Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly safeguard his son after he reported concerns to it and has treated him differently to Ms Z based on his gender. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s children’s services failed to properly safeguard his son, Y. Mr X feels the Council discriminated against him on the basis of his gender and treated him as the problem despite evidence to the contrary. Mr X says this has affected his mental health and caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
6. 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

Child protection

7. 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’.
8. 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)
9. 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))  

Equality Act

10. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
11. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
12. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:

• age,
• disability,
• gender reassignment,
• marriage and civil partnership,
• pregnancy and maternity,
• race,
• religion or belief,
• sex, and
• sexual orientation.
   

13. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
14. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

Public sector equality duty

15. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
16. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

What happened

17. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place. I have kept details brief and non-specific to maintain anonymity of those involved.
18. Mr X raised concerns in April 2022 about the standard of care Y received from Ms Z. Specifically, this related to a deterioration in his behaviour at home and in school, deterioration of his physical presentation, being left alone and having to care for himself for long periods of time, and emotional abuse.
19. The Council carried out an Early Help Assessment where they spoke to Mr X, Ms Z, Y and Y’s school. The Council decided there was potential emotional impact on Y and agreed parenting support for both Mr X and Ms Z as well as direct support work with Y. The Council explained if Mr X had any safeguarding concerns in the future and felt Y was at risk of harm, he should contact the police.
20. The Council held a review of the Early Help Plan in July 2022. This was attended virtually by both Mr X and Ms Z as well as a representative from Y’s school. The review took account of views from each attending party as well as Y. It found there was parental conflict and Ms Z was working on this with assistance from the Council, but Mr X had declined similar support. The review acknowledged positive changes since the initial assessment.
21. Mr X complained to the Council in August 2022. He said he had made a safeguarding referral which had not progressed. Mr X said he felt the support worker was placing blame on him when Ms Z was the source of the conflict. Mr X said he felt the support worker had been unempathetic in the way they dealt with him and had sided with Ms Z. Mr X said he no longer wanted to deal with the support worker who had been involved in his case.
22. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in September 2022. The Council said the support worker felt they had been sympathetic to him, but it agreed to talk to them about being mindful and supportive of other peoples emotions. The Council accepted that there were occasions where Y did not want to engage with the support worker, but he was generally engaging well and his school said his behaviour was improving. The Council said both Mr X and Ms Z had been offered support around issues and had the opportunity to engage with these.
23. In September 2022, the Council reviewed the Early Help Plan. This was attended virtually by Ms Z, but Mr X chose not to attend. This review found Ms Z had completed her work around parental conflict and parenting strategies. The support worker recorded they had completed as much work with Y as they felt they could, and he no longer wished to engage with them. However, it was recorded that he had made positive progress at school and seemed more settled at home. The review found no further support was needed and the case could be closed. The support worker noted that due to a complaint against them, if the family needed support again it would not be appropriate for them to be involved.
24. In May 2023 Mr X raised further concerns with the Council. Specifically, he said Y had been excluded from school which had led to Ms Z being verbally and physically abusive before dropping him to Mr X’s home unannounced. Mr X said Y’s behaviour had deteriorated and he would like support from the Council.
25. The Council carried out an Early Help Assessment where they spoke to Mr X, Ms Z, Y and Y’s school. As the Council identified areas of impact on Y it agreed to complete an action plan with Mr X and Ms Z to work on the changes needed to move forward.
26. In July 2023 the Council met to produce an Early Help Plan based on the assessment. Mr X opted not attend this meeting, but Ms Z attended virtually. The plan named a new support worker and set out interventions and plans for Ms Z and Y.
27. The Early Support Plan was reviewed in August 2023 at a meeting that Ms Z attended virtually. This explored what had worked well so far and where further support was needed.
28. Mr X complained to the Council again in August 2023. Mr X said he felt the Council was wrongly accusing him of being an equal party to the parental conflict. Mr X said he felt the Council’s reports contained inaccurate accounts that Ms Z had given which gave a false impression of him. Mr X said he did not have faith in the Council’s family support team and found it difficult to work with.
29. Mr X complained further to the Council in October 2023. Mr X questioned the Council’s input to that point and said he did not feel its interventions had helped to change Ms Z’s behaviour. Mr X said he had ceased to engage with the Council as he did not have faith in the objectivity of its support workers and felt his concerns had been disregarded.
30. The Council reviewed the Early Support Plan again in October 2023 and November 2023. Ms Z attended these meetings virtually, but Mr X opted not to attend. The reviews set out what interventions had worked well so far and what further support was needed to continue progress.
31. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in December 2023. The Council explained it could not resolve parental conflicts between Mr X and Ms Z. It said it felts its support workers had communicated well with Mr X and that its support workers had taken the right approach to engaging with Y. The Council also said it did not believe it had ignored any concerns and had followed up where appropriate.

Analysis

32. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of testimony or evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means weighing up the available relevant evidence and basing our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. Sometimes it is not possible to come to a finding, even on the balance of probabilities, where there is no independent evidence and both sides have differing views on the same events.
33. Mr X has said he felt unsupported and treated differently to Ms Z based on his gender. However, I have not seen sufficient evidence to allow me to find, even on the balance of probabilities, that Mr X was treated any less favourably than Ms Z.
34. Mr X has said the Council was overly friendly with Ms Z and did not treat him the same way. Based on the evidence I have seen, I could not find the Council at fault in this respect. The Council heard both Mr X and Ms Z’s views and I cannot see it gave additional weight to the accounts of either side.
35. Mr X said the Council did not take his referrals seriously and failed to safeguard Y. From what I have seen, the Council considered each of the reports Mr X made. It consulted with all the affected parties and attempted to put measures in place to resolve issues that were having an impact on Y. The Council took the action it felt was appropriate in the circumstances and I do not find fault with how the Council chose to respond to Mr X’s reports.
36. Throughout the period I have investigated, there were many allegations made by both Mr X and Ms Z about one another. The Council considered these and what the impact was on Y. The professionals involved made recommendations for action plans where they saw fit and I do not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process.
37. It is clear Mr X disagrees with the allegations Ms Z has made, but I do not find the Council at fault for giving them consideration and recording them during the Early Help Assessments. I have seen no evidence the Council gave more weight to Ms Z’s allegations than Mr X’s and both appear to have been recorded in the same way, so I do not find the Council at fault here.
38. The Council’s investigations and enquiries appear to consider the impact on Y and how the Council could help to minimise this, not necessarily whether Mr X and Ms Z’s allegations about each other were credible. Y’s welfare seems to have been the Council’s main focus, and I do not find it at fault here.
39. There were periods since April 2022 where the Council was more engaged with Ms Z than with Mr X. However, these only occurred after Mr X had been in touch with the Council to tell it he no longer wished to engage with it. Ultimately, this is Mr X’s decision to make and I do not find the Council at fault for continuing to provide Ms Z with support after he had withdrawn himself from the support being offered.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I find no fault with how the Council considered Mr X’s reports. I also do not find the Council at fault for discriminating on Mr X based on his gender. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman