Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions with a safeguarding referral it received about their child. They said it inappropriately acted with prejudice and on an untrue view of their religion. We did not find fault with the Council’s decision making process. We are satisfied with the Council’s apology with some fault it identified, and this is appropriate for the injustice it caused.

The complaint

1. After making a Subject Access Request, Mr and Mrs X complained the Council pursued a safeguarding allegation made against them about their child on the basis of an erroneous and biased view of their religion. They say they feel discriminated against with negative stereotyping because of the information it included about their religion and the action it took, causing them significant frustration and 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 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. 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.
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 discussed the complaint with Mr and Mrs X and considered their views.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
8. Mr and Mrs 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 administrative background

Child Protection – Duty to Investigate

9. 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)

Acting on a referral

10. 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.
11. 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.

12. 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”.

The Equality Act

13. 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.
14. 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. The protected characteristics referred to in the Act includes religion or belief.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

15. At the time of the events, Mr and Mrs X had a young child and Mrs X was pregnant.
16. In mid-2023, the Council’s Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (“MASH”) received an email referral raising concerns for Mr and Mrs X’s child. The referrer described Mr and Mrs X’s alleged religious practices, their beliefs, and how it allegedly influenced their parenting. They said they witnessed a specific physical incident by Mr X and occasions of verbal name calling against his child.
17. Upon receipt, Social Worker 1 reviewed the referral. They summarised the MASH referral in the records. This included the incidents allegedly witnessed and they used some words in the original email referral allegedly describing Mr and Mrs X’s religion. Social Worker 1 decided to allocate it to a Case Worker to the next relevant team for further consideration.
18. The Case Worker rang Mrs X and later spoke to Mr X. The notes of the calls say Mrs X confirmed aspects of her religious belief, disputing how the referral had described it. They said Mr X had called their child a name out of frustration but denied any physical incident. Mr X said he should not have shouted, and it was wrong. They believed a third party known to them sent the referral maliciously as they did not agree with their religion.
19. The Case Worker considered the information. They had contacted other professionals who had no concerns with Mr and Mrs X. They noted Mr and Mrs X expressed regret over the name calling and they could have managed it more effectively. The Case Worker acknowledged a wider conflict with the third party. They noted the religion they followed and did not find any confirmation it was a radical or harmful organisation. The Case Worker decided Mr and Mrs X could benefit from some parenting support, noting the importance of being diligent given the young age of their child and her pregnancy. They recommended a further Assessment.
20. Social Worker 2 conducted an Assessment by visiting and observing Mrs X and her child at their home. Social Worker 2 discussed the concerns with Mrs X and offered some advice and guidance. They noted positive interactions and appropriate development with her child, with no concerns about her parenting style. Social Worker 2 decided to close the case. It said no further action needed by social care as the referrer’s claims were not substantiated.

Mr and Mrs X’s complaint

21. After reviewing the Council’s records from a Subject Access Request, Mr and Mrs X made a formal complaint. They said the Council had relied upon harmful stereotypes. It had accepted a false and untrue view about their religious beliefs as fact when Social Worker 1 progressed the MASH referral for further consideration.
22. The Council partly upheld the complaint. There was a record written by Social Worker 1 using what the referral said about their religion; this read as if this was presumed to be true. It apologised and reflected upon this by taking this learning back to the wider team about how information should be presented. It did not find fault with how it went on to process the referral.

Analysis and findings

23. Our investigations are proportionate – we are not required to answer every question or point a complainant may have about a council’s actions.
24. Our role is not to decide what decisions an organisation should have made, or whether it was right or wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot question the professional merits of the decision it reached.
25. I have outlined some of the Council’s responses to key points of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint and set out my views alongside these.

How the Council proceeded with the MASH referral

26. The Council recognised the record passing the MASH referral for further consideration had wording which made it sound as though the alleged religious practices were fact. The language should have been clearer to show the details about Mr and Mrs X’s religious beliefs were not known at this point. It apologised for this fault.
• I agree with the Council’s assessment of this part. In my view, this is an appropriate response to remedy the frustration caused to Mr and Mrs X by this.
27. The Council followed up on this comment to say this reference to their religion was, however, only part of the rationale to pass on for further consideration. Social Worker 1 also noted the referral described an alleged physical incident and occasions of name calling. It said this on its own, even without any reference to religion, would have warranted further exploration by the next team.
• In my view, the Council considered relevant information it had at the point of the referral. Based on this, it decided it should proceed as the concerns outlined an alleged risk to a child, both physical and emotional. While Mr and Mrs X strongly believe religion was the main factor in the Council’s decision making, I do not read this as the case. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision making process.

The wording used in the Council’s records and telephone contact

28. The Council said words and terms used in the records were taken from what the referral said, but this was not the Council’s personal opinion on their beliefs. Mr and Mrs X said the Case Worker used some of these words in phone calls. They felt interrogated when only asked about their religion, with no questions about other aspects of their life.
• We cannot find the Council at fault for what the referrer wrote or the words the referrer used. The Council included this for transparency for the records.
• The Council said the Case Worker explored some of the issues raised in the referral with a word quoted directly from it. She did this to make Mr and Mrs X aware of what the referrer said, not that it was her view. The case notes reflected this.
• I consider this is how the case notes read. It gathered information and decided it was a relevant consideration as a background to the referral. It put this fairly to Mr and Mrs X to give them the opportunity for their point of view on the allegations. She recorded their clear disagreement with this. The Case Worker also asked about the specific alleged incidents and Mr X gave his side which it noted. These are appropriate actions to take.
• Mr and Mrs X said other questions should have been asked about their lives. This is a matter for the Council, not me, to decide what it needed to ask.
• I recognise Mr and Mrs X understandably felt uncomfortable and distressed with the nature of the questions about their child and parenting. I have seen the Council’s notes. Mr and Mrs X say the call notes are inaccurate. This comes down to different accounts of what was discussed. In the absence of any other supporting evidence such as recordings, I cannot say either way. But from the Council’s evidence of records at the time, I do not have any significant concerns.

How the Council proceeded to Assessment

29. The Council said the next decision was not based solely on religious beliefs. The Case Worker formed a professional view after speaking to Mr and Mrs X and making other enquiries with other professionals. They decided further Assessment was proportionate considering the allegation of physical harm and noted that Mr X had confirmed part of the referral with the name calling. It decided on balance of probabilities, the concerns could be plausible and to progress to an Assessment. It also considered the age of the child and other vulnerabilities in its decision.
• In my view, the Council followed the process we would expect. It took appropriate steps to consider the issues raised in the referral. It contacted other professionals for their view, gathered information and involved Mr and Mrs X. It analysed what it had, and the Case Worker made a balanced neutral view about their religion. But considering everything else, it decided to act with diligence as there was a potential risk of harm to a child and recommended a further Assessment.
• I recognise Mr and Mrs X were left traumatised by the Council’s actions and strongly disagree with its actions and what they based it on. But there is no fault in how it made the decision for an Assessment, and it is one it is entitled to make based on its professional judgement. I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
• Ultimately, after the Assessment, the Council closed the case. After seeing first hand evidence, it decided there was no fact to the allegations with no need for social care involvement. However, as explained above, I do not find the Council at fault for how it decided to progress this through the stages to come to this outcome.

The Council’s response

30. The Council gave detailed responses to Mr and Mrs X’s points of complaint. I am satisfied the Council has sufficiently apologised for the fault it identified and it has taken steps to address this internally to prevent recurrence of this. I do not consider any further recommendations are necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation. I am satisfied with the Council’s actions in response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint and I do not recommend any further action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman