Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council used false and inaccurate information during child protection inquiries to create a negative assessment of her and her family. She also said the Council did not communicate properly and failed to consider her human rights. We found the Council was at fault in that it included inaccurate and irrelevant information in various documents causing Mrs X distress. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to amend the documents, apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council has used false and inaccurate information during child protection inquiries to create a negative assessment of her and her family. She says the Council has not communicated properly and failed to consider her human rights and privacy. Mrs X says this has caused unnecessary distress, created issues with her husband, invaded her privacy and says her needs, and those of her family, have not been addressed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information provided by Ms X, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. Ms X 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

Legal and administrative background

Child protection-duty to make enquiries

6. 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.
7. Following a referral, the Council must decide within one working day whether it is going to begin an investigation. Before starting an investigation, the Council must hold a strategy discussion with the Police to decide what action to take.
8. If the Council decides to investigate, it must complete an assessment within 45 working days. The assessment will help the Council decide whether the child and family need help to keep the child safe.
9. Where the Council’s concerns that the child is likely to suffer significant harm are substantiated, it must arrange an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) within 15 working days of the strategy discussion. This is a multi-agency meeting to explore the safeguarding concerns and decide whether the child needs a child protection plan to ensure their safety.

Child protection conference arrangements

10. The CPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
11. After the ICPC, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences (RCPC’s) to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
12. RCPC’s should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
13. The CPC is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
14. The CPC plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the CPC unless there was good reason not to.

The Equality Act 2010

15. The Equality Act 2010 protects the rights of individuals and supports equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
16. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts.

The Human Rights Act 1998

17. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act protects a person’s right to a family life, which means a right to enjoy family relationships without interference from authorities. This includes the right of a person to live with their family or, where this is not possible, to have contact with them. Public authorities may interfere with Article 8 rights in certain circumstances. For example, councils may interfere in family relationships to protect a child’s health, rights or freedoms. Councils must show their actions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Proportionate means the action must be no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

Key facts

18. Mrs X was pregnant and living with her husband, Mr X, and their young son, C. In July 2022 the police made a referral to the Council saying Mrs X had telephoned them reporting that she had been beaten by Mr X. When they visited, C disclosed that he had also been beaten by Mr X. The police had arrested Mr X but released him on bail subject to conditions that he must not contact or interfere directly or indirectly with Mrs X or C and must not enter the family home for any reason.
19. The Council held a strategy meeting to discuss the situation in September 2022. Professionals were concerned about the welfare of Mrs X, C, and the unborn child and decided the threshold was met for a section 47 investigation.
20. The Council made section 47 enquiries. It concluded C was at risk of harm so the case should progress to an ICPC and the social worker would complete an assessment.
21. An ICPC was held in October 2022 following the completion of the assessment. Mrs X attended the meeting. The conference decided that both C and Mrs X’s unborn child would be placed on a child protection plan under the category of neglect.
22. The case was allocated to a social worker who carried out announced and unannounced visits to the family.
23. An RCPC was held in January 2023. The conference decided C and the unborn baby should remain on a child protection plan.
24. Later in January the social worker completed an unannounced visit and found Mr X in the home in breach of his bail conditions.
25. Shortly afterwards, Mrs X and C moved out of the Council’s area. A transfer conference was later held and the case was transferred to the new council.
26. In the meantime, Mrs X complained to the Council saying:
• it was ignoring her needs and statements;
• she had been subjected to racism;
• the Council’s reports contained false information and stated the opposite of what was decided in the meetings;
• the Council would not allow her husband to be present in hospital when she gave birth to the baby; and
• the social worker had not replied to her emails.
27. The team manager responded at stage 1 of the Council’s complaints process. She said:
• the reports were an accurate reflection of what had taken place and were not the opposite of what Mrs X had expressed at meetings;
• the Council had not fabricated any events in its reports;
• there were still concerns about how well the child protection plan was being engaged with by the family; and
• Mrs X’s emails had been read and addressed at the recent RCPC.
28. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process. The team manager responded explaining that the bail conditions were set by the police and must be adhered to so the social worker could not assist in allowing Mr X to visit Mrs X. She repeated that she had addressed Mrs X’s emails and concerns during the RCPC and again assured her that no reports had been falsified. She requested evidence in support of Mrs X’s allegation of racial discrimination.
29. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complained to us.

Analysis

Inaccurate statements

30. In the ICPC Decision and Plan and later documents, including the RCPC Decision and Plan and the minutes of Core Group meetings, the Council stated that Ms X was abandoned by her father. It also stated she was ‘non-verbal’ and under the influence of her husband who did not allow her to talk to anyone and that he left her alone at a clinic. Mrs X says these statements are not true and create a false impression.
31. In response to Mrs X’s complaints, the team manager strongly denied that there was any incorrect information in the reports. However, in response to my enquiries, the Council accepted these statements were included in documents even though they “appear non-related to [Mrs X’s] case”. It also accepted that Mrs X has always spoken and been articulate in sharing her views.
32. I find the Council was at fault in including these incorrect statements in the ICPC and later documents. The inaccuracies caused Mrs X an injustice as they may have caused prejudice against her in anyone reading the documents who was not aware of the true situation. Mrs X says this was distressing. I have recommended a remedy for the injustice caused below.

Racism

33. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding on whether the Council unlawfully discriminated against Mrs X on grounds of race. Such decisions about discrimination are for the courts. However, there are no grounds to suggest that the Council was influenced by racism in deciding to make enquiries and hold an ICPC. Following the referral from the police and Mrs X’s disclosures about domestic abuse to them, the Council was entitled to decide that the threshold for doing so was met.

Right to a private family life

34. Mrs X says the Council should respect her family’s right to a private family life. However, it the Council is entitled to interfere with this right to protect a child’s health, rights or freedoms provided its actions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. Given that the police made a referral following Mrs X’s reports of domestic abuse, and C also reported abuse, the Council was entitled to decide to proceed with child protection. I find no grounds to criticise the Council’s decision.

Emails and telephone calls

35. Mrs X says the social worker did not answer her emails and telephone calls. The Council’s team manager stated in response to Mrs X’s complaint that her emails had been responded to at the RCPC.
36. I have seen no evidence from the Council’s case notes that emails or telephone calls were not returned.

Time-consuming process

37. Mrs X says the process has taken up a lot of her time, including writing emails and letters and attending meetings.
38. The Council has a duty to investigate where it suspects a child in its area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. It has a duty to conduct both announced and unannounced visits to the family and to hold CPC’s. While I appreciate this is time-consuming, the child’s needs are paramount and there are no grounds to criticise the Council in this regard.

The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint

39. I find there was fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X’s complaint. The Children’s Services team manager responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage 1. However, she was not independent, having been involved in the events leading to the complaint. She stated in her complaint responses that she was present at the RCPC and responded to issues raised by Mrs X in her emails. The Council has a duty to act fairly, so the investigation should have been completed by an officer who was independent of the events leading to the complaint. The Council accepts this.
40. The fact that the Children’s Services team manager responded to Mrs X’s complaint caused her uncertainty as to whether it was properly investigated.
41. In addition, the Stage 1 response did not provide Mrs X with information on how to escalate her complaint to Stage 2. This was in breach of the Council’s complaints procedure which states that the full response at all stages of the complaints process should include information on the right to escalate the complaint and how to do so.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• send a written apology to Mrs X for including incorrect and irrelevant statements in its reports and for the failings in its complaints process; and
• pay Mrs X £200 in recognition of the injustice caused.
43. The Council has also agreed that, within two months, it will:
• ensure it is clearly documented on its file that incorrect and irrelevant statements were included in documents in error and should be disregarded;
• amend all relevant documents and records by attaching a copy of the Ombudsman’s final decision statement to each and indicating in the header of each document that the Ombudsman has found failings in the content of the document and making clear which paragraphs should be disregarded; and
• provide a copy of all amended documents to Mrs X and to the council to whom the case was transferred and follows-up with that council to ensure the annotated documents are included on its case file.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I find the Council was at fault because it included incorrect and irrelevant statements in various documents and because there were failings in its complaints process.
46. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman