Summary: Mr X complained the Council had not dealt with him fairly during a child protection investigation for his daughter. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not dealt with him fairly during a child protection investigation for his daughter. He believed the Council had drawn unfair and inappropriate conclusions about him. That it included information about him despite having not spoken to Mr X. He also says it delayed passing on information to another council to allow him access to his biological daughter. And the Council delayed responding to his complaint for several months.
2. He says this has caused him stress and frustration. He is also worried about incorrect information being shared.

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. 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

5. I have considered:
• The information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him;
• The Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• Relevant law and guidance.
6. 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

Law and guidance

7. 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)
8. 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.

9. Section 47 of the Act 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”.
10. 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). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.

Key events

11. Mr X lived with his partner, Miss Y, and her two children. He does not have legal parental responsibility for Miss Y’s children, Child C and Child D.
12. In early May Child C made allegations against him to a friend. These were reported to the Police and the Council.
13. Mr X was released on bail. His bail conditions meant he was not allowed to enter the family home, be within 100 metres of the home and was not allowed any direct or indirect contact with Child C.

Safeguarding investigation

14. The Council ensured Mrs Y’s children were safe and began child protection enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act. The Council held a strategy meeting to discuss the risks to the children.
15. It held an Initial Child Protection Conference in mid-June. The Council did not allow Mr X to attend or provide him with any details of the conference. It explained to him that it was not appropriate to include him given the allegations and that he did not have parental responsibilities.
16. The Council decided the children were at risk and placed them on a child protection plan.
17. Mr X raised a complaint to the Council in mid-June 2023. The Council responded four days later to say that it would not look into his complaint due to the continuing safeguarding enquiries.
18. He raised a further complaint in late August explaining his previous complaint had not been addressed. The Council responded providing a copy of its response from June. Mr X explained that he did not accept the reasons given in the Council’s response and asked for the issue to be reviewed by its independent panel.

Passing on information

19. Mr X says as a result of the allegations he was unable to see his daughter, Child A, until the Council sent information across to another council. He says he contacted the Council about this in early May. He says the Council did not send the information until late May.
20. The Council has not retained any correspondence in relation to this request or it’s communication with the other council.

Findings

21. The Council did not communicate with Mr X during its section 47 enquiries. However, he was the person the allegation had been made about and he does not hold parental responsibility for either Child C or D. It was reasonable of the Council not to include Mr X in the child protection proceedings in these circumstances.
22. I appreciate that Mr X feels the Council drew unfair conclusions during its section 47 enquiries. I cannot share anything about how the Council considered the safeguarding referral it received about Miss Y’s children or the action it took as Mr X does not have parental responsibility.
23. I have however examined the evidence from the Council. This includes all notes from its strategy meetings and the Initial Child Protection Conference. I am satisfied the Council followed the statutory guidance when it reached its conclusions and decided to place Child C and Child D on a child protection plan. The Council ensured it got the necessary information from the relevant parties in reaching that decision. There is no fault in the Council’s decision-making process even though it did not speak with Mr X.
24. I appreciate, given the reason for the correspondence with the other council, Mr X would have wanted this to be done as soon as possible. I do not feel the Council took so long to send the information as to amount to fault in its actions.
25. I understand that Mr X did not get a detailed response from the Council in reply to his complaint as he wished. The Council did, though, respond to his complaint quickly and explain why a detailed explanation could not be provided. There is no fault in the Council not providing a more detailed response in these circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault and no further action is required.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman