Summary: Mr X complained about the way the council dealt with child protection proceedings. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide copies of plans, failing to follow its policy around identification and not advising Mr X of how long he would need to leave the family home. However, we are satisfied with the action the Council has taken to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that during child protection proceedings the social worker discriminated against him and made him leave the family home for eight weeks. He also says he provided evidence he was the victim of domestic abuse, but the Council did not act on this. Mr X says that this caused him mental health issues and anxiety. Mr X would like the Council to apologise and review their process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
5. 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

Law and policy

Child protection

6. 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’.
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. Harm means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development, including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. (The Children Act 1989 31(9))  
9. 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.
10. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
11. 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.

Background

12. Following a domestic incident between Mr X and his wife in May 2023, the Council began a child protection investigation. In October 2023 the Council wrote to Mr X and advised him it would not be having any further contact with his family as it was satisfied with the outcome of the investigation.
13. I have set out relevant examples of contact between Mr X and the Council below. This does not detail all contact that took place.

Complaint the Social worker did not show identification:

14. Mr X says the social worker did not show him any identification during their first meeting.
15. Mr X says he was aware that a meeting with a social worker would be taking place, and why. However, he only found out about the meeting through his wife, who had been informed by the Council directly. After Mr X complained, the Council investigated and confirmed the social worker had not shown their identification, despite this being policy. This is fault. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council apologised to Mr X and reminded staff of its policy about identification.
16. Although the social worker did not follow the Council’s policy, it is clear Mr X was aware of who the social worker was and her role. The notes show Mr X did not query their identity or ask to see identification. It is my view the Council’s apology and reminder to staff of its policy are sufficient to address any injustice caused to Mr X.

Complaint the social worker failed to update Mr X or send him reports:

17. The case notes show that Mr X was updated regularly. He had several calls and meetings with the social worker. They advised him that a Section 47 investigation was underway and updated him once the assessment was complete. The case records show regular contact between Mr X and the social worker via text message, Teams and phone calls. The social worker was quick to respond to Mr X and offered to meet with him when needed.
18. However, the Council accepts it did not send Mr X and his wife copies of plans relating to the investigation. I find the Council at fault here. As a result, Mr X was caused uncertainty, which is injustice. When it responded to Mr X’s complaint, the Council apologised and confirmed it had reminded staff of the need to share plans. It is my view that this is reasonable to recognise any injustice to Mr X.

Complaint the social worker made Mr X leave his home for eight weeks:

19. Before the Council’s involvement Mr X had left the family home and was staying with family. Early in the process the social worker, Mr X and his wife had a discussion about a safety plan. They agreed Mr X and his wife would not be at the family home at the same time. However, if this was not possible, their child would stay with family.
20. It is clear from these notes that different options were discussed, however it was agreed that Mr X would continue to stay elsewhere. This was not the social worker’s decision. The case notes do not show Mr X raised any concerns about this arrangement and reflect that he understood why these measures were in place.
21. However, Mr X was not made aware of how long he would need to stay elsewhere, which is fault and would have caused distress and uncertainty to Mr X, which is injustice. Mr X says this led to him speaking with his doctor about his mental health. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepted that it should have advised Mr X about how long he would be away from his home. As a result, it reminded staff of the need to provide timescales to people in Mr X’s position. I find this is suitable action to address the injustice and prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Complaint the social worker changed instructions:

22. Mr X says the social worker initially told him he could not be in the family home when his wife was there. However, after he visited the family home, the social worker told him he must not go there at all.
23. The case notes show that when the safety plan was first put in place, Mr X agreed not to go to the family home when his wife and child were both there. However, he visited the home when both were there. As a result, the social worker told Mr X that he should no longer visit the family home. They advised him to meet his child in the community instead.
24. Although these instructions did change during the assessment process, and this was difficult for Mr X, this is not fault. It is clear the social worker responded to a changing situation and updated the safety plan as needed.

Complaint the social worker did not act on evidence of domestic abuse:

25. Mr X provided evidence to the social worker that showed he may be a victim of domestic abuse. The case notes show the social worker asked Mr X if he wanted help with his relationship, but he declined. The social worker did take Mr X’s concerns seriously, but could not take steps to address this further without Mr X’s agreement, therefore there is no evidence of fault.

Complaint about discrimination:

26. Mr X complained the Council discriminated against him during child protection proceedings because of his gender. He felt the Council did not give him the same information as his wife, that he was made to leave the family home and that his allegations of domestic abuse were ignored.
27. I have not identified fault with the Council’s actions and have seen no evidence Mr X was treated differently due to his gender.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I find the Council is at fault but has taken suitable action to remedy the injustice caused and to complete my investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman