Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions under its child protection procedures. We found fault because the Council used incorrect wording in assessments, misinterpreted some documentation and did not give Mr X enough time to review paperwork before a child protection conference. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make an apology to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to its child protection procedures. He complains specifically that the Council:
1. shared incorrect information in child and family assessments (CAFAs);
2. overstepped its statutory powers by attempting to enforce his Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO);
3. did not follow the correct procedures for holding an initial child protection conference (ICPC);
4. shared incorrect information with other agencies; and
5. that social workers acted maliciously when carrying out work on his case.
2. Mr X says this has caused the breakup of his family, and that he has experienced depression and stress. He says this has also affected the wellbeing of his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Paragraph four (above) applies to this complaint. I have exercised discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint back to March 2022. This is when Mr X first complained to the Council about issues with the CAFA that had been completed. It is therefore reasonable to include this period in my investigation.
8. My investigation ends in June 2023 which is when Mr X brought his complaint to us.

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 and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child in Need

Section 17 duties and Child in Need Plan

11. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
12. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need (CiN) plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent.

Child Protection

Duty to Investigate

13. 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)

Duty to make enquiries

14. Under section 47 (S47) 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.
15. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.

Section 47 requirements

16. S47 places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
17. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm, the social worker will arrange an ICPC. The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child.

Child Protection Conference arrangements

18. If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection (CP) Conference.
19. The CP Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a CP Plan.
20. The CP Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a CP Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council.

What happened

21. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.

Background and context

22. Mr X is father to a child of primary school age, Y.
23. Mr X is the subject of an ongoing SHPO following a conviction linked to an indecent image of a child prior to the events complained of here.
24. The relevant clauses (to this complaint) of the SHPO are as follows. It prohibits Mr X from:
1. living or sleeping anywhere in the United Kingdom (UK) in the same household as any (male or female) child under the age of 16 unless with the express approval of Social Services for the area; and
2. having any unsupervised contact or communication of any kind with any (male or female) child under the age of 16 in the UK, other than: i) such as is inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of lawful daily life, or ii) with the consent of the child’s parent or guardian (who has knowledge of his convictions) and with the express approval of Social Services for the area.
25. In 2022, the Council put a CiN plan in place for Y. Mr X was not allowed to live at the family home with his wife and child. He was allowed to be at the address for up to 12 hours at a time, under his wife’s supervision. He was not allowed to sleep at the family address.

2022

26. At the beginning of March 2022, Mr X complained to the Council. He said it had included incorrect facts and information in a CAFA it had written. Mr X listed various points that he said were inaccurate. Later in March 2022, the Council met with Mr X to discuss his areas of concern.
27. At the beginning of April 2022, the Council responded in writing to the complaint. It agreed that some wording had been incorrect and had now been amended. It also provided its rationale for keeping, removing or adding to the content of the CAFA in relation to each point Mr X had made.
28. In May 2022, the Council emailed Y’s school to clarify and correct the information shared during a previous CiN meeting and the CAFA. The school agreed to check and amend its records as necessary.
29. In the summer of 2022, Mr X told the Council in one of the monthly CiN meetings that he would like to be present at Y’s birthday celebrations. The officer (Officer A) advised Mr X he could not attend the celebrations due to the conditions of his SHPO but would speak with her manager.
30. A few weeks later, the Council emailed Mr X to advise him he should not attend Y’s birthday celebrations which were to be held at a local party event space. It said it wanted to wait for the outcome of a risk assessment which was being undertaken on him by a third-party assessor, at the request of the Council.
31. Two weeks later, Mr X informed the Council he attended the party with his wife and that it had been supervised by management at the event space.
32. In mid-October 2022, a new manager was appointed to oversee Mr X’s case. As part of a review of the case, the Council believed that the family should, as a minimum, be managed under a CP Plan. The Council also decided to re-assign the case to a different social worker who was an advanced practitioner (Officer B), but with the previously allocated social worker, Officer A, also continuing to work on the case.
33. At the beginning of November 2022, Mr X again complained to the Council. Over the coming months, he complained to the Council several more times.
34. Also at the beginning of November 2022, the Council emailed Y’s school and the police to advise Mr X should not be attending the school site with or without Mrs X. The Council advised the school to contact both it and the police if Mr X came on site. The email sent misquoted part b of Mr X’s SHPO (see paragraph 24) and said he should not be having ‘supervised contact’ rather than quoting the original which said he should not have ‘unsupervised contact’.
35. Later on the same day, the Council sent an email to Mr X advising him of the above. It said that he had been seen on the school site and that this was a breach of his SHPO conditions.
36. The next day, the police emailed the Council to comment that it believed the Council had misinterpreted part b of Mr X’s SHPO. It said the SHPO did not prevent him from attending school for parents’ evenings and that Mr X was not having unsupervised contact with a child. The police asked the Council if it had any evidence of Mr X walking around the school on his own or approaching children.
37. The Council emailed the police back on the same day and advised it had had reports of Mr X being on the school grounds both on his own and with his wife and that he had attended Y’s birthday party against its advice. The Council also raised concerns that Mr X had not been engaging with the CiN plan and had threatened to leave the country with his family. The Council said it wanted to clarify certain points of the SHPO as it felt some points could be interpreted in different ways.
38. A few days later, the Council emailed the police to advise it suspected Mr X was living in the family home, that it would be starting unannounced visits and would likely be escalating the case to CP Plan level soon.
39. The police confirmed the next day that everything discussed up to that point would not be seen as a breach of Mr X’s SHPO, despite grey areas in the document.
40. In mid-November 2022, the Council met with Mr X. Mr X commented that the terms of his SHPO were clear and would not be misunderstood. The Council decided to escalate the case to CP Plan level as it felt Mr X was trying to minimise the seriousness of his original offence.
41. The Council emailed Y’s school the following day to advise it was still of the opinion that Mr X should not attend school premises and asked it to immediately notify the Council if he came on site.
42. A few days later, the Council held a telephone meeting with the police. Records show the Council voiced its concerns over Mr X attending Y’s birthday party, that the case had originally been placed on the wrong threshold and would soon be escalated to CP Plan level and that the Council believed there were grey areas to the SHPO. The Council also commented that it had a duty to protect other children in addition to the SHPO being there for the police to use its powers. Records show the police agreed there were grey areas in the SHPO as it was not specifically tailored to Mr X.
43. At the beginning of December 2022, the Council held a strategy meeting. It then decided to hold an ICPC.
44. A few days later, Mr X asked the Council if he could attend Y’s school to watch a play.
45. The Council emailed the school to ask whether Mr X could attend as there was nothing legally from stopping him attending, saying the decision lay with the school. The school then called the Council for clarification as it said the advice it had received (from it) was unclear.
46. After speaking to the school, the Council advised Mr X the school had said it would allow him on site subject to some restrictions.
47. Later in December 2022, the Council held an ICPC meeting. The Council shared the CAFA with Mr X a few hours before the meeting.
48. Mr X emailed the Council before the meeting to comment that there were various factual errors in the CAFA and he was concerned as the assessment would have been shared with other agencies.
49. The result of the meeting was to escalate the case and put Y on a CP Plan.

2023

50. Early in 2023, Mr X sent the Council an email to advise Y and his wife had left the country for the foreseeable future.
51. In mid-March 2023, the Council replied to numerous points of complaint, collated since Mr X’s November 2022 contact. The responses relevant to this complaint are listed below. In its response, the Council:
1. apologised that incorrect wording regarding his conviction had again been used in part of the CAFA shared immediately before the ICPC, explained how the error had happened for a second time and advised it had updated all assessments held on file for him to reflect the correct information;
2. apologised that incorrect wording had been used in other parts of the same CAFA and confirmed how it had been updated to be accurate;
3. confirmed in relation to other aspects of the assessment that it stood by what had been written as statements were the professional opinions of the social workers involved;
4. apologised the CAFA was not shared with him five days before the ICPC, in line with best practice guidelines. It said it was due to the workload of the officer involved;
5. advised that conversations and emails between Officers A and B and Mr X, which he had complained about, were part of the professional dialogue and not intended to make him feel threatened;
6. advised it was not the sole decision of the police as to whether he should be allowed on the school site; and
7. confirmed that it was the professional opinion of Officer A that by attending the school site Mr X may be able to have unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16 which was against the conditions of his SHPO.
52. In the spring of 2023, Mr X’s SHPO was updated. The sections outlined in paragraph 24 remained broadly similar but were amended to exclude any child for which he has parental responsibility.
53. In the summer of 2023, Mr X and the family left the UK and therefore the Council’s area. The Council closed its file.

Analysis

Sharing incorrect information in CAFAs

54. The Council confirmed in its April 2022 complaint response to Mr X that incorrect wording had been used in the CAFA and that this had been amended. Using incorrect wording was fault, for which the Council apologised.
55. Although there was no ongoing injustice to Mr X as the Council amended the CAFA, the same mistake then happened again in December 2022. In its March 2023 complaint response to Mr X, the Council explained how this had happened a second time and apologised. Using the incorrect wording was again fault. This would have caused Mr X avoidable frustration and distress, especially given the steps he had taken to have the original CAFA corrected in early 2022. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Sexual harm prevention order

56. Mr X complains the Council overstepped its statutory duties by attempting to enforce his SHPO.
57. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that in relation to Mr X attending Y’s birthday party, it advised that any recommendations were made considering the outcome of the CAFA. The Council also advised it was not restricted to the terms of Mr X’s SHPO in line with its duties to safeguard children under S47 of the Children Act 1989 and that it had advised him not to attend the party until the outcome of the risk assessment, which was ongoing at the time, was known.
58. I am satisfied the Council considered the information available to it at the time and made a decision and recommendation based on this and in line with its duties. As such, I find no fault in relation to the Council recommending Mr X did not attend Y’s birthday party.
59. I also asked the Council to comment on its rationale for telling Mr X, in November 2022, that being on the school site was a breach of his SHPO and that Mr X again complained it was overstepping its duties here.
60. The Council again referred to its duties under S47 and said that it had an overriding statutory duty to protect children at risk of significant harm. It said it was entitled to make its own recommendations over and above any restrictions imposed as a result of criminal sanctions.
61. I agree the Council is entitled to make its own recommendations as these would be based on the considerations of professionals involved. However, in the circumstances of this complaint, I am satisfied the Council misinterpreted the terms of Mr X’s SHPO when it originally said he should not have any ‘supervised contact’ and then insisted he did not attend the school site. This is highlighted by subsequent communications with the police when it said it thought the Council had misinterpreted the SHPO and that nothing presented to it would amount to a breach of the order. It is further highlighted by the school later questioning the advice given to it as the Council had initially insisted the school call it and the police before later saying (without further consultation with the school) that it was the school’s decision whether or not to allow Mr X on site as there was nothing to legally stop him.
62. Also, the Council’s original November email was not a recommendation. The Council made its stance very clear when emailing the school and the police at the same time and before communicating it to Mr X later the same day. This misinterpretation and confusing stance is fault. However, I am satisfied that the injustice to Mr X of not being allowed on the school site was limited. He was spending time in the family home with Y and his wife before and after school, for up to 12 hours per day. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused.
63. Mr X also says that the Council set him conditions in order for him to attend the play at Y’s school in December 2022.
64. Evidence provided shows that after some discussion between school and the Council, it was the school who set the conditions for Mr X to be able to attend the play. I am satisfied the Council did not act with any fault here.

Initial child protection conference

65. The Council confirmed in its March 2023 complaint response to Mr X that it had not shared the CAFA with him in sufficient time before the meeting and in line with best practice guidelines. It explained why this happened and apologised. Not giving Mr X sufficient time to view the CAFA before the ICPC was fault. It would have caused Mr X avoidable frustration and distress, especially given that the CAFA again contained incorrect information which had previously been corrected. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused.

Sharing incorrect information with other agencies

66. Mr X complains the Council shared incorrect information with other agencies. As discussed above, the Council did this when sending out the CAFA with incorrect wording early in 2022.
67. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised the only other agencies involved were Y’s school and the police. It said the police held the original and correct wording on its files so did not need to be contacted. The Council provided case notes from early May 2022 to evidence that it had contacted the school to provide it with the correct wording and ask it to amend any records it may have.
68. Sharing incorrect information with Y’s school was fault. However, there was no ongoing injustice to Mr X as this error was corrected. As such, I will not make any recommendation in relation to this.

Malicious actions of social workers

69. Mr X complains that Officers A and B acted maliciously when carrying out work on his case and they manipulated the wording of the third-party assessment included in the CAFA shared at the December 2022 ICPC.
70. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that Officer B did not alter the wording of the third-party assessment. It said he provided his professional opinion of the circumstances presented to him in the case, when preparing documents for the ICPC. The Council also confirmed that it was Officer B’s professional opinion that further intervention was needed and this would be under a CP Plan.
71. On reviewing the evidence provided by the Council, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this complaint, there is no evidence to support the idea that either of Officers A or B acted maliciously when working on Mr X’s case. I therefore find no fault in relation to the Council’s actions here.

Back to top

Agreed action

72. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision.
73. It should make an effective apology to Mr X for including incorrect wording in two versions of its CAFA, for misinterpreting the conditions of his SHPO in November 2022 and for giving him insufficient time to review documents presented at the ICPC in December 2022.
74. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
75. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

76. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman