Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly safeguard his children and has sought to discredit their complaints and disclosures through false statements and unfounded allegations. The Council has taken appropriate action in response to safeguarding concerns relating to Mr X’s children. However, the Council's decision not to investigate Mr X’s complaint was fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly safeguard his children and has sought to discredit their complaints and disclosures. He complains the Council has made false statements to both himself and his children and has made unfounded allegations against his eldest child.
2. In addition Mr X complained the Council has failed to keep him informed or respond to his correspondence and concerns.
3. Mr X also complained a Child Protection Core Group Meeting was stopped prematurely so he did not get a chance to address the issues he wished to. He believes this was done to avoid addressing his concerns about the allegations made against his child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about bullying or the actions of his children’s school. The Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints about the internal management of schools.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• 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

10. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a complete account.
11. Mr X has three children, D, E and F, who live with their mother Mrs Y. In November 2022 Mr X contacted the Council to raise concerns Mrs Y was hitting his eldest child D. He also raised concerns D was being bullied at school and school staff were discriminating against them. The Council’s records say it was apparent to the officer Mr X spoke to that Mr X’s primary concern was D’s safety in school. The officer noted Mr X did not feel D was unsafe at home with Mrs Y. The Council advised Mr X it would not become involved in his concerns about the school as he had already raised these directly with the school and they had been investigated.
12. The Council carried out a Child and Family Assessment. The assessment recommended Mrs Y be supported by Early Help. In March 2023 both Mr X and his children’s school reported further concerns about Mrs Y hitting the children. Following a further report from the school in April 2023 the Council held a strategy meeting and agreed the threshold was met for a Child Protection Enquiry. The enquiry assessment recommended an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) and that the children be placed on a Child Protection Plan.
13. Mr X attended and contributed to the ICPC on 17 May 2023, following which the children were placed on a Child Protection Plan under the category of emotional harm.
14. Following the meeting Mr X raised concerns about the accuracy of some of the comments and assertions made about him in the reports prepared for the ICPC. Specifically, comments about his relationship with Mrs Y, his relationship with the children’s school, his understanding of the complexity of his youngest child’s needs, and comments to D about standing up for themselves. Mr X was unhappy the Council had not sought to verify the claims.
15. The Council made regular statutory visits to the children to carry out direct work in accordance with the Child Protection Plan. It also held monthly core group meetings of the various professionals involved and Mr X and Mrs Y. The purpose of these meetings was to review progress of the various elements of the plan. The meetings reported:
• Direct work had been completed with D and E;
• Direct work had been completed with Mrs Y during statutory visits and with Mr X on the phone;
• The health needs for the children had been assessed;
• Referrals had been made for F and a referral to CYPS made for D;
• D and E were receiving support from school regarding their emotional wellbeing;
• A safety plan had been devised with Mrs Y and D and E with physical chastisement and boundary setting being the main focus;
• A referral had been made for a family support worker.
16. Following a disclosure by D in June 2023 that Mrs Y had pushed them down the stairs the Council held a strategy meeting and conducted a further Child Protection Enquiry. A Family Support Worker also began working with the family.
17. At a Review Child Protection Conference in August 2023 it was agreed the children would remain subject to a Child Protection Plan under the category of emotional harm. Mr X did not attend this meeting but spoke with the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) beforehand. The records show Mr X told the IRO he had noticed an improvement and had not seen any physical chastisement of the children by Mrs Y.
18. In early October 2023 Mr X contacted the Council and advised D had told him Mrs Y still hits them. She also shouts and says horrible things to them which impacts on their mental health. Mr X noted it was almost a year since he made a complaint about Mrs Y hitting the children and the situation had not improved.
19. On 15 October 2023 the police placed the children with a family friend following a disclosure that Mrs Y had punched D. The Council held a strategy meeting and the children were returned to Mrs Y on 17 October 2023 with a safety plan in place.
20. Mr X was unhappy he had returned to Newcastle to see his children on 16 October 2023 but the social worker had told him he could not contact them. He said there had been no improvement in the way Mrs Y treats the children and was considering taking them away from Newcastle. The social worker responded clarifying they had not said there was an order on the children but that police protection was in place and he was not to contact the children as they were having a meeting to discuss the issues.
21. Mr X has provided a copy email correspondence with the police in which the police also confirm they had not imposed any order. But that contact with the children would not have been allowed from either parent while they were in police protective custody, which could last up to 72 hours.
22. The Council carried out a further Child Protection Enquiry and made a referral to its legal panel, the outcome of which was a recommendation to issue care proceedings in relation to all three children. The Council issued court proceedings in late November 2023 and subsequently obtained an Interim Supervision Order.
23. In November 2023 the Council wrote to Mr X as it was concerned he was not supporting the boundaries Mrs Y had put in place to moderate D’s behaviour, especially when refusing to attend school. The Council told Mr X it had significant information around D’s sexualised behaviour and the school had devised a safety plan to manage the concerns. The Council said its main priority was to support D address the concerns around their behaviour and emotional health but Mr X did not share the Council’s concerns and it was concerned he was not helping the situation.
24. Mr X asserted Mrs Y had made accusations against D to justify her abusive behaviour towards them. He asked what had led to the accusation of sexualised behaviour and what steps the Council had taken to verify the accusations. Mr X maintained Mrs Y’s behaviour was the reason for the breakdown in boundaries and routines at home.
25. Mr X spoke with the social worker in December 2023 and then sent an email reiterating his concerns about the impact of the school’s safety plan on D’s mental health and learning. He maintained the school’s actions were based on false information. And that the Council’s decisions and actions were not in the best interests of his children.
26. The Council’s records show the social worker felt Mr X continued to show a lack of insight into the concerns around D’s behaviour. They were worried about Mr X’s behaviour and the impact this was having on D’s emotional wellbeing. The social worker noted Mr X had not engaged with the Child Protection Plan and had not attended most of the meetings. The Council’s records suggest Mr X did not attend several of the monthly core group meetings.
27. Mr X attended the core group meeting in December 2023. He is unhappy the meeting ended prematurely before he could address the issues raised. Officers asked him to wait until everyone had spoken before making his own statement but then disrupted his presentation. He asserted this was because the Council and D’s previous school did not want him to address the false accusations against D.
28. The Council advised Mr X that significant concerns had been raised about his behaviour at the meeting towards professionals. This was why the meeting was ended. The Council also told Mr X it was worried about some of the comments made by the children about Mr X’s behaviour in the home that weekend. The Council asked that when Mr X saw the children this was not in their family home and separate to Mrs Y so as not to undermine the work Mrs Y was completing.
29. Mr X disputed that the Council had had any contact with his children since the weekend so the suggestion they had commented on his behaviour was false. He did not want statements attributed to his children that they had not made.
30. Mr X then made a formal complaint to the Council about the style of safeguarding and child protection the Council was providing to his children. He did not consider the children’s situation had improved in the year since he had raised concerns. He was also unhappy the Council had put negative labels on his children in an attempt to discredit their complaints and disclosures. Mr X reiterated his concerns about the Council’s action when his children were removed from Mrs Y’s care by the police in October 2023. And his concerns about the false accusation made against D.
31. Mr X was concerned the Council had relied on untrue information from Mrs Y and D’s previous school to make decision which impacted negatively on D at their new school. He complained that he was not allowed to address the lies at a recent core group meeting as it was stopped prematurely.
32. The Council responded in January 2024 and advised Mr X that as his complaints relate to issues Mr X or his legal representatives had raised or could raise as part of the ongoing court proceedings it was unable to continue with his complaint. It advised Mr X it could review his complaint again once the court proceedings are finished.
33. Mr X has asked the ombudsman to investigate his concerns. He is unhappy the Council declined to investigate his complaint of dishonesty and unprofessional conduct by council officers. He complains the Council’s actions are causing his children emotional harm.
34. Since complaining to us the Court has granted a Child Arrangements Order to Mrs Y.
35. In response to my enquiries the Council says there have been no delays and Mr X’s concerns have been fully explored. It says there is a difference of opinion between Mr X and the Council in terms of his concerns, particularly in relation to his own behaviour and the position of the schools involved around some of D’s behaviours.
36. The Council says it has responded to Mr X’s emails and there have been multiple discussions between Mr X and the social worker about his concerns, and the Council’s concerns about his behaviour. Mr X’s concerns have also been discussed at Child Protection Conferences and Core Group Meetings. The Council says Mr X does not always agree with the information given about his children and becomes frustrated when his concerns are not agreed in full and professional responses are not what he feels they should be.
37. Mr X had asked for a new social worker for his children but the Council did not deem this appropriate given the established relationship and ongoing court proceedings. The Council allocated a new social worker at the conclusion of proceedings.
38. The Council says it advised Mr X he should not communicate with his children while they were in the Council’s care under powers of police protection until a strategy meeting could be held. And it could be confirmed with the police that he was able to speak with the children without causing issues with any ongoing investigation. The Council is satisfied this decision was appropriate in the circumstances.
39. In relation to Mr X’s concerns he was not able to discuss his concerns at a Core Group meeting, the Council says this was ended prematurely due to Mr X’s behaviour. It says this was explained to Mr X at the time who did not agree with the assessment of his behaviour.

Analysis

40. 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)
41. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether the Council should implement child protection plans or what any plans should involve. That is for the Council to decide. The Ombudsman's role is to make sure the Council followed the processes and properly considered all the available information when it made these decisions.
42. In this instance the Council has responded to concerns raised about Mr X’s children’s welfare, initially through a referral for Early Help, and then through the implementation of a child protection plan. The Council also commenced care proceedings. This is an appropriate response.
43. Mr X was involved in the ICPC and was able to contribute and raise any concerns at subsequent meetings and directly with the children’s social worker. Although he was unable to attend the Review Child Protection Conference in August 2023 he had the opportunity to speak with the IRO prior to the meeting.
44. It is clear Mr X disagrees with some of the concerns raised about aspect of his children’s behaviour, and with the Council’s assessment of his own behaviour. However, we would expect the Council to investigate any concerns raised and to decide on an appropriate course of action. This would include any concerns raised about D’s sexualised behaviour. The Council told Mr X these concerns were shared by D’s previous school, D’s friends’ parents, and Mrs Y. It said it appeared D was bypassing the parental controls on their gadgets and accessing inappropriate internet sites. Mr X disputes these claims but we would not criticise the Council for investigating them.
45. Mr X is unhappy he was not given the opportunity to address the issues at a Core Group meeting in December 2023. Mr X asserts the meeting was ended as the Council and school did not want to address the lies and false accusations against D. The documentation provided shows professionals at the Core Group meeting considered Mr X was aggressive and would not accept what professionals were saying, and that his behaviour was unprofessional and disruptive.
46. In the circumstances I do not consider the Council’s decision to end the meeting prematurely was fault.
47. Mr X also complains the children were told there was a police order in place to stop them from contacting their father in October 2023 when the police removed them from Mrs Z’s care. I have not received a record of what was said to the children, by anyone, when they were placed in the Council’s care. But while it is clear contact between Mr X and his children was controlled during this period, the documentation does not suggest the Council presented this decision as a police order.
48. The records of the statutory visit on 17 October 2023 say that during the visit D was told they were not to use their phone or tablet as part of the safety plan. The notes also record D was unhappy that they could not contact Mr X for a few days to allow work to be completed with them and Mrs Y to address issues around their relationship. D also told the social worker they had not been allowed to access their phone while with the family friend as they did not allow their own children to access their gadgets until the weekend.
49. It is also clear that Mr X was asked not to contact his children while the police protection was in place, but I note the social worker clarified on 17 October 2023 that there was no order in place that he could not contact his children.
50. Although Mr X disagrees with the decision to restrict contact with his decision there is no evidence of fault in the way it was taken.
51. I do however consider there was fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint.
52. The Council says it determined Mr X, as the children’s father had sufficient interest in their welfare to warrant his complaint being considered under the statutory complaints procedure. However, complaints about child protection enquiries do not fall within the statutory process. The Council should therefore have considered this under its corporate complaints procedure.
53. The Council also advised Mr X that the Regulation 8 of the Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 provided the Council with discretion in deciding whether to consider complaints where matters are being dealt with by the court. However Regulation 8 does not apply here.
54. I consider the Council could have investigate some, if not all of Mr X’s complaints and was at fault in not doing so. The Council’s refusal to investigate Mr X’s complaint has caused Mr X frustration and exacerbated his distrust of the Council. The Council should apologise to Mr X for not investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for not investigating his complaint. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
56. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. The Council has taken appropriate action in response to safeguarding concerns relating to Mr X’s children. However, the Council's decision not to investigate Mr X’s complaint was fault.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman