Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to investigate and act on concerns he raised about the actions of his ex-partner and, in so doing, showed bias and failed to consider his complaint properly. I have found no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr D, complained the Council:
• showed bias by not investigating his concerns about the actions of his ex-partner;
• failed to act on the concerns he raised;
• failed to investigate his complaint properly; and
• produced an inaccurate report for court proceedings.
2. Mr D says the Council’s actions have caused him significant stress and has placed his children at risk of harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Mr D’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his concerns about the actions of his ex-partner and complaint. I have not investigated Mr D’s concerns about the accuracy of the report produced for court proceedings for the reasons given at the end of this statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr D's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. Mr D and the organisation 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

Greater Manchester Safeguarding Children Procedures Manual (the manual)

10. The manual says the safety of children is paramount in all decisions relating to their welfare. Any action taken by staff should ensure no child is left in immediate danger.
11. Children's social care will deal with a referral in accordance with the local common assessment framework and the assessment framework triangle in Working Together to Safeguard Children and determine whether a referral should be responded to on the basis that the child is in need of support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 or in need of protection under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
12. The worker receiving the referral will:
• check whether the child is subject to a child protection plan and/or whether there has been any previous involvement with children's social care in relation to the child or children concerned and any other members of the household;
• identify other agencies or persons who may hold relevant information;
• consult other agencies as appropriate.
13. The outcome of the referral will be:
• that the child appears to be a child in need and there are concerns about the child's health and development or concerns of significant harm which justify an assessment; and/or
• that emergency protective action should be taken to safeguard the child or children (usually determined by an immediate strategy discussion); or
• where the child is already known and new information suggests the child is or may be suffering harm, that a section 47 enquiry and/or a new or updated assessment is required; or
• that a referral to another agency should be made in accordance with the local common assessment framework and/or the provision of advice and information is acted on; or
• that no further action is required.
14. Feedback on the outcome of a referral should be provided to the referrer, including where no further action is to be taken.

What happened

15. Mr D has two children with his ex-partner. In June 2023 the Council received a referral from Mr D, raising concerns about his ex-partner’s actions. The Council spoke to Mr D and his ex-partner. Mr D’s ex-partner denied the allegations and made counter allegations about Mr D. The Council spoke to the school and nursery attended by Mr D’s children and the health visitor. Following those discussions the Council decided to provide Mr D and his ex-partner with some advice and signposting to support services.
16. Mr D raised further concerns about his ex-partner’s actions with the school his son attended in July 2023. The school passed those concerns onto the Council. The Council considered the information provided was a continuation of the concerns raised in June 2023 and reiterated the advice to Mr D and his ex-partner.
17. The Council received a further allegation in October 2023. The Council became aware Mr D’s ex-partner had made some allegations about Mr D which the police were investigating. At that point Mr D was on police bail which included conditions preventing him contacting his ex-partner. The Council spoke to Mr D and his ex-partner. The Council decided to begin a child and family assessment given the number of referrals within a short space of time. By that time Mr D and his ex-partner were in private law proceedings relating to the children.
18. On 20 December Mr D put in a complaint about how the case was being handled.
19. The Council completed the child and family assessment on 21 December. The assessment recommended no further action. The Council sent Mr D and his ex-partner a copy of that report on 23 January 2024.
20. In January 2024 the police dropped the charges against Mr D.
21. On 23 January the Council responded to Mr D’s complaint. As Mr D was not satisfied with the outcome he asked the Council to take the complaint to stage two. The Council responded to the stage two complaint on 13 March.
22. The case is now in private court proceedings and is closed to children’s social care. The Council has since offered a meeting with Mr D to discuss his concerns about the child and family assessment and accepts it should have sent the parents a copy of that assessment earlier.

Analysis

23. I am not exercising the Ombudsman's discretion to investigate anything that happened before January 2023. That is because I see no reason why Mr D could not have complained to the Ombudsman at the time.
24. Mr D says the Council showed bias as it did not investigate his concerns about the actions of his ex-partner. Mr D says in contrast the Council has treated all his ex-partner's allegations seriously.
25. Having considered the documentary evidence I can see both Mr D and his ex-partner have raised concerns about the other's actions in dealing with their children. I have found no evidence though to suggest the Council treated the concerns Mr D's ex-partner raised more seriously than the concerns he raised. Instead, the documentary evidence shows the Council has been evenhanded in the way it dealt with both Mr D and his ex-partner. For both I am satisfied the Council has provided advice and has also notified both when it had concerns about their actions. I therefore have no evidence the Council treated the two differently.
26. I am aware though Mr D is concerned the Council failed to take formal action when he reported concerns about his ex-partner's actions. I can see Mr D first raised concerns with the Council in June 2023. At that point Mr D raised the following concerns:
• his ex-partner telling his children that his older children from a previous marriage are not really their siblings, with his ex-partner encouraging them to say they do not love their paternal family members and love only their maternal family members;
• concerns his ex-partner is trying to alienate the children from him;
• his ex-partner shouting and screaming at his son as he was not eating his dinner even though his son was unwell, followed by his ex-partner grabbing his son by the arm and pulling him;
• his son saying he would get a gun and shoot his father or cut him up.
27. I am satisfied the Council took action in response to those concerns by speaking to Mr D and his ex-partner, speaking to the nursery and school attended by his children and speaking to the health visitor. It is clear Mr D's ex-partner disputed the information Mr D provided and also raised her own concerns about Mr D's actions. It is also clear from the documentary evidence neither the school attended by Mr D's son nor the nursery attended by his daughter had any safeguarding concerns. Given all that I could not say the Council failed to take any action to investigate the concerns.
28. I am satisfied though the Council advised both parents not to argue in front of the children following the referral and signposted them to services to provide them with support. I am also satisfied the Council wrote to Mr D to explain it did not have any immediate safeguarding concerns. I appreciate Mr D is likely to strongly disagree with that conclusion. However, as the Council reached that conclusion after making proper enquiries I have no grounds on which I could criticise it.
29. I am also satisfied the Council properly considered the report Mr D made about his ex-partner swearing in front of the children in July 2023. The documentary records show the Council considered that a continuation of the concerns raised in June 2023 about the children being impacted by parental conflict and animosity. I am satisfied the Council acted on that by reminding both parents about the need to prevent arguments taking place in front of the children. So, again, I could not say the Council failed to act.
30. I recognise Mr D believes the Council should have taken more formal action but, as I have made clear, it is not my role to comment on the merits of the Council's decision given there is no evidence of fault in how it reached that decision. I am, however, satisfied the Council decided to complete a child and family assessment in October 2023 when further reports were received from both Mr D and his ex-partner. I therefore could not say the Council failed to act, although I recognise it may not be action Mr D was happy with.
31. I appreciate Mr D believes his ex-partner has tried to alienate him from his children. Mr D therefore believes the Council should have taken action. The documentary records I have seen though show the Council does not share Mr D's concerns. Instead, the Council is satisfied Mr D's ex-partner has cooperated with arranging contact between Mr D and his daughter, until matters broke down in November 2023. Again, I recognise Mr D is unlikely to agree with the Council's assessment of whether parental alienation has taken place. However, as the Council has reached that view after considering the evidence I have no grounds on which I could criticise it.
32. Mr D also refers to the Council failing to act when he reported his ex-partner for her behaviour towards his children from another relationship. I have found nothing in the documentary records to suggest the Council had any evidence on which to base action. The only evidence I can see of an issue between Mr D, his ex-partner and his children from a previous relationship does not provide any evidence of threatening behaviour. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
33. Nor do I have any evidence on which to criticise the Council for the way in which it acted in relation to Mr D’s ex-partner's finances. Mr D says the Council failed to recognise his ex-partner was deceiving the Council about the state of her finances given she earns a significant daily rate but only chooses to work one day a week. The evidence I have seen though is the Council only asked for information about Mr D's and his ex-partner's finances to inform the child and family assessment. The Council was not completing a formal financial assessment and nor did the Council's assessment affect any decisions about contributions to the family home. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for recording what Mr D's ex-partner said about her finances, in the same way the Council recorded what Mr D said about his own finances. Nor can I criticise the Council for discussing with Mr D the financial implications for his children given the children are the Council's main priority.
34. Mr D says the Council failed to investigate his complaint properly and its response was targeted at protecting its own staff rather than investigating his concerns. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council properly addressed the concerns Mr D raised when responding to his complaint. I am also satisfied the Council’s response to the complaint referred extensively to conversations with the social worker as well as consideration of the documentary records. I therefore could not say the Council failed to consider the complaint properly.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

36. I have not investigated Mr D’s concerns about the discrepancies between the social services records and the report the Council has produced for family court proceedings. That is because the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider a complaint about matters which will be considered by a court. If Mr D wishes to raise concerns about the content of the report he will need to do so during court proceedings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman