Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to protect her grandchild, Y. Miss X said the Council delayed sharing information about Y being subject to child protection planning with her. The Council was at fault which put Y at risk of harm. The Council has already upheld Miss X’s complaint, apologised and agreed to put in place staff training, improve its service and reimburse costs to Miss X. The Council will also pay Miss X a symbolic payment for distress and uncertainty caused to her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to protect her grandchild, Y. Miss X said the Council delayed overriding consent to share information Y was subject to child protection planning. Miss X complained as a result she was not involved with supporting Y through child protection or family network meetings. Miss X said this caused a risk to Y and caused her distress, a financial burden, mental and physical health issues.

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 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)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, 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 the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the period from Summer 2023 when Miss X made the safeguarding referral for Y to the Council until Miss X started court action about the care of Y in early April 2024. As explained in paragraph 3 above I cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• the information Miss X provided and spoke to her about the complaint;
• the information the Council provided;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, published on our website.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child Protection law and guidance

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 and Section 47 requirements

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 the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
11. A council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, the health visitor, GP, schools, and nurseries. The information gathering enables a 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 a 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”.
13. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC 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.

Working Together

14. ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ is government guidance. The guidance was updated in December 2023 which replaced the 2018 edition. The guidance recommends a child-centred approach to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of every child focusing on the action and outcomes for children and hearing their voice, where appropriate. The updated 2023 guidance sets out key principles including working in partnership with parents and carers as far as possible which is particularly important when there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.

What happened

15. Miss X looked after her grandchild, Y several days a week. In summer 2023 Miss X made a safeguarding referral to the Council and raised concerns about Y. Miss X said her daughter (Y’s mother), Ms B, did not want to be involved with the referral.
16. The Council started an assessment of Y. Ms B, did not give the Council consent for it to contact Miss X about any child protection matters about Y. Miss X became more concerned in Autumn 2023 about Y following an incident with Ms B. Following the assessment, the Council decided to support Y through child protection and the Council wrote a safety plan for Y about how Ms B would keep them safe. Miss X was unhappy she was not more involved with child protection meetings about Y. The Council records show Y’s social worker tried to persuade Ms B to allow her to contact Miss X to provide support for her and Y but Ms B refused each time. The social worker raised their concerns of sharing information about Y with Miss X and Ms B’s refusal to consent at a Strategy meeting in early 2024. The Strategy meeting chair who was a Council team manager said ‘Overriding consent was a ‘grey area’ and not always clearly understood’. The Strategy meeting chair decided Ms B’s consent did not need to be overridden at that point. Shortly after the Strategy meeting a Council team manager changed roles at the Council.
17. A few weeks later at an initial child protection conference (ICPC) the ICPC chair said they did not think the circumstances met the threshold for Ms B’s consent to be overridden as there was no immediate risk to Y at that point. The Council said the new team manager and group manager thought consent could be overridden in such circumstances.
18. In early March 2024 Y’s safety plan was breached. Y’s social worker discussed with Ms B about telling Miss X about their concerns for Y but Ms B refused consent for Miss X to be informed. Y’s social worker spoke to her manager and in mid-March 2024 a Council manager made the decision to override Ms B’s consent and share critical information about Y with Miss X. Two days later Y’s social worker told Miss X about her concerns for Y and said Y was on a child protection plan. Miss X said she would talk to Ms B about her taking over caring for Y, but Ms B refused.
19. Miss X contacted the Council out of hours service and said:
• she was unhappy she was not involved with Y’s child protection meetings or family network meetings;
• Y’s social worker made her aware that day that Y’s child protection plan had been breached but Miss X said she did not know Y was subject to a child protection plan;
• to be in line with Working Together (2023) she should have been more involved and made aware of the risks posed to Y;
• she would not have taken Y back to their home address when she looked after them if she had known the safeguarding concerns earlier;
• she queried the decision-making process of why safeguarding information about Y was not shared with her and the wider family and who made the decision not to override consent to share critical information about Y; and
• she would offer safe care of Y, supervise contact and ensure all Y’s needs were met.
20. Miss X said she did not receive an immediate response from the Council to her concerns. The Council sent Miss X an acknowledgement four days after Miss X made her complaint.
21. In early April 2024 the Council sent Miss X its stage 1 response and said:
• it upheld Miss X’s complaint and accepted it should have told her about the concerns for Y sooner. It agreed a family network around Y was important especially when concerns were escalating;
• the reason consent was not overridden sooner was because Y’s social worker wanted to build and maintain an effective working relationship with Ms B;
• there were meetings with Ms B about sharing escalating concerns about Y with Miss X;
• there were three failed attempts at holding a family network meeting with Ms B and discussions with Ms B around her family network took place in February 2024;
• an initial child protection conference (ICPC) was held in February 2024 and Y was made subject to a child protection plan;
• as part of the section 47 investigation before the ICPC took place it should have overridden Ms B’s wishes and contacted Miss X, and it said even before that time when Y was subject to an assessment it should have considered telling Miss X without Ms B’s consent; and
• the social worker continued to ask Ms B about informing Miss X but she refused. The social worker asked their manager about overriding consent and this was then agreed. The Council apologised for a few days delay in informing Miss X.
22. Miss X started family law proceedings for her to care for Y until a further assessment of Ms B had taken place.
23. A few days later Miss X told the Council she was unhappy with the stage 1 response because it did not accurately reflect the issues raised and Miss X also complained she had to pay for equipment when Y subsequently came to stay with her. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the Council’s complaint process.
24. In mid-May 2024 the Council sent Miss X its stage 2 response and said:
• it upheld Miss X’s complaint and said it did not have a consistent approach to decision making about overriding consent and sharing information when children were at risk of significant harm when wider family members could have kept them safe;
• practice standards indicated that case supervision should be held every two months which meant there could be gaps between management taking responsibility and understanding family issues. It took a manager over a month to become aware Ms B did not consent to Miss X being told of concerns with Y and safety planning;
• it apologised to Miss X for delay in letting Y become more vulnerable and apologised for the upset and distress caused to Miss X and for her damaged relationship with Ms B. It said Miss X should have been involved in safety planning of Y sooner;
• senior management level training and development was needed on overriding consent when children were at risk of or suffering significant harm. It would disseminate the 2023 Working Together guidance and training had already been offered by a safeguarding partnership. In June 2024 workshops were planned for social workers and manager’s around holding family network meetings;
• there had already been reflection with senior managers when new management was in post and case supervision would take place within 20-working days of a new manager being responsible; and
• it had already agreed to reimburse Miss X for equipment and other goods she had bought for Y.
25. Miss X remained unhappy and contacted us.

My findings

26. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 of the Councils’ complaint process. The Council has already accepted it did not have a consistent approach to decision making about overriding consent and sharing information when children were at risk of significant harm when wider family members could have kept them safe. This meant Miss X could have been involved with Y’s safety planning sooner and Y was put at risk. This was fault and caused Miss X distress and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Miss X and agreed to reimburse Miss X for the equipment and other goods she bought Y. However, this is insufficient to remedy the personal injustice caused to Miss X. The Council has agreed to take further action shown below in paragraph 28.
27. As explained in paragraph 24 above the Council has already agreed to put in place training for relevant staff and disseminate information on Working Together 2023 and change its case supervision practices. These are appropriate actions to prevent reoccurrence of the faults and no further service improvements were needed.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• pay Miss X £200 for distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in sharing child protection information about Y and delay in involving her in child protection meetings and family network meetings;
• provide evidence it has reimbursed Miss X for the equipment and other goods she bought Y as agreed in the Council stage 2 response; and
• provide evidence it has put in place the service improvements set out in paragraph 24 of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation finding fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused. The Council has already agreed to take actions to improve its services to prevent reoccurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman