Summary: Mr X complains about the Council ignoring his concerns about his child while they remain in their mother’s care. There was no fault in the Council’s handling nor has it ignored Mr X’s views and concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council ignoring his concerns about his child, Child Y while they remain in their mother’s care. Mr X says the Council has failed to take appropriate action in respect of Child Y’s prolonged absence from school, substance misuse and other inappropriate or criminal behaviour. He also complains the Council has unfairly treated him as the problem, when the courts have ordered he has full custody of Child Y. Mr X wants the Council to take his concerns seriously and to properly engage with him to help return Child Y to his care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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 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. Mr X has told me his concerns about things that happened in court involving his ex-wife and child since 2016. I have explained to Mr X we cannot investigate anything that has happened in court and that long ago.
7. I am investigating the Council’s handling since February 2023, when it became involved with Child Y.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have spoken to Mr X and considered the information he has provided in support of his concerns.
9. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries. Some of the information from the Council is confidential to other parties and cannot be shared with Mr X or described in detail in this decision statement.
10. Mr 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

Youth Offending

11. Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) are multi-agency teams who work with young people under the age of 18 to address offending behaviours. Specifically, they supervise:

• 10-18 year olds who have sentenced by a court.
• Young people who have come to the attention of the police because of their offending behaviour that have not been charged but were dealt with out of court.

12. YOTs engage with young people who are at risk of committing a crime or have already committed a crime. Most of their work is done in the community, but they might also support young people who are going through the criminal justice system or are in youth custody settings.
13. The Joint Diversionary Panel (JDP) is a decision-making panel in Lincolnshire, composed of Lincolnshire Police, the Council’s Children’s Services and Youth Offending Service (YOS). Its purpose is to review and determine the outcomes for young offenders who have not yet turned 18 and have admitted guilt. The JDP is able to determine the following outcomes:

• Charging the offender in court.
• Community Resolution (CR) – addressing the offence informally, often through dialogue and restorative justice. This can include Youth Restorative Intervention (YRI). CR allows the young person to make amends directly to the victim or the community.
• Youth Caution (YC) – is a formal warning given by the police to a young offender, is recorded on police systems and serves as an alternative to prosecution.
• Youth Conditional Caution (YCC) – similar to a YC but comes with specific conditions the young person must meet. These conditions may include attending programs, participating in restorative justice or completing community service.

14. YRIs are multi-agency initiatives designed to provide a restorative approach when working with children and young people who have committed low-level crimes. Youth Offending Workers collaborate with the child/young person and the victim to develop a bespoke agreement or contract to allow for open communication, accountability and the opportunity to make amends. YRIs are intended to offer a holistic approach that seeks to divert children/young people away from a criminal path before they commit serious offences.
15. YOTs are not part of this Council’s Children’s Service Team but do work in partnership with the team to facilitate access to Early Help. YOTs also work with education/schools and health services to seek appropriate support for young people where necessary.
16. As youth offending does not fall under the remit of children’s social care, any complaints about this service would not be considered under the three-stage statutory procedure ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’.

Safeguarding referrals

17. 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.
18. 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.

19. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and to determine whether protective action is required. Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse or neglect. (Children Act 1989, section 47)

What happened

20. In early 2023, Child Y was arrested. The police referred Child Y to the Joint Diversionary Panel (JDP) to consider whether out of court action was appropriate given the circumstances in this case. The JDP decided Child Y should be subject to a 12-week Youth Restorative Intervention (YRI).
21. A Youth Offending Worker (YOW) from the Council was allocated to Child Y shortly after the JDP decision. The YOW met with Child Y and formulated an appropriate intervention plan. The YOW made a referral for Child Y to specialist substance misuse services following their initial assessment and obtained information from Child Y’s school about their declining attendance.
22. Throughout the YOW’s work with Child Y, they also met regularly with Mr X and Child Y’s mother. The YOW recorded there is a court order which states Child Y will reside with Mr X and have regular contact with their mother. The YOW noted Child Y was currently living with their mother. Child Y’s mother had sought support from a General Practitioner (GP), who made a referral for mental health support from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS). In early June 2023, the YOW advised Mr X he would need to seek legal advice and possibly return to court if he wanted to enforce the terms of any court order relating to the custody, care and living arrangements for Child Y.
23. In summer 2023, Child Y was the victim of a crime which led to sensitive information being shared about them on social media. The anxiety and distress Child Y experienced because of this led to a further decline in their school attendance. The YOW sought advice from the school about how Child Y could be supported to improve attendance. Child Y’s mother took them to visit relatives for a short period to try and help alleviate their distress and poor mental health. Child Y’s mother notified their school and the YOW of this absence.
24. Mr X made a safeguarding referral to the Council about their ex-wife taking Child Y out of school, allowing their substance misuse and seeking medical advice for them without his knowledge or agreement. In June 2023, the Council’s Children Social Care Screening Service wrote to Mr X. The Council informed Mr X his concerns about his ex-wife’s actions did not warrant further investigation or intervention.
25. Mr X made a stage one complaint to the Council about its handling of his safeguarding concerns and Child Y’s case in general. He questioned why the Council was not doing more to help Child Y return to his care in line with the arrangements ordered by the courts. Mr X also complained the Council had not properly dealt with Child Y’s substance misuse and low school attendance.
26. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint in July 2023. It explained it had referred Child Y for support with their substance misuse issues and the YOW was working with their school to improve attendance. The Council said it was working with all those involved with Child Y to provide the support they needed.
27. Mr X remained dissatisfied and asked the Council to consider his concerns under stage two of its complaint process. Mr X said the Council had not answered his specific questions about its handling of Child Y’s case.
28. In late July 2023, Child Y had completed actions within the YRI. The YOW undertook a further assessment of Child Y’s needs and found they still needed support. Child Y’s case was transferred to the Early Help Team and the YOW continued to support them for consistency. The YOW’s support included encouraging Child Y to engage with the services offered by the specialist substance misuse team and family mediation to help improve the interaction between Child Y and their parents.
29. In mid-September 2023 the Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint. It explained the process of supporting Child Y was dynamic and adapted to meet their needs at the time.
30. Mr X brought his concerns to us shortly after this as he remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and handling.

Analysis

31. The main role of the Council’s Youth Offending Service in this case was to ensure Child Y completed the 12-week YRI plan. Failure to complete the YRI could have led to formal action in court for Child Y’s involvement in the incident which led to their arrest in early 2023.
32. The YOW’s initial assessment shows they were aware of Child Y’s substance misuse issues and low school attendance from the outset. The YOW made referrals to request further specialist support for Child Y and approached their school about attendance. I have not found evidence the Council ignored Mr X’s concerns about these issues. The YOW’s involvement in discussions with Child Y’s school also demonstrates the Council did take their low and eventual non-attendance seriously.
33. The Council has shared with me full and unredacted case records for Child Y’s involvement with the YOS and Early Help Team. I have carefully examined these records and found detailed notes of the Council’s interaction with Mr X and his views about the process. In particular, the Council has noted the court order relating to care arrangements and Mr X’s concerns about Child Y not living with him and the quality of their mother’s care.
34. The Council has explained to Mr X it cannot enforce the terms of any care arrangements for Child Y ordered by the courts. It has advised him to seek legal advice on these issues. I would echo this advice. Just like us, the Council has no remit to enforce care orders for children made by the courts.
35. The Council’s role is instead to consider if a child is at risk of significant harm when safeguarding concerns are raised. In this case, the Council has explained to Mr X it did not find cause to take further action in respect of his concerns about Child Y while they remained in their mother’s care. The Council took account of the relevant information and its decision was based on the professional judgement of its officers. I have not seen evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision which means I cannot question its merits.
36. Mr X complains the Council has treated him as the problem. The Council’s records highlight its concerns about communication within the family and the impact of Mr X and his ex-wife’s acrimony and differing parenting styles on Child Y. The Council has offered family mediation and support to Child Y and their parents to help with this issue. The differences in the Council’s interaction with Mr X and Child Y’s mother appears reflective of the different support they need rather than the Council perceiving either party as the problem as Mr X believes.
37. Mr X has told me the Council did not respond to his questions about it handling in the way he expected when he made his stage one and stage two complaints. I find the Council’s complaint responses to Mr X thorough and sufficiently detailed to address the points raised.
38. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council has deliberately sought to exclude Mr X or his views from the process of taking Child Y through the YRI or its ongoing support through the Early Help Team. Mr X appears to have been involved in the majority of discussions the Council has had about Child Y and has actively participated and had his views recorded.
39. Ultimately, the Council’s focus has been to act in the best interests and upon the wishes and views of Child Y. Child Y is old enough to express their own wishes and feelings about the level and amount of interaction they want to have with each of their parents. There is no evidence within the Council’s case records to show it has acted contrary to Child Y’s expressed views and wishes that suggest fault in its handling.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman