Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to implement Child Protection plans for two of her children last year. She says the Council based its decision on false information and malicious allegations and professionals breached her data. The Council upheld some parts of Mrs Y’s complaint due to administrative errors. There is no evidence of procedural fault by the Council which calls into question the decisions it made.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council based the decision to take child protection action in relation to her family on false allegations.
2. She further complains that the Council has breached her data.
3. Mrs Y says the Council’s actions have caused her avoidable distress. She seeks an apology, an explanation of the Council’s actions and financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 not investigated Mrs Y’s concerns about alleged data breaches. Most of her concerns relate to information shared by agencies outside of our jurisdiction, including the local police force and the NHS. Mrs Y would need to direct her complaints to those services and then approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if she remains dissatisfied.
8. Mrs Y says she was the victim of wrongful arrest. She says if the police had not arrested her, the Council would not have made two of her children subject to child protection plans. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness of Mrs Y’s arrest, and this is something for her to pursue with the police force directly.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the relevant evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I also discussed the complaint with Mrs Y by telephone.
10. Mrs Y 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

Safeguarding children at risk of harm

11. 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.
12. 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 that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
13. Councils should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, police, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm. 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.
14. If the information gathered suggests the child may be 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 a Child Protection plan or deciding the child is in need (CIN) and implementing a safety plan.
15. The conference is a multi-agency body and plays an advisory role. The final decision is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the conference unless there was good reason not to.
16. After the ICPC there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences (RCPC) to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
17. RCPCs should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.

Summary of key events relevant to the complaint

18. This section of the statement does not include every event which happened during the period investigated. Instead, it summarises the key events leading to Mrs Y’s complaint. Key dates are left out to maintain Mrs Y’s anonymity.
19. In mid 2024 the Council received a referral from a police force. The police force told the Council that it stopped Mrs Y’s car and found her to be driving in breach of her provisional licence. The police also reported that Mrs Y provided a positive roadside screening for two types of drugs. Her youngest child, who I will call D, was present in the car at the time.
20. The police arrested Mrs Y on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs. It arranged the relevant blood tests and released Mrs Y pending the test results.
21. The Council allocated a social worker who completed a ‘Children and Family’ assessment. During the assessment Mrs Y expressed her view that the blood tests would show she was not under the influence of any illegal drugs, only those prescribed to her. Mrs Y also said she believed a family member was responsible for the arrest due to malicious allegations.
22. The social worker noted that Mrs Y’s home was clean and tidy. They found no evidence of drug use and said the children were settled. The social worker recorded their recommendation to take no further action but noted the Council may need to proceed to an ICPC if it received further referrals.
23. The month after Mrs Y’s arrest she called the police to report criminal damage following an attack on her car by a male with a metal pole.
24. The Council completed Section 47 enquiries. Following this, the Council decided to hold an ICPC to consider possible safeguarding concerns. The social worker invited Mrs Y to the meeting, and she confirmed her intention to attend.
25. The ICPC went ahead on the scheduled date. Mrs Y chose not to attend. The ICPC considered the views of relevant agencies. In summary, those discussions focused on the following points.
• The police relayed a pattern of long-term substance abuse and several offences involving both Mrs Y and her husband. The police also described a recent incident following a member of the community damaging Mrs Y’s car following comments made on social media.
• Mrs Y advocates for her oldest son, E, who has additional needs. There are positive interactions between them.
• The health visiting service reported that D is due a review. In the past there have been missed health appointments.
• The social worker gave their view that the threshold for child protection was met because D is exposed to drug abuse, their safety compromised by driving offences and has missed medical appointments, causing neglect.
• The police agreed with the social worker’s views.
• The school nurse reported concerns about wider and complex relations between family members.
• Records from 2020 show E was sent home from school due to a strong smell of cannabis on his clothes.
• The Chair agreed there was a pattern of normalised behaviour and in their view Mrs Y and her husband would not engage with preventative measures.
26. The ICPC recommendation was to introduce a Child Protection plan for D. The Council agreed with the recommendations.
27. Shortly after the ICPC, the Council allocated a different social worker to Mrs Y’s case due to a change in the role of the previous worker.
28. One month after the ICPC the Council held a RCPC. In summary, this discussed the following key points.
• Discussion around whether E should also be subject to a Child Protection plan and whether D should remain on their existing plan.
• Mrs Y expressed her frustrations and questioned why the Council progressed with child protection proceedings. She said a family member, who she no longer has contact with, was responsible for making malicious allegations.
• The police gave a summary of previous convictions of Mrs Y and her husband.
• The Chair asked Mrs Y not to interrupt the professionals.
• Mrs Y said the allegation that E sells vapes was unfounded because E rarely leaves the family home.
• The Chair clarified that the health notes showed that Mrs Y often re-booked missed appointments at later dates.
• Mrs Y said the GP surgery had disclosed personal medical information to the ICPC without her consent.
• The Chair asked Mrs Y to leave the meeting due to her heightened emotions and language.
• Those in attendance agreed unanimously to maintain D’s Child Protection Plan. They also agreed that E should be subject to a plan.
29. The Council held a ‘Core Group’ meeting three weeks later.
• Mrs Y maintained her disagreement with the findings of the ICPC and said she did not agree with information shared by the police. She said a lot of the information was false and malicious and she had formally complained to the local police force regarding her concerns.
• Mrs Y confirmed she had her driving license back and does not use any drugs. She said it was not necessary to have support from any agencies regarding drug use.
• Mrs Y acknowledged that she was driving illegally at the time of her arrest but refuted the allegations about drugs.
• The police have not yet shared any blood test results with the Council.
30. Another Core Group meeting took place the following month.
• The police received the blood test results which showed that Mrs Y was driving over the legal limit for one of the two drugs identified in the initial roadside screening. The blood tests did not show the presence of a second drug. Mrs Y was charged and due to appear in court the following month.
• Mrs Y felt the decision to place D and E on child protection plans was wrong because she did not test positive for both drugs as initially alleged. She expressed injustice about various professionals.
• Mrs Y raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest with her allocated social worker. The Council agreed to allocate a different social worker.
• The meeting summarised areas which were working well and any worries.
31. The Council arranged an RCPC in November 2024. This concluded:
• Mrs Y said she does not use any drugs as she prioritises the care of her children. She now has her driving license back.
• Professionals noted that Mrs Y engaged with relevant services and attended meetings but continued to decline a referral to the drug misuse program.
• E is now enrolled into an education program which is a positive step.
• Mrs Y shared positive work she has recently done in the community.
• Police clarified that a recent social worker report noted allegations as “disproven”, but the police said that was factually incorrect because the blood test showed a sufficient level of a drug in Mrs Y’s system to result in a charge. The Chair acknowledged the social worker’s comments were “not quite right”.
• Health visiting said D is a happy and healthy child with no unmet needs.
• While the police continued to express some concerns about risk to D and E, all other professionals in attendance agreed that Mrs Y had engaged with support and there were no signs of any ongoing drug use.
• The Chair made a recommendation to step down the child protection plans to CIN plans for a period of four months. During this time Mrs Y agreed to attend a program for drug misuse.
32. Mrs Y complained to the Council about her experiences. The Council did not uphold most of Mrs Y’s concerns about the necessity to proceed with the plans but agreed there were some administrative errors:
• Mrs Y did not receive copies of the minutes for two meetings in a timely way which the Council accepted was not in line with the standard of service it expects. The Council arranged to send the minutes to Mrs Y.
• One of the reports contained the wrong social worker’s name.
33. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mrs Y approached the LGSCO.

Findings

34. Our role is not to ask whether the Council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
35. I have considered the steps the Council took to respond to the concerns raised about Mrs Y and her family, and the information it took account of when deciding to implement a Child Protection plan between August and November 2024.
36. Mrs Y said she does not understand why the Council changed its mind and decided to proceed to an ICPC. She said the social worker initially made a recommendation to take no further action but then contacted her some weeks later to say the Council needed to make further enquiries. I asked Mrs Y what happened in the interim period, and she said the only change was the attack on her car. The ICPC minutes noted concerns about the context of the attack and that it may have been a retaliation connected with drug use.
37. I appreciate that Mrs Y was shocked to hear the Council had reconsidered its position and taken a different view. However, the initial social worker’s report did note that an ICPC may be needed if there were any further concerns. In my view, there is no fault in how it the Council made this decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
38. In making its decision, the records show the Council took account of the views of relevant agencies such as the health visiting service, Mrs Y’s GP and the police. While I recognise that Mrs Y contests the accuracy of some of the information reported by those agencies, we have no jurisdiction to consider the actions of those bodies. We can only consider fault by the Council. As the Council followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision I cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Decision

39. We have completed our investigation and issued a final decision. There is no evidence of procedural fault in the child protection proceedings which Mrs Y complains about, and we do not uphold the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman