Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate family support for the needs of their daughter. Mr and Mrs X considered there were missed opportunities to support both them and their daughter leading to their decision to ask for their daughter to be taken into foster care. We have found fault in the late provision of information ahead of a Child Protection Conference and failure to complete a carers assessment but consider the agreed action of an apology and procedural review provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainants, Mr and Mrs X, complain the Council failed to provide appropriate family support for the extensive and complex needs of their daughter (Z) from March 2022 to March 2024. In particular, the Council threatened to remove existing overnight respite care and failed to recognise child to parent abuse. Mr and Mrs X also complain about the Council’s actions under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
2. Mr and Mrs X say because of the Council’s fault there were missed opportunities to support both them and their daughter leading to their decision to ask for their daughter to be taken into foster care.

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. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the papers provided by Mr and Mrs X and discussed the complaint with them. I have also considered information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Mr and Mrs X and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.
8. 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 found

Background and legislation

9. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan.
10. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm (the term used in the Act). The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and determine whether protective action is required. Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse or neglect. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
11. If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
12. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conference unless there was good reason not to.

Key events

13. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened. Mrs X is Z’s mother and Mr X is Z’s step-father.
14. Mr X contacted the Council in mid-August 2022 about the impact of Z’s challenging behaviour on his wife. The Council spoke with Mrs X and recorded that she explained she was unable to cope with Z’s behaviour and the involvement of the Family Intervention Service (FIS) and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) had not helped. It was noted Mr X referred to a case where a child was considered to be beyond parental control and was taken into care as a result and said that Mrs X was happy to sign a section 20 for Z to be accommodated. The Council confirmed it would complete a Children and Family Assessment to identify the support needed for Z to remain within the family.
15. Mr and Mrs X also contacted the police about ongoing issues with Z’s behaviour during 2022.
16. The Council completed an introductory home visit toward the end of August and a further assessment visit in early September. Mrs X explained the impact of Z’s behaviour on her health and on her other children. It was noted the family was in acute stress and needed support with a risk of Z coming into care if nothing changed.
17. A Children and Family Plan was completed in October which sets out Z’s OCD and ritual behaviours impacting on both her own wellbeing and family relationships. It was noted these behaviours were so severe especially at night that Z was at risk of coming into care. It is recorded that Mrs X had reached crisis point in trying to support Z and her health was under great stress. A form of respite was needed to support Z and Mrs X. It was noted that Mr and Mrs X believed that if a resource could be identified to provide a few hours at least twice a week with someone spending time with Z this could make a huge difference and reduce the risk of Z coming into the care of the local authority. The options for respite were to be explored further and it was also agreed that CAMHS would continue to support Z through therapy and family therapy. The social worker recommended Mrs X’s other two children be closed to children’s social care at that time but a child in need plan would be focussed on Z’s mental health and identifying support for her family to avoid the real risk of Mrs X becoming so ill she could no longer care and support Z.
18. A section 17 child in need review meeting was held in November and different respite options were discussed. The FIS arranged for two visits with Z at the end of December 2022.
19. Mrs X contacted the Council in early January 2023 to ask for further support with Z. It was noted that the family was in need of respite and any support would help prevent a potential breakdown over the weekend. FIS arranged two visits over the weekend with Z.
20. Mr and Mrs X explained at a review meeting in January that matters were escalating and they were seriously considering section 20 accommodation for Z. Options for short break care or support workers to Mr and Mrs X’s home were to be explored further.
21. FIS provided further visits including an overnight stay during February and March. It was agreed in mid-March to provide care at Z’s home for two nights each week to support the family between 9pm and 7am.
22. At a review meeting in April, Mrs X explained she appreciated the two night overnight support as this gave her a break but it pushed the issues to the following nights which made them more difficult.
23. A Strategy Meeting was held on 23 May which decided the threshold was met for section 47 enquiries under the category of neglect with discussion around the possibility of emotional harm as well. The Council met with Mrs X to advise her about the section 47 enquiries.
24. The outcome of the section 47 enquiries led to the decision in early June that the concerns were substantiated and Z was at continuing risk of significant harm. It was agreed to progress the case to a Child Protection Conference. The social worker met with Mr and Mrs X on 7 June and obtained their views. This led to the late provision of the report to Mr and Mrs X on the day before the Conference.
25. The ICPC took place on 8 June. The ICPC decision was for Z to be supported by a child protection plan under the category of emotional abuse.
26. The Council advised Mr and Mrs X on 10 August that overnight support would be withdrawn from 24 August. Mrs X contacted the Council on 23 August seeking section 20 care for Z. The Council confirmed the overnight care would remain in place.
27. Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council about Z’s behaviour during August and September.
28. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council in September that it was not taking sufficient action to provide family support or recognising the risks that their daughter’s vulnerabilities created. Although it was noted that social workers had been supportive additional support was needed. It was accepted that overnight care had been provided twice a week which had made a significant difference but this was being removed. Mr and Mrs X also complained they were not provided with an adequate opportunity to provide their response during the Council’s section 47 enquiries. Mr and Mrs X accepted Z being on a Child Protection plan but considered it should have been recognised that Z’s behaviours meant she was beyond parental control and the risk of emotional harm stemmed from her own vulnerabilities.
29. A Child Protection Conference Review was completed on 15 September which decided to continue to support Z by a child protection plan.
30. Z was accommodated under section 20 from 17 November.
31. Mr and Mrs X chased the Council in November for a reply to their complaint. The Council provided a response in November and apologised for the delay. The Council accepted the late provision of information ahead of the Initial Child Protection Conference. The Council explained the social worker had met with Mr and Mrs X on 7 June as they had raised the issue that they had not been given an opportunity to provide their views. The Council noted the report provided to the meeting which contained their views was consistent with the views they expressed at the meeting. The Council acknowledged the failure to provide the complete report ahead of the meeting on 8 June would have caused Mr and Mrs X anxiety. The Council noted the overnight care had not been removed and remained in place at the time of writing.
32. Mr and Mrs X escalated their complaint towards the end of December. The Council provided a response in mid-March 2024 and apologised for the delay. The Council recognised that Mr and Mrs X did not have enough time to consider the social worker’s report before the conference and this would have caused anxiety. The Council noted the report included Mr and Mrs X’s disagreement with some of the information provided and their views about lack of support and Z not providing an accurate representation of events. The Council further noted discussions were held during May with both Mr and Mrs X about the section 47 enquiries before the decision was taken that the concerns were substantiated.
33. A Child Protection Conference review was held on 8 February 2024 which decided to end the child protection plan and continue to support Z as a looked after child whilst accommodated by the local authority.

My consideration

34. The Council has already accepted it provided late information to Mr and Mrs X ahead of the ICPC and this would have caused them both anxiety. The late provision of information is fault. However, I am satisfied that Mr and Mrs X were provided with an opportunity to provide their views ahead of the ICPC and these were included in the report to the Conference. I am aware Mr and Mrs X did not consider the report adequately reflected their views. However, Mr and Mrs X were able to provide their views at the meeting. This included Mrs X’s comments about the abuse she received from Z and that the report did not adequately reflect this or the failings in support. In the circumstances, I consider an apology would provide a suitable remedy for providing the information late to Mr and Mrs X. Although the Council upheld this element of the complaint it did not provide an apology and I consider it should now do so.
35. The Council has also confirmed it did not complete carers assessments during the relevant period. This is fault. However, I do not consider this caused Mr and Mrs X a particular injustice in the context of this complaint requiring a remedy beyond an apology. This is because such an assessment was not likely to have provided a different outcome to the completed Children and Family Assessment and other interventions at the time.
36. Apart from the issues identified above, I consider the Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s requests for support and took appropriate action. The Council completed a Children and Family Assessment during August and September 2022 to identify the support needed for Z to remain within the family. The Council put a plan in place which included CAMHS continuing to support Z through therapy and family therapy and was to consider the provision of a form of respite to support Z and Mrs X. I can see options were discussed for respite including residential respite which Z was not able to accept. Some respite was provided through FIS before overnight care was provided. I also do not consider the proposal to remove overnight care in August 2023 can be linked to Z going into section 20 care in November 2023. In the event, the overnight care was not removed and there is evidence that during its provision issues were pushed to following nights which made them more difficult for Mrs X. I also note the possibility of section 20 care had been raised as early as August 2022 by Mr and Mrs X.
37. On balance, I do not consider Z had to leave the family home because of fault by the Council in relation to the support provided during this period. Although I have found no evidence of fault in the Council’s overall approach this does not seek to minimise what was undoubtedly a difficult and distressing period for Mr and Mrs X.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. The Council will take the following action within one month of my final decision to provide a suitable remedy to Mr and Mrs X:
1. write to Mr and Mrs X to apologise for the late provision of information ahead of the Initial Child Protection Conference and failure to complete a carers assessment; and
2. review its procedures to ensure a separate carers assessment is completed when required.
39. 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.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action above provides a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman