Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not deal with her fairly during its child protection investigation for her daughter. I have found the Council to be at fault. It failed to call her as agreed to discuss the Initial Child Protection Conference and her concerns about the report as agreed. The Council should apologise for the injustice caused by this and take action to prevent reoccurrence.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not deal with her fairly during its child protection investigation for her daughter. She says it has:
• Drawn unfair and inappropriate conclusions in its review based on her one daughter's comments only. The Council did not discuss the issues with her and get her comments or any supporting evidence.
• Failed to be open and honest about the process and provide Miss X with the necessary information. The Council did not prepare her for the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) and did not share key documents and reports with her.
• Failed to offer the necessary support and conclusions as agreed at the meetings and has failed to offer respite.
2. She says this has caused her stress and to feel unsupported.

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 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)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated any events that happened after October 2023 in the Child Protection Process. This is because these events occurred after we accepted Miss X’s complaint for investigation and these have not been raised with the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered:
• The information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her;
• The Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• Relevant law and guidance.
8. Miss 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

Law and guidance

9. 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)
10. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. 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.

11. 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 initial child protection conference (ICPC).
12. The Child Protection Conference 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.
13. After the Initial Child Protection Conference, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.

Key events

14. Miss X lived with her partner, Mr Y, and her two children, Child A and Child B. She has an older child who does not live at home, Child C. In early May 2023 Child A disclosed allegations against Mr Y.
15. The Council held a strategy meeting in early May to discuss Child A’s disclosure. The strategy meeting enquired with the Police and Child A’s school. The Council decided it needed to begin child protection enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act to ensure Child A and B were safe.
16. The Council held a second strategy meeting in late May to discuss the risk of significant harm to Child A and B in terms of emotional safety. This meeting was attended by the Police, the children’s school and a health visitor. The Council considered information provided by Miss X in conversations with the social worker appointed by the Council. The Council decided the threshold had been met for section 47 enquiries.
17. Following the strategy meeting the Council spoke with Child A and Miss X on several occasions, spoke with Child B, Child C, the children’s school, and the Police. The Council decided that an Initial Child Protection Conference was required.
18. In early June 2023 the Council told Miss X that it would be holding an ICPC. It also sent her a letter inviting her to the conference which contained links to videos explaining the process. The letter explained the Independent Reviewing Officer would contact her to discuss her views and explain about the meeting.
19. Following the letter Miss X contacted her social worker to query the reason for this and whether she needed to attend. Miss X later confirmed she had been able to take time off work to attend and raised concerns there were statements in the report which were not true. The Council offered to talk about her comments on the report the following day.
20. Miss X also asked whether she could bring Mr Y. The Council responded to explain as Mr Y was the subject of the allegations this would not be appropriate.
21. The Council has not provided any evidence that it contacted Miss X to discuss her concerns with the report nor that the independent reviewing officer contacted Miss X as indicated in the letter.
22. Miss X attended the ICPC in mid-June. The conference was also attended by a health visitor and the children’s school. The Council allowed each party to provide information on the health and welfare of child A and B as well as discussing the information gathered in its assessment. The conference decided that both Child A and B should be placed on a Child Protection Plan.
23. The plan for Child A provided victim support and access to mental health support. It also outlined that direct work should be undertaken with Miss X around her children’s safety and the impact of sexual abuse.
24. The Council arranged for Child A to attend respite for three months which began in August 2023. This provided Child A with mental health support and worked on her knowledge of personal safety and relationships. She attended all sessions and respite weekends up to October 2023. The Council did not arrange further respite sessions after this finished in October.
25. While Child A attended mental health support the Council kept in regular contact with Miss X to discuss concerns they had with her behaviour and any incidents that arose. Miss X during this time also raised concerns when Child A started to stop attending school every day.
26. During the first review of the Child Protection Plan the Council noted that Child A had not received any victim support. It noted this had been available to her but that she had chosen not to engage with this.

Findings

Child Protection conclusions and the information shared

27. Before it decided that Child A and B were at risk and placed them on a Child Protection Plan the Council followed the correct process. It held two strategy meetings, carried out two section 47 enquiries and held an Initial Child Protection Conference. The Council got evidence from the children’s school, the Police, a health visitor, the children, and Miss X. The notes from the meetings and conference detail the opinions and concerns from all parties at the time.
28. The rationale provided by the Council after the review shows that it took on board the comments provided by all parties when reaching its conclusion. In view of this I find there is no fault in the Council’s decision-making process.
29. Council’s do not have to share all the information it holds in its section 47 enquiries with the parents. It should, though, prepare a report which sets out what is known about the child and family and share this.
30. The letter telling Miss X of the ICPC does not specifically refer to a report being attached but I am satisfied a report was sent to her. She text the Council shortly after the date of the letter to ask about attending and to raise concerns about the content of the report.
31. I note Miss X says the Council did not explain the process to her. The letter inviting her to the ICPC provided Miss X several video links which explained about the process. However, I appreciate it also mentioned that she would get a call to explain the process and discuss her views. I have not seen any evidence of this going ahead. As such had Miss X had any questions or concerns following the letter, I cannot see that she was given the opportunity to get those answers as required. This is fault.
32. The Council also offered to call Miss X and go through her concerns about mistakes in the report. While I can see the Council spoke to her about her views on her daughter there is nothing that records any objections to the information and evidence the Council were relying on. As such I cannot be satisfied that this call went ahead.
33. The Council’s actions left Miss X feeling like she was not fully prepared for the meeting and that she had not shared all her views on what had happened. She believes the outcome may have been different if she had been given this opportunity. This frustration and uncertainty warrants recognition.

The Child Protection Plan

34. A Child Protection Plan was issued in August 2023 which outlined the need to provide Child A with support for the allegations she had made and with mental health support. The Council offered Child A victim support, but she chose not to attend. It also offered her access to mental health support on a weekly basis with respite. Child A attended these sessions and received support for relationships and her safety. At least once a month for three months Child A stayed overnight as respite. I am satisfied Child A received the support outlined in the plan.
35. The plan also outlined support for Miss X. It stated she should undertake direct work around the impact of sexual abuse and her children’s safety. The Council carried out work with her in mid-August 2023. Following this it did not carry out any further direct work with Miss X but it remained in contact with her. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X contacted the Council after this to suggest she felt support was missing or that she needed more of the support outlined in the plan.
36. In view of this I cannot see there is any fault in the Council’s actions in arranging the support outlined in the plan.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to call and discuss the ICPC process and report with her as offered.
• Remind staff of the importance of ensuring parents are spoken to about the ICPC process.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice. The Council will apologise for the injustice caused and take action to prevent reoccurrence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman