would be wrong to assume this would have led to Y returning to live with Mr X at that time.
57. In reaching this conclusion I have also taken account of the published ‘threshold’ document used by the Council when deciding what services to offer. There is nothing in that which would point to the Council being required to undertake a more forceful intervention. Over time it had an accumulating body of evidence that Y’s behaviour and actions were becoming more worrying. But even then, her circumstances may not have met the threshold of ‘significant harm’.
58. But with all that said I consider Mr X’s distress was still greater than need have been the case. It is clear from his own statements that Mr X felt excluded from decision making around his own daughter and felt his concerns were not taken seriously. I consider this was avoidable had the Council given more consideration to events as they unfolded and communicated better with him.
59. I recognise Mr X believes a casual sexism may have contributed to the Council’s faults. He considers he received a lesser level of service as the father in this case and his experience would have been different if the roles were reversed. However, I cannot reach this finding. There is no evidence I can point to that says the poor service Mr X received was because he is a man.
60. I accept that such evidence might not be recorded. So, this does not preclude the possibility of bias. But as an organisation we cannot make such a finding. We are not a regulator of children’s services. Therefore, we cannot consider Mr X’s experience alongside those of other fathers in contact with children’s services and draw any wider conclusions. Nor are we able to recommend that authorities carry out audits of their services to explore such matters. It is welcome the Council has engaged to some degree with Mr X on this question and provided some information about work it has done to support working with fathers. While I appreciate this may not go far enough for Mr X there is nothing more we can do here, although as I noted above this decision will be shared with the regulator, Ofsted.
61. Finally, I have also considered what injustice might have been caused to Y by these events. The Council has acknowledged that it should have assessed to see if she was a child in need sooner. So, while I note Y received some support through its early help services, it is arguable this was not the right support at the right time. I have also gone on to note that when it completed a full assessment earlier this year the Council did not find Y was a child in need. Nor offer services additional to those offered before. Consequently, I cannot say for certain the Council should have offered any different services in 2022. And the evidence does not suggest the Council’s actions caused any lasting or significant harm to Y. But if Y is in less need of support now then that may also simply reflect the more stable environment at Mr X’s home.
62. I am left with too much uncertainty therefore to reach any clear view on the consequence of the faults to Y. But I consider it is still appropriate the Council should acknowledge to Y, that it should have taken a more active role in her case at what was clearly a difficult time in her life.

Back to top

Agreed action

63. The Council accepts the findings set out above. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and Y it has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will:
1. provide both Mr X and Y with apologies in line with our published guidance on remedies; recognising the injustice caused by the faults in this case;
2. pay Mr X £500 as a symbolic payment in view of the avoidable distress he experienced.
64. In addition, the Council agrees that can use Mr X’s complaint to improve the services it delivers. Within three months of a decision on this complaint it has agreed to brief all relevant staff who assess or triage child safeguarding reports:
1. of the importance of keeping written records of all communications with parents or professionals sharing information;
2. of the importance of professional reflection when the Council has decided on a course of action but may need to review that in the light of new evidence about a child’s circumstances; it must be able to show a proper consideration of that evidence and reasons for any decision taken.
65. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

66. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mr X. The Council accepts this finding and has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman