Summary: Ms X complains about the handling of child protection issues relating to her children. The Council took longer than it should to complete stages two and three of the statutory complaint process in Ms X’s case. There is no evidence of fault in its overall handling of child protection matters relating to Ms X’s children. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the injustice caused by the complaint handling delay.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of child protection issues relating to her children. She believes the Council has treated her unfairly and sided with her abusive ex-partner and the eldest child (Child Y) she shares with them. Ms X says her requests for help from the Council have been ignored for many years and her relationship with Child Y has broken down as a result. Ms X complains the Council has:

• recorded inaccurate and false information about her;
• delayed dealing with her complaints and prevented her from participating in the stage three review panel meeting;
• failed to support her and her children, and facilitate proper contact with Child Y;
• undertaken an ‘illegal’ child protection investigation based on false allegations about her.

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. 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)
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. Ms X has told me her concerns about the Council’s approach span many years since its involvement with her family began in 2011. I have explained to Ms X there are no good reasons why I should exercise discretion to expand the scope of my investigation to include matters that occurred many years ago.
8. I have exercised discretion to investigate what has happened since January 2021 until Ms X brought her complaint to us in November 2023 as this mirrors the period covered by the Council’s complaint investigation.
9. I have however excluded some periods of the Council’s complaint handling from my investigation because we have already investigated Ms X’s two earlier complaints about these and made findings.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I have spoken to Ms X and considered the information she has provided in support of her concerns.
11. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries. Some of this information is confidential to other parties and cannot be disclosed or described in this decision statement.
12. Ms 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

Relevant guidance

Child Protection

13. Under section 47 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.
14. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
15. 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.
16. 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.

17. 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”.
18. 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.
19. When a council has concerns about a child, the law requires it to take action to find out more. It only has to have ‘reasonable cause to suspect’. This is a lower burden of proof than that used by the Police or the Courts who require evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Statutory complaint procedures

20. 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.
21. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
22. 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 investigate the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
23. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
24. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
25. 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.
26. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
27. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

Background

28. This background includes key events and does not cover everything that has happened.
29. The Council has been involved with Ms X’s family in relation to children’s social care since 2011. Ms X shares two children with her ex-partner, Child Y and Child Z. Contact arrangements for both parents were determined by the courts following private legal proceedings in 2019.
30. Child Y has been on a Child in Need (CiN) plan with the Council since 2020. At the beginning of 2022, a unanimous decision was made to place both children on a Child Protection (CP) plan under the category of emotional harm due to parental conflict.
31. Throughout this time, Child Y has spent various periods living with Ms X and her ex-partner. Child Z has continued to live with Ms X and had periodic contact with their other parent. Following an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) in late January 2022, the decision was made for Child Y to remain on a CP plan and for Child Z to be placed on a CiN plan.
32. At the time Ms X brought her complaint to us, Child Y was still residing with their other parent and remained the subject of a CP plan. Ms X said she has had no meaningful contact with Child Y for the last 18 months.
33. Ms X made formal complaints about the Council’s handling of her children’s cases at the end of 2021. This process concluded with the Council’s statutory stage three complaint response, which it issued to Ms X on 2 October 2023.

Ms X’s complaints and my findings

The Council has recorded inaccurate or false information about Ms X

34. This complaint formed part of the concerns the Council investigated for Ms X under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure.
35. The IO considered the specific points Ms X raised about this issue when investigating her stage two complaint. Their investigation included examination of Council case records and interviews with the relevant staff Ms X had made allegations against. The IO did not find evidence of inaccurate or false recording and did not uphold Ms X’s complaint. They did however suggest Ms X be allowed the opportunity to give her objections to the Social Worker’s report to the ICPC/RCPC and for this to be added to the Council’s case file.
36. The Adjudicating Officer for the Council agreed to the IO’s suggestion and invited Ms X to provide her statement of objections to the Council so these could be added to her children’s records. It is unclear whether Ms X has provided her statement of objections. This action by the Council is in line with the type of remedial action we might recommend in such cases.
37. The Council’s prior investigation of this element of Ms X’s complaint appears thorough and detailed. Ms X has not provided me with any reasons or evidence to show the Council’s investigation was so procedurally flawed that the conclusions it reached should be questioned. I therefore find no evidence of fault by the Council for this issue.

Delayed complaint handling and prevention from participating in the stage three review panel hearing

38. Ms X made two stage one complaints to the Council about its handling of this case. Both complaints were responded to within the maximum 20 working day timescale set out in the statutory complaint procedure.
39. Ms X escalated her complaints to stage two on 26 April 2022. The IO and IP met with Ms X online to take her statement of complaint on 17 May 2022. Ms X confirmed the statement of complaint on 22 June 2022.
40. The IO completed their investigation report on 14 September 2022 and the IP theirs the day after. The Adjudicating Officer (AO) for the Council issued their response to the IO’s report to Ms X on 29 September 2022.
41. From the point Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two to the AO’s response took 108 working days. This exceeds the maximum statutory timescale of 65 working days, which is fault.
42. Ms X advised the Council by email on 20 October 2022 she wished to escalate her complaints to stage three. Her email did not include any information about why she remained dissatisfied or the outcome she was seeking from the stage three review.
43. The Council offered Ms X some support with going through the IO’s stage two report to identify which parts she remained unhappy with. It appears a meeting between Ms X and the advocate occurred on 30 January 2023.
44. The Council wrote to Ms X on 22 February 2023 to explain new issues of complaint could not be added to the stage three review. It also advised Ms X the independent chair of the stage three review panel could meet with her online the day before the hearing to explain what the panel will and will not cover. The Council also explained the review panel would not reinvestigate Ms X’s complaints.
45. On 11 May 2023, Ms X chased the Council following a call with the panel chair. She then brought her complaint about the delay to us. We upheld her complaint, but did not investigate further as the Council had agreed to remedy the injustice to Ms X with an apology, payment of £100 and commitment to hold the panel review hearing by the end of June 2023.
46. The Council held the stage three review panel hearing online on 29 June 2023. Ms X informed the panel at the start of the meeting that she would be recording it. The panel had concerns about the recording of the meeting when none of the attendees had received prior warning of this. The panel and Council also had concerns about whether information about Ms X’s children could be discussed during a recorded hearing without their consent. The hearing was paused while the Council sought legal advice. The advice was that consent would need to be obtained from Ms X’s children given their ages.
47. The review panel suggested Ms X might benefit from a face-to-face meeting. Ms X objected to this, saying she would find that more intimidating and would not have access to all her paper records. The Council offered to provide Ms X with support so that she would still have access to the records she wanted to rely on.
48. The review panel hearing was reconvened on 14 September 2023. Ms X was invited but decided not to attend as she was unable to record the meeting. The Council confirmed it had asked Child Y if they agreed for their personal data to be recorded and they had not provided consent for this. The review panel hearing went ahead and considered the concerns Ms X continued to have with the Council’s handling.
49. The review panel issued its report following the reconvened hearing on 21 September 2023 and the Council sent Ms X its response to the stage three review panel’s findings on 2 October 2023.
50. I find Ms X was not prevented from participating in the stage three review panel hearing. The Council and the panel sought legal advice on issues of consent which were significant and relevant to Ms X’s complaints. It was entirely reasonable and appropriate for the Council and the review panel to act on the advice it had received, which was subsequently reinforced by Child Y not giving consent for their personal data to be recorded. The Council had a legal duty to ensure it complied with data protection regulations and acting as it did in this case was not evidence of fault.
51. The Council’s progression of Ms X’s complaints through the statutory process was delayed at stages two and three. Part of the injustice caused by the delay in convening the first stage three review panel hearing has already been remedied by our previous decision. There remains a two month delay at stage two and a two and half month delay in reconvening the stage three review panel hearing. The Council has not provided me with its correspondence, if there is any, with Ms X about this between the end of June and mid-September 2023.
52. This delay is likely to have caused frustration and worry to Ms X, which the Council should remedy as recommended at the end of this decision statement.

Council failed to support Ms X and her children and facilitate proper contact with Child Y

53. This part of Ms X’s complaint to us is not a specific issue the Council has had the opportunity to previously consider under the three stage statutory complaint process.
54. I have however examined key records from the Council’s case files for Ms X’s children. The Council’s focus appears to have been on working with Child Y who has remained the subject of a CP plan since the beginning of 2022. There is evidence to show how Social Workers and Community Childcare Workers have tried to support Child Y with having contact with Ms X while living with their other parent.
55. The Council’s records show that Social Workers have made referrals to support organisations for Ms X as a former domestic abuse victim. The Council has also offered relevant courses and classes to both of Child Y’s parents to help alleviate the emotional impact of their acrimony on their children. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach in this respect.
56. Ms X’s complaint to us says she has had no contact with Child Y for the last 18 months, which has no doubt been very upsetting. As issues of contact have been previously determined by the courts in the case of Ms X’s children, these are issues neither we nor the Council can resolve. Ms X will need to return to the courts if she believes the terms of any formal contact arrangements are not being complied with.

Council has undertaken an ‘illegal’ child protection investigation on the basis of false allegations about Ms X

57. Child Y has been supported through a CiN plan since 2020. Things then appear to have escalated during 2020 and 2021 to the point in early 2022 where the Council held a strategy meeting and a unanimous decision was made to place both of Ms X and her ex-partner’s children on a CP plan under the category of emotional harm.
58. The threshold for councils to make enquiries about concerns of harm to a child in its area is set deliberately low to ensure significant issues are not missed. The Council had a legal duty to act when it found the issues in this case could not be sufficiently addressed through Child in Need interventions. Because of this, I find no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach or the action it took in this case.
59. Some of Ms X’s complaints about false allegations appear to relate to observations Social Workers have made and then reported to the ICPC which led to Ms X’s two children being placed on CP plans. These appear to be based on the Social Workers’ own observations when attending Ms X’s property. These observations do not however appear to be the sole reason for placing the children on CP plans. The key issue is the significant acrimony between Ms X and her ex-partner and the impact of this on their children. The Council is not in my view apportioning blame solely on Ms X, rather that both parents bore responsibility for the outcome reached by the ICPC.
60. The IO also considered this issue in their investigation and found decisions the Council made around the category of harm in this case were appropriate given what was evidenced and presented.
61. There is no doubt the process of investigating safeguarding concerns about children are, by their very nature, extremely distressing and stressful for all those involved, not least the parents of the child(ren).
62. I have seen no evidence to show the Council has deliberately sought to exclude Ms X or her views from the process.

Back to top

Agreed action

63. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to issue a written apology and remedy payment of £200 to Ms X for the injustice caused to her by the delays in progressing her complaints through the statutory process.
64. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I have completed my investigation and found fault due to complaint handling delay by the Council. This fault has caused Ms X injustice and the Council has agreed to take the recommended action to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman