Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns about Mr X’s children.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed properly to safeguard his children from their mother and her partner despite reports over several years indicating they were at risk of harm. Mr X says he and the children have experienced avoidable harm and distress as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

What I have not investigated

5. Mr X’s complaint relates to matters starting as early as 2019. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we consider there is a good reason. There is no reason Mr X could not have brought a complaint about earlier matters to us sooner. I have not, therefore, investigated the Council’s actions before May 2022.
6. I have, however, had regard to earlier matters as relevant context to the Council’s more recent decisions about Mr X’s children.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the complaint and the evidence Mr X and the Council provided along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr X and the organisation 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

Safeguarding children

9. 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.
10. The Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) team assesses the risk to a child and decides on what to do to best protect the child. To make an informed decision, MASH gathers information from partner agencies, children and their families. The most appropriate intervention is agreed in response to the child or young person’s identified needs. 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.

Early help

11. Early help provides help for children, young people and families as soon as problems or difficulties start to emerge.
12. Working Together to Safeguard Children states effective early help relies on organisations working together to:

• identify children and families who would benefit from early help;
• complete an assessment of the need for early help; and,
• provide targeted early help services to address the assessed needs of a child and their family which focuses on activity to improve the outcomes for the child.

Background

13. Mr X has two children, B and C. He and the children’s mother, Ms Y, are divorced. The children live with their mother most of the time. Ms Y’s partner is Mr Z.
14. The Council first became involved with the family in early 2019. At that time, the Council found the children appeared to be frightened of Mr Z. The Council completed an early help assessment. Ms Y and Mr Z attended a parenting course.
15. In December 2019, Mr X told the Council Mr Z hit one of the children. The Council’s MASH decision was to refer the case for early help. Subsequent reports throughout January were linked to the existing referral for early help. Following a report to the police in late January, the Council completed a new assessment. It decided the family could be supported through ongoing early help.
16. In November 2021, the Council received an anonymous referral about one of the children. The Council’s MASH decision was that there were no safeguarding concerns. It recorded ongoing acrimony between Mr X and Ms Y.

What happened

17. In June 2022, the Council received an anonymous referral about B. The Council’s MASH decision was to make further enquiries.
18. As a result of its enquiries, the Council once again referred the family to early help. Early help completed an assessment in October. This found that Ms Y was struggling to manage the behaviour of C, who could be aggressive towards her at home. It identified that Ms Y would benefit from some support to manage this consistently.
19. In November 2022, one of B’s friends went to live with Ms Y, Mr Z and the children temporarily. Mr X alerted the Council. He was concerned about the impact on his children of having another child in the home and Ms Y’s ability to cope. The Council’s MASH decision was to link this to its ongoing early help involvement.
20. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said there was no evidence of any risk to the children but it would continue to explore this through early help. The early help involvement ended in April 2023.
21. In May 2023, Mr X contacted the police after C reported being assaulted by Mr Z. The police made a referral to the Council. Ms Y agreed that Mr Z would not be in the property at the same time as the children in the short term. She told the Council she did not intend to separate from Mr Z.
22. The Council’s decision was that the circumstances met the threshold for a new assessment, which it started in June 2023.

My findings

23. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision made without fault. This means we can’t say the Council’s decision is wrong if it made that decision properly, taking all the relevant evidence into account, and arrived at a decision open to it.
24. I recognise that Mr X is concerned for his children. He can see a pattern of behaviour in which Mr Z is violent or aggressive towards the children, the Council gets involved and things improve long enough for the Council to end its involvement. Only for another incident to raise concerns again. He is worried about his children. This is understandable. However, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making.
25. In its decisions in 2022 and 2023, the Council was aware of the history. Its decisions record the previous concerns and the involvement of the Council in providing early help services. There is no evidence the Council failed to take the history into account in deciding what to do about a MASH referral. There is also no evidence the Council failed to respond to a referral. It considered each reported concern and decided what the appropriate level of response was.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman