Summary: Mr X complained the Council forced him to leave his home under duress and failed to follow correct Initial Child Protection Conference procedures. Mr X said the Councils actions have resulted in mental, physical and emotional harm to himself and his wife, and emotional and mental harm to his children. We have found the Council at fault for failing to provide Mr X with the necessary information ahead of the Initial Child Protection Conference and for not following its appeal and complaints procedures. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• Forced him to leave the family home under duress and gave him false information.
• Failed to follow the correct process ahead of the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC)
• Failed to respond to a formal appeal against the ICPC outcome.
• Failed to provide a stage two complaint response.
2. Mr X says the actions of the Council’s social services team has resulted in mental, physical and emotional harm to himself and his wife, and emotional and mental harm to his children. He also says the Council breached article 8 of the Human Rights Act when it made him leave the family home.
3. Mr X would like a meeting with the Council to discuss its accountability for any faults identified. He would also like the Council to remove the child protection plan from the family’s records and pay compensation to recognise the injustice and long term impact caused.

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. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.
6. 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)
7. 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).
8. 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

How I considered this complaint

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
10. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Child Protection

12. 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)
13. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
14. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
15. 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.

Council’s Safeguarding Children Partnership Procedures

16. The Council has a policy which explains its process for completing section 47 enquiries and progressing to an ICPC.
17. This policy says practitioners and parents should be provided with clear and accurate information about the conference process to support effective planning.
18. It says the following are minimum requirements for all attendees of the conference and the responsibility of the Chair of the conference to uphold:
• Parents must be invited and encouraged to participate in all child protection meetings unless it is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child;
• Parents should be supported to enable them to participate by timely preparation and information, such a leaflets, being provided about the process and their role;
• Advocates should be facilitated to support parents;
• A meeting with the Independent Chair prior to the meeting should take place.
19. Children’s social care should provide all conferences with a written report that summarises and analyses the information obtained during the assessment undertaken in conjunction with the child protection enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 and information in existing records relating to the family. This report should be shared with parents at least two working days in advance of the ICPC to enable any factual errors to be corrected and the family to comment on the content.

Council’s ICPC appeal policy

20. The Council has a policy which sets out how someone can appeal following an Initial Child Protection Conference. It states that Local Safeguarding Children Partnerships (LSCP) is unable to change the decision made at a Child Protection Conference but, can, following relevant consideration under appeal procedures, recommend that a Child Protection Conference is reconvened.
21. The policy says an appeal can be made against an ICPC if it is considered and can be demonstrated there was fault in the handling of the process ahead of the conference.
22. The Council’s appeal policy is a two stage process.
23. At stage one, if it is felt that one or more of the criteria listed above are met an appeal can be submitted to the LSCP Safeguarding Coordinator. The Safeguarding Coordinator will complete the review in conjunction with the Council’s Children’s Services Quality Assurance and Safeguarding Service Manager. If it is found the Child Protection Conference standards were not adhered to the service manager can only recommend the ICPC is reconvened.
24. If the appellant disagrees with the outcome at stage one, they can progress their appeal to stage two. Stage two appeals are considered by a multi-agency appeal panel who will provide an independent perspective on the appeal. If the appeal panel finds standards were not adhered to it can only recommend that the conference be reconvened.

Council complaints policy

25. The Council has a three stage complaints policy.
26. At stage one the Council should deal with the complaint within 10 working days. If the Council cannot provide a response to the complaint within 10 working days it should let the complainant know the reason for the delay and when they can expect to receive the response. A stage one response should take no longer than twenty working days.
27. If the complainant is not happy with the stage one response they can escalate it to stage two of the Council’s complaint process. The Council’s complaint policy does not set out its process for how it decides whether to accept complaints at stage two.
28. Once the Council accepts a stage two complaint it will assign an officer to investigate and provide a response. Stage two complaint responses should be issued within twenty working days. The Council should advise the complainant of the reason for any delay and give a new target date for completion.

What Happened

Safeguarding and section 47 enquiries

29. The Council received a safeguarding referral regarding Mr X’s children in early November 2023. The Council took steps to safeguard the children while it completed section 47 enquiries. This included asking Mr X to leave the family home while the enquiries took place.
30. Council records show Mr X was unhappy with leaving the family home as part of a safety plan. An alternative option was offered to Mr X which involved the Council seeking court approval to remove the children from the family home. Mr X agreed to stay next door with a family member rather than the children being removed.
31. Following the section 47 enquiries, the Council concluded the safeguarding concerns were substantiated and an Initial Child Protection Conference should be held.
32. Mr X returned to live in the family home in January 2024. The Council did not prevent Mr X returning and did not take any further action.

ICPC

33. An Initial Child Protection Conference was arranged for the end of November 2023.
34. Mr X did not receive an invite to the ICPC. He was made aware of the conference through staff at his child’s school.
35. Mr X received information about the ICPC the afternoon before the conference.
36. Mrs X received a phone call from the ICPC chair the afternoon before the conference. The Council’s records say the chair liaised with Mrs X, went over the need for an ICPC and discussed the structure and information gathering process. There is no record of Mr or Mrs X being advised of their right to an advocate and no record the chair offered to reschedule the ICPC to give Mr and Mrs X time to prepare.
37. The ICPC was held the following day. All agencies at the conference agreed the threshold for a Child Protection Plan was met.
38. Mr X submitted an appeal against the ICPC in December 2023. Mr X set out his reasons for appeal which included:
• The ICPC report was not provided at least two working days before the ICPC;
• The Council failed to discuss the content of the ICPC report with Mr and Mrs X prior to the ICPC;
• Mr and Mrs X were not advised of their right to have an advocate attend the ICPC with them;
• Information presented at the conference was factually incorrect;
• Mr and Mrs X did not receive an invite to the ICPC. The time, date and location of the ICPC were shared with them the afternoon before the conference; and
• Mr and Mrs X did not receive a copy of the ICPC minutes within 15 days of the conference.
39. There is no evidence the Council considered Mr X’s appeal in line with its appeal process and Mr X never received a formal response to his appeal. Instead, the Council’s Safeguarding Unit met with Mr X on two occasions to discuss his concerns, provided written correspondence which agreed the correct ICPC process had not been followed and signposted him back to its complaints procedure.

Complaint handling

40. Mr X submitted a stage one complaint to the Council in December 2023. The Council provided a stage one complaint response approximately twenty-nine working days later in February 2024. The Council has not provided any evidence it informed Mr X of the reason for the delay in providing a response to his stage one complaint.
41. Mr X wrote to the Council in February 2024 to escalate his complaint to stage two. Mr X sent a further email which explained why he was unhappy with the stage one complaint response.
42. Mr X did not receive a stage two complaint response from the Council. The Council told us it did not pursue Mr X’s stage two complaint as he raised the same or similar issues with the Safeguarding Unit about the ICPC. The Council closed Mr X’s stage two complaint but did not inform him of this.

My Findings

Safeguarding and section 47 enquiries

43. The Council’s records show it felt the children needed to live separately from Mr X for their immediate safety. Mr X was offered an alternative to leaving the family home but opted to leave voluntarily.
44. The Council’s records show it discussed the safety plan with Mr and Mrs X on multiple occasions and they did not agree to this plan despite Mr X leaving the family home.
45. There is no fault in the Council’s actions following the initial safeguarding referral. The Council took the steps it considered appropriate to ensure the safety of Mr X’s children. This is a matter of professional judgement, and it is not for us to question the merits of a decision made without fault.
     

ICPC

46. The Council did not follow the correct information sharing process ahead of the ICPC. This is fault which caused Mr X distress, uncertainty and frustration.
47. The decision to place the children on a Child Protection Plan was unanimous amongst the professionals in attendance based on the information they had available to them. A review conference was held in February 2024 by which time the family were supported by a new social worker. The outcome of this review was for the children to remain under the Child Protection Plan. Therefore, from the evidence available it is not obvious that the faults identified within the ICPC process would have impacted the outcome of the conference.
48. The Council did not follow its appeal policy when Mr X submitted his ICPC appeal in December 2023. This is fault which caused Mr X uncertainty.
49. The Council has advised it is completing the following service improvements:
• The Safeguarding Unit’s senior management team is looking at the process it follows ahead of ICPC’s to ensure that parents do receive their invites.
• Good practice for information sharing ahead of ICPC’s has been shared with Child Protection Chairs and is being looked at via the Council’s policies and procedures.
• The process for sharing child protection conference minutes has been changed. It is now the responsibility of the Council’s safeguarding admin team to send out the child protection minutes to parents within 20 working days.

Complaint Handling

50. Mr X did not receive a stage one complaint response within 10 working days, and he did not receive notice from the Council about the delay. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty.
51. The Council did not accept Mr X’s stage two complaint and failed to notify him of its decision. This also caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty.
52. The Council has acknowledged it should have considered Mr X’s complaint at stage two of its complaint procedure. It has offered Mr X £250 to recognise the time and trouble he has encountered in progressing his complaint. I consider this to be an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for failing to follow its ICPC appeal policy and complaints policy. 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 its apology.
• Pay Mr X the £250 it has offered to recognise the time and trouble he has encountered in progressing his complaint.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

55. We uphold this complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman