Summary: Mr D complained how the Council handled a child protection matter regarding his son. He says the Council was biased against him, it failed to give him enough notice to attend meetings, and it failed to communicate with him properly and engage him in the process. We find the Council was at fault for its communication and engagement with Mr D, its delays in starting a risk assessment and its complaints handling. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained how the Council handled a child protection matter regarding his son (E). He says the Council was biased against him, it failed to give him enough notice to attend meetings, and it failed to communicate with him properly and engage him in the process. He also says it delayed completing a risk assessment and it delayed responding to his complaint.
2. Mr D says the matter has caused him significant distress and upset.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Mr D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
8. Mr D 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

Child protection

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 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. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 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”.
12. 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) or a recommendation that the child should be supported by a child protection plan.
13. After the ICPC, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences (RCPC) to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.

Core group arrangements

14. The statutory guidance on child safeguarding, ‘Working together to safeguard children’, says after the ICPC, the council should convene a core group meeting within 10 working days. The purpose of core group is to:

• further develop the child protection plan;
• facilitate the in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and
• implement the child protection plan.

15. The core group is made up of key family members and professionals involved with the child and/or family.

The statutory children’s complaints procedure

16. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
17. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
18. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
19. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

What happened

20. This chronology includes an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
21. The Council received a referral in early February 2023 from E’s school. The school said E had disclosed witnessing domestic violence perpetrated by Mr D against E’s mother and Mr D’s ex-partner (Ms F). The school also said E had been aggressive to other children in the classroom.
22. The Council decided to conduct an assessment to decide if further action was necessary. It assigned a social worker (Social Worker A) to the case. Social Worker A visited E to get his views about the incident.
23. Social Worker A phoned Mr D in early March to arrange a visit. Mr D did not answer. Social Worker A left a message asking for a callback.
24. Social Worker A phoned Mr D the following week but did not get a response. He sent a text message to Mr D asking for contact.
25. The Council decided to hold a strategy meeting in late March because it was concerned about the lack of meaningful engagement from Mr D and Ms F. It also noted there was extensive social care involvement in the past and Mr D had made recent allegations against Ms F. It considered the case and decided to progress to an ICPC to consider whether the threshold for a child protection plan was met.
26. Mr D sent a text message to Social Worker A. He said he had recently found out Social Woker A had been assigned to E’s case. He asked Social Worker A to send an email about the issues and then he would contact him to arrange a meeting.
27. Mr D complained to the Council that Social Worker A contacted him on his old phone number and did not make other reasonable attempts to contact him.
28. Social Worker A sent Mr D a copy of E’s child protection assessment two days before the ICPC.
29. Mr D, Ms F, the Council and other professionals attended the ICPC. Professionals were concerned about E’s disclosure and the historic involvement of professionals with the family. They agreed E should be put on a child protection plan under the category of emotional abuse.
30. The Council assigned a new social worker (Social Worker B) to E’s case.
31. A core group meeting took place two weeks later. Mr D did not attend. The Council agreed to devise a risk assessment regarding Mr D. It said until the risk assessment was complete there should be no face-to-face contact between Mr D and E.
32. The Council responded to Mr D’s complaint in May under stage one of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. It said it had four phone numbers on its system for Mr D. It used the one which was Mr D’s main contact. It asked Mr D to confirm his number, and when he did so, it would remove his other numbers from the system.
33. Mr D emailed the Council in late-May and said he wanted to refer his complaint to stage two. He said it had failed to communicate with him properly and it was biased. He sent the Council further emails of complaint. The Council responded and said it would provide him with an update on his complaint in early June.
34. Mr D chased the Council in early June and said it had not got back to him by the agreed deadline. The Council apologised for the delay. It said he had sent new information which was different to his first complaint. It asked him to summarise the new issues so it could consider a new stage one complaint. It said he had not provided any information to progress to a stage two complaint.
35. Social Worker B emailed Mr D in mid-June to arrange the first meeting to discuss the risk assessment. Mr D’s solicitor replied and said she was acting on Mr D’s behalf.
36. Social Worker B emailed Mr D the following week and said she had not received a response. She asked if he was willing to complete the risk assessment. She sent a third email to Mr D at the end of June chasing a response.
37. Mr D’s solicitor responded. She said Social Worker A had failed to contact him before the ICPC. She also said Mr D only had two days’ notice of the ICPC and therefore did not have enough time to prepare. She said Mr D was willing to engage in the risk assessment, but he wanted a different social worker as he had made a complaint against Social Worker B. Social Worker B responded and said Social Worker A made several attempts to contact Mr D. She said it was her responsibility to complete the risk assessment.
38. Mr D contacted the Council’s complaints department in early July. He said it failed to respond in line with the timescales in the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council emailed Mr D and he needed to confirm his complaint points. Mr D responded and provided further details about his complaint. He said there was a delay in starting the risk assessment. He also said he wanted it to remove Social Worker B from the case.
39. A core group meeting took place in early July. Mr D did not attend.
40. Social Worker B emailed Mr D and his solicitor in early July and invited them to a RCPC in mid-July. Mr D attended the RCPC. Professionals agreed the child protection plan should continue.
41. Social Worker B emailed Mr D in late-July and said a core group meeting was taking place later that day. She asked if he would prefer a separate virtual meeting so he could contribute.
42. The Council assigned an alternative social worker (Social Worker C) to E’s case to complete the risk assessment. Social Worker B emailed Mr D in late August and said Social Worker C was on annual leave for three weeks. She said to avoid any further delays, she wanted him to attend a further appointment with her and another social worker to finish the risk assessment. Mr D’s solicitor responded and said Mr D was happy to attend a further appointment, but he did not want Social Worker B to attend. Social Worker B responded and confirmed Social Worker C would continue with the risk assessment.
43. Social Worker C emailed Social Worker B in early October and said she could not continue with the risk assessment due to her workload. Social Worker B emailed Mr D’s solicitor with this update. She said she was willing to work with Mr D to move the matter forward. Mr D responded and said he still did not want to work with Social Worker B.
44. Social Worker B offered Mr D a meeting with her manager to agree a way forward. Mr D responded and said he did not want to attend a meeting.
45. A core group meeting took place in October. Mr D did not attend.
46. Mr D raised a further complaint to the Council in late October about how it handled his case. The Council responded the following week under stage one of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. It apologised for the delay in responding. It addressed the concerns he raised in July and his new concerns. It apologised for the delays in starting the risk assessment. It offered him another meeting with Social Worker B’s manager to progress the matter. It apologised for any delays in responding to his solicitor. It also said it would not assign a new social worker as it would be unsettling for E.
47. Mr D asked to progress his complaint to stage two. The Council responded and refused to progress to stage two. It said it had responded to his complaints properly.
48. Social Worker B emailed Mr D’s solicitor at the end of November and said a core group meeting was taking place in two days. She also said a RCPC was taking place in mid-December.
49. Mr D’s solicitor responded the following day and said Mr D was not aware of the core group meeting and he had not received an invite. Social Worker B said Mr D could contribute in writing, or she could have a separate virtual meeting with him. Mr D agreed to the virtual meeting.
50. The RCPC took place. Professionals agreed there had been no recent incidents, E was not at risk and therefore the child protection plan should end.

Back to top

Analysis

The Council’s communication with Mr D, allegations of bias and the short notice to attend meetings

51. Social Worker A initially made reasonable attempts to contact Mr D on the main contact number it had on its file. Unfortunately, this was an old number for Mr D, which Social Worker A only became of at the end of March. Mr D then asked Social Worker A to send him an email about the issues. Apart from sending the child protection assessment, I cannot see Social Worker A then made any other attempts to engage with Mr D, explain the process to him or seek his views. This is fault, which caused Mr D upset and frustration. However, there is no evidence if Mr D’s views had been sought sooner, the outcome would have been any different. This is because Mr D had an opportunity to contribute during the ICPC. Professionals heard Mr D’s views, but still had concerns about the historic involvement of professionals with the family and E’s safety and welfare.
52. The Council assigned Social Worker B to E’s case in mid-April, but she did contact Mr D until mid-June. This is fault, which left Mr D feeling Social Worker B did not want to actively engage him in the process and was only prepared to work with Ms F. I can understand why Mr D may have had the impression Social Worker B was biased against him. I am satisfied after June there is evidence of more regular communication between Social Worker B and Mr D/his solicitor.
53. Mr D says the Council only gave him two days to attend the ICPC. He adds the Council failed to invite him to core group meetings or when it did so, it gave him very little notice.
54. The Council’s records are not entirely clear about when it told Mr D about the ICPC. Mr D says he first became aware when Social Worker A sent him the child protection assessment. In the absence of any other evidence, I consider it is more likely than not the Council did not tell Mr D about the ICPC until two days before it took place. This was short notice and it left Mr D with little time to prepare, which caused him frustration.
55. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it said the date of the first core group meeting was agreed in the ICPC and Mr D would been aware of this. The Council sent Mr D a copy of the ICPC minutes one week before the first meeting. The minutes state the date and location of the meeting. Therefore, I am satisfied Mr D was aware of the first meeting.
56. The Council’s records show further core group meetings took place in May, July, October, and December. There is no evidence Mr D was invited, or asked to contribute, to the meetings in May and October. Social Worker B did email Mr D about the July meeting, but it was on the day the meeting was taking place. There is nothing in the Council’s records which shows it told Mr D about the meeting in advance. Finally, Social Worker B did tell Mr D’s solicitor about the core group meeting in December, but she only provided two days’ notice. The Council’s faults have caused Mr D an injustice because he lost the opportunity to have his voice heard, and understandably lead him to believe the Council was on Ms F’s side and did not want to work with him.

Delays in the risk assessment process

57. Professionals agreed in the ICPC in April the Council should complete a risk assessment. Social Worker B took two months to contact Mr D about the risk assessment. This is fault, which caused Mr D frustration. However, after June, Social Worker B was willing to work with Mr D to complete the risk assessment. Mr D did not want to work with Social Worker B, which then caused delays as the Council had to find an alternative social worker who had other commitments. The Council also offered to arrange a meeting with Social Worker B’s manager to find a way forward, but Mr D refused to attend.

Complaints handling

58. The Council chose to respond to Mr D’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. It therefore had 20 working days to respond at stage one. The Council’s issued its first stage one response on time.
59. However, the Council significantly delayed issuing a second stage one response. Mr D provided further details of his complaint in early July, but the Council did not send any written response until early November. This caused Mr D frustration, and he was put to time and trouble raising further complaints with the Council.
60. The Council also repeatedly refused to progress Mr D’s complaint to stage two. The statutory guidance ‘Getting the best from complaints’ states where a complaint has been accepted at stage one, the complainant is entitled to pursue the complaint through stages two and three of the procedure if they remain dissatisfied. The Council was therefore wrong to refuse Mr D’s requests to have a stage two investigation. This fault has caused Mr D further frustration and time and trouble contacting the Ombudsman.
61. When a council refuses to complete a stage two investigation, we would usually recommend it does so and progresses it in line with the timescales set out in law. However, in this case I made not made this recommendation because section 47 child protection cases do not fall within the remit of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council has confused matters by accepting Mr D’s complaint under the procedure when it was not obliged to. Also, the complaints Mr D has raised are mainly administrative issues, and they do not require the specialist input of an IO and IP. I have therefore completed a full investigation of Mr D’s complaints.

Back to top

Agreed action

62. By 20 May 2024 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr D for the injustice caused by the faults identified in this statement.
• Pay Mr D £200 to reflect the lost opportunity to engage during the child protection process and the upset and frustration caused by its communication with him.
• Pay Mr D £150 to reflect his avoidable frustration and time and trouble caused by how it handled his complaint.

63. By 18 June 2024 the Council has agreed to:

• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware of the circumstances when a complaint should be investigated under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. If they decide to accept a complaint under the procedure, they should ensure it is progressed through each stage in line with the statutory timescales.
• Issue written reminders to staff in its social work team to ensure they are aware of the importance of actively engaging with both parents and communicating with them effectively during the child protection process.

64. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

65. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman