Summary: Ms A complained about the way the Council dealt with her child in need matter. She said the Council has caused undue distress and harm to her child. We found the Council at fault and recommended the Council make a payment to Ms A in recognition of any injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains about the way the Council has dealt with her family’s child in need matter. She says the Council’s assessment was based on untrue assumptions and allowed her child to stay with her grandparent when it should not have.
2. Ms A would like the Council to amend its report and to apologise for causing avoidable stress.

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)
5. 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

6. I have considered information provided by the Council and Ms A, alongside the relevant law and guidance.
7. Ms A and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision, and all comments received have been considered before this final decision was made.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Ms A contacted the Council in early 2023, for support with her child. She reported there had been physical altercations between her and her child, which had led to the child moving in with a grandparent.
9. Ms A reported that she was concerned for her child’s wellbeing as she did not believe the grandparent could meet the child’s needs because of their own health issues.
10. Ms A also reported that an uncle also lived at the grandparent’s house, and she had concerns about her child staying there because of his mental health issues.
11. The Council assessed the situation and drew up a Child in Need plan 49 days after Ms A’s contact.
12. In completing the assessment, the Council met with Ms A, the child and the grandparent. It also got information from the child’s GP, school and the police. It also considered information it had from previous contact with the family.
13. The child and grandparent reported no issues with the child temporarily staying there. The child said they cooked together and went to activities together and needs were being met there.
14. The Council’s child in need plan set out the objective was to support the child in returning to Ms A’s home and supporting Ms A with handling any further volatility from the child.
15. The plan noted the child should receive support for trauma suffered, a family group conference should be held, mediation should be put in place to help Ms A’s relationship with her child, and support was to be provided to Ms A to help her understand and support her child better.
16. Ms A was unhappy with the wording of the assessment report when it was shared with her. The Council met with her, noted her concerns and agreed to amend the report. This was not done until Ms A raised a complaint.
17. Two months after the assessment was completed, the child reported the grandparent had caused physical harm and returned to Ms A’s home.
18. In a review meeting, the Council noted the return home was sooner than had been expected but said the relationship between Ms A and her child showed improvement. The Council drew up a safety plan with Ms A to help to ensure there were no further altercations between her and her child.
19. The child met with a social worker weekly, and the Council noted these sessions were going well.
20. Over the following review meetings, the Council removed the grandparent from the child’s plan as a return there was not planned.
21. Mediation sessions began around four months after the assessment but were not completed.
22. Ms A complained to the Council that it should not have allowed her child to remain with the grandparent when she had raised her concerns about this. Ms A also complained the Council withdrew its support before it had implemented everything in the plan.
23. The Council accepted it had not carried out the work it planned to do with Ms A to help her to understand and support her child and apologised for this. It said this has not been done as the child had not agreed to engage in this work.
24. The Council also acknowledged that a final meeting did not take place before it ended its involvement.

What should have happened

25. The Children Act 1989 S17 (1) imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
26. There is guidance on how the Council should meet this duty called Working Together to Safeguard Children. The version that was relevant is 2018.
27. The Council should assess the child and family within one day of receiving a referral. In this case, the initial assessment of the referral was done in three days.
28. The Council’s policy on assessments sets out that it must complete its assessment within 45 days. In this case, this was done in 53 days.
29. The assessment should include the child’s views, the parents’ views and considering all the relevant circumstances. The Council should then decide what the needs are and how they should be met.
30. The Council should tell the family of its assessment in writing and provide the services it set out in that document.

Analysis and Findings

31. The Council did not adhere to the timescales, and this is fault. The timescales were missed by two days for the initial referral assessment and then eight days for the full assessment. The circumstances reported in the initial referral did not change and were not impacted by this delay in any significant way, so I do not consider there has been a meaningful injustice as a result of this.
32. As part of the assessment, the Council got views from Ms A, the child, the grandparent, the child’s school and GP, and information it had from previous contact with the family.
33. The Council has shown the assessment was thorough and based on the information we would expect the Council to consider. I have seen that Ms A did not like the wording of the assessment report and the Council agreed to amend this. This does not mean the assessment was based on untrue assumptions.
34. The Council agreed with Ms A that she and her child should be supported in her return home and set out steps it would take to help this to happen. The child and grandparent did not say anything which raised concerns about the child’s safety in the short term.
35. Some steps planned should have happened before the child returned home, however, circumstances changed meaning the child could no longer stay with the grandparent.
36. The Council met with the child and Ms A and considered whether it was safe and suitable for the child to return home. It drew up a safety plan and explained that if this was not adhered to, further action would be taken.
37. The grandparent was removed from the plan in accordance with the new circumstances. The Council met regularly with the child at school, and monthly with Ms A and the child. The Council noted that their relationship was improving, and no further incidents had taken place.
38. The Council has accepted that not all the steps in the assessment plan were carried out. It says Ms A, her child, and the grandparent were not willing to engage in some planned work. Some work was no longer suitable because of the unforeseen incident with the grandparent.
39. However, the Council also accepts that mentoring was not put in place. This is fault.
40. The Council has also accepted that a final meeting did not take place before it removed itself from the situation, and not all the planned steps were taken.
41. It is clear Ms A feels she did not receive the support she needed. A final meeting would have allowed her the chance to explain this to the Council. This worsens the injustice caused here.
42. I have considered the Council's monthly review meetings and Ms A's relationship with her child was improving and no further incidents had taken place since the child returned home. There is no obvious reason for the Council to have been concerned that it was required to remain in place to support that relationship.
43. Had a further incident occurred between Ms A and her child she could have approached the Council again for a further assessment to take place. I have balanced this against any injustice caused in reaching my remedy recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within one month of the decision, the Council will make a payment of £200 to Ms A in recognition of the fault identified above.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I found the Council at fault, and it has agreed to make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman