Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not follow the correct process for a child protection investigation relating to his children. We found the Council followed the correct procedures for investigating child protection concerns and was not at fault. The Council involved Mr X in the process and considered his views.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not follow the correct process for a child protection investigation relating to his children. He said the Council did not include him in the initial investigation and did not include his views in its initial report, which he said made factually inaccurate statements about him. He said the Council’s hypothesis, which dictated the direction of its investigation, was not built on facts.
2. Mr X said the process has been stressful, affecting his health and wellbeing. He said the Council’s actions have divided the family and caused more harm than good.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. 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

Child protection

8. When a council has concerns about a child, the law requires it to take action to find out more. It only has to have ‘reasonable cause to suspect’. This is a lower burden of proof than that used by the Police or the Courts who require evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
9. 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”.
10. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and to 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 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 might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.
12. After the Initial Child Protection Conference, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
13. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
14. 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.

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. The Council received a safeguarding referral in July 2023 alleging Mr X was verbally aggressive towards his wife, Mrs X, with manipulative and controlling behaviour towards her and sometimes the children.
17. The Council contacted Mrs X, but she declined an assessment. She admitted marriage challenges but said they were arranging counselling. She denied exposing the children to their arguments.
18. The Council was concerned the children were exposed to parental conflict. However, there were no grounds to escalate the concerns or override parental consent at that time.
19. The Council received a safeguarding referral from the police in August 2023 after they attended a domestic incident where Mrs X alleged Mr X pushed her to the floor. Mr X alleged Mrs X had physically and verbally abused him for the last eight months, and one of their children for the last four months.
20. The Council spoke with both Mr and Mrs X separately, telling them it would complete an assessment. Mr X told the Council about his concerns for Mrs X’s mental health, false allegations she made that he is having an affair, the loss of her father, post-natal depression, and her hatred of men. Mr X said he did not touch his wife during the altercation. She threw herself on the floor.
21. Both parents gave the Council consent to speak to the children.
22. The Council visited the family at home on 21 September to discuss its concerns, but Mr X was not present. It recorded the views of Mrs X and the children.
23. The Council completed a child and family assessment. The assessment document states the Council sought the views of Mr and Mrs X, their children, their GP, and the children’s school.
24. The social worker who completed the assessment had several concerns, such as the impact parental arguments had on the children’s emotional wellbeing. They were also concerned about Mrs X’s mental health, and that she did not implement routines and boundaries for the children.
25. The assessment recommended the Council make the children subject to a CiN plan so more professional work could take place while things were unsettled at home. The Council considered Mr and Mrs X would benefit from attending parenting support, although it did not have any concerns about the children’s needs being met.
26. The Council received another police referral in October 2023 following a call from Mr X. the police removed Mrs X from the house and were concerned about the children’s mental health. The Council contacted Mr and Mrs X. They both said the home was tense and they sometimes argued. Mr X said he was protecting the children and trying not to expose them to arguments. The Council recorded Mr and Mrs X gave different views on what is happening.
27. The Council considered the children continued to be at risk of significant harm through being exposed to parental conflict. It drew up a safety plan which Mr and Mrs X agreed.
28. The Council then received a third police referral on 13 November 2023 with concerns about continuing parental conflict. Mr X had alleged Mrs X hit one of the children. The Council visited the family on 14 November to discuss the allegations. Both Mr and Mrs X were present, and the Council recorded their views.
29. The Council completed its assessment before an ICPC on 28 November. The assessment explored whether the children were still at significant risk of harm from parental conflict. The Council considered the CiN plan had not progressed as the parents continued to argue and involve the children in their relationship issues. The Council also considered the parents were not making changes and were not considering the impact their arguments had on the children.
30. The Council shared the assessment report with Mr and Mrs X. Mr X highlighted several sections of the report which he said were wrong or he disagreed with.
31. The Council recorded it discussed its concerns with Mr and Mrs X, and they admitted their continuing arguments were harmful to the children’s wellbeing. The Council recommended the children be made subject to a CP plan due to emotional abuse, to address the concerns identified.
32. The Council visited the family twice in December 2023 and recorded both Mr and Mrs X’s views. They agreed to work with the Council and engage with the CP plan.
33. The Council visited the family on 18 January to discuss the CP plan because of concerns raised in a core group meeting. Mr X said the social worker’s assessment report and the CP plan do not give a true picture of what is happening in the family.
34. Mr X complained to the Council on 31 January 2024. He said he had no input and was not aware of an initial investigation. He criticised a Council report for stating he called his wife names and was abusive towards her.
35. A social worker shared their report with Mr and Mrs X on 7 February before an upcoming CP meeting.
36. Mr X disputed being branded as negative and said he was merely questioning the Council’s solutions. He also said the Council did not initially ask him for his version of events, and no one sat down with him to discuss this. He said the Council’s solutions will have no impact on the children, and will negatively impact the family.
37. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 22 February 2024. It recognised he did not have input when the Council first received a referral in July 2023. That was because Mrs X declined an assessment.
38. The Council completed a child and family assessment after a police referral in August 2023. The Council involved Mr X in the assessment, and he attended the initial CiN plan meeting.
39. The Council said Mr and Mrs X made counter allegations about one another at that meeting, but its role was to discuss support for the children, and it was concerned about the couple’s arguments. The Council said it progressed to an ICPC after the children witnessed another altercation. It visited Mr and Mrs X to discuss this, and Mr X continued to blame Mrs X.
40. The Council said it fully involved Mr X in the investigation and assessment process, including the draft CP plan.
41. The Council said during a home visit Mr X called Mrs X a domestic abuser in front of the children, and Mrs X reported he continued to do so. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about its inclusion of these events in its report.
42. Mr X contacted the Council on 24 April about a conversation where Mrs X confirmed he had never mentally or physically abused her. He said the Council needed to correct its records and should not hold inaccurate statements implying something that is not true. He did not want the Council to refer to statements from the initial reports in future, as he said they are inaccurate.
43. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman after the Council said it could not add to its earlier complaint response.

My investigation

44. Mr X told me the Council formed a theory of him being an abusive husband. He said this came from an initial report he was not a part of. He also said the Council suggested he emotionally abused his children by calling Mrs X a domestic abuser and by arguing in front of them. He said this is not true.
45. Mr X said the Council did not involve him in the initial investigation, which he said established the type of child protection plan and what was going to happen.
46. The Council told me Mr X’s family came to its attention in July 2023 after a referral from a therapist – alleging domestic abuse by Mr X. The Council spoke to Mrs X, but she disengaged so the Council ended its involvement.
47. The Council then received a police referral after Mrs X assaulted Mr X. The Council completed a child and family assessment and recommended a CiN plan. The Council said it spoke to Mr X as part of its assessment, and both parents attended a CiN meeting in October 2023.
48. The Council said things at Mr and Mrs X’s home then deteriorated. Mr X alleged Mrs X was aggressive to the children. The Council held a strategy meeting, which took place in November 2023. It decided to start a Section 47 investigation and progress to an ICPC as it considered the CiN plan was not effective. The Council said both parents agreed.
49. The Council visited the family on 7 November 2023 as part of its Section 47 enquiries. It said the visit raised significant safeguarding concerns suggesting the children were at significant risk of emotional harm.
50. The Council shared its ICPC report with Mr X, and he said the information was not accurate. He questioned a statement in the report about his wife experiencing domestic abuse.
51. The Council said it involved Mr X in its investigation and kept him informed.

Analysis

52. The Council did not tell Mr X about the first referral it received in July 2023. That was because Mrs X declined an assessment, and it did not consider there were grounds to proceed. It therefore took no further action.
53. When the Council received a second referral in August 2023 it was satisfied there were grounds to complete a child and family assessment. Both Mr and Mrs X agreed.
54. On the evidence seen, which includes the Council’s case notes, assessments, and reports, the Council involved Mr X in the process and considered his views.
55. I appreciate Mr X disagreed with the content of the social worker’s assessments and reports, particularly a report before the ICPC, as he considered they misrepresent events. However, it is not my role to give an opinion on the family dynamics or speculate on what may have happened or who may be to blame. My role is to consider the process.
56. While the Council did not amend the report for the ICPC, I found the Chair of the conference meeting knew about Mr X’s comments and views. They knew he disagreed with the report and raised this with Mr X and the social worker during the meeting.
57. The social worker who completed the assessments and reports made observations based on their professional opinion of the situation, after working with the family. They are entitled to their professional opinion, and I may only criticise an assessment or report if I find the Council did not follow the correct process or failed to consider relevant information. I did not find that was the case here.
58. Mr X said his lack of input at the outset affected the direction of the investigation. I found no evidence to support this. I consider the direction of the investigation was based on police action and safeguarding referrals, and by social workers observations about the children continuing to be exposed to parental conflict.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I completed my investigation. I found the Council followed the correct procedures for investigating child protection concerns and was not at fault. I found the Council involved Mr X in the process and considered his views.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman