Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of allegations made against her and the conduct of its safeguarding procedures. We have not found the Council at fault for its conduct or communication during its initial visit to Ms X’s home, or in how it accounted for the information received in its decision-making. We have found the Council at fault for not appropriately providing Ms X with a copy of its assessment and for delay in issuing its closure letter. We believe this caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. We found the Council at fault for not making clear Ms X could have been accompanied during an interview. For the reasons set out in the decision, we do not believe this caused a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise the avoidable distress caused. The Council also agreed to remind staff that individuals can be accompanied in interviews where appropriate.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council's handling of allegations made against her and the conduct of its safeguarding procedures. Ms X complained:
1. The social worker acting on the Council's behalf showed inappropriate professional practice and poor communication during a visit to the family home.
2. The Council failed to account for relevant evidence, information and context in its assessment.
3. The Council failed to provide Ms X with a copy of its assessment and delayed formally closing the case.
4. The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint about these matters.
2. Ms X said the Council's faults led to avoidable distress and uncertainty. She said the Council's poor professional conduct left her feeling compelled to allow her children to leave the country. Ms X also said the Council’s conduct adversely affected her employment, resulting in work-related restrictions being imposed longer than they otherwise would have been.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted)

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Acting on a referral and Section 47 requirements

9. 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.
10. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the 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.
11. 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”.
12. 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.
13. The statutory guidance “Working Together to Safeguard Children” (referred to in this statement as “the Guidance”) says:
• The speed with which an assessment is carried out after a child has been referred into local authority children’s social care should be determined by the needs of the individual child and the nature and level of harm they face.
• Within one working day of a referral being received, local authority children’s social care should acknowledge receipt to the referrer and a social work qualified practice supervisor or manager should decide next steps and the type of response required.
• The maximum timeframe for the assessment to conclude, such that it is possible to reach a decision on next steps, should be no longer than 45 working days from the point of referral.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

14. Below is a summary of the relevant key events. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
15. On 21 November 2024, the Council received a referral from Ms X’s children's school. The referral set out details of disclosures Ms X’s children had made that day, alleging Ms X had carried out acts of emotional and verbal abuse, as well as not prioritising the children's needs over a sustained period.
16. The Council reviewed the information received, setting out the history and summary of concerns. The family had moved from abroad a few years prior, but Ms X’s husband, Mr P, had returned abroad relatively soon after. Following a breakdown in Ms X’s relationship with Mr P, Ms X had a new partner. The referral stated Ms X’s children now wanted to move abroad with their father, who had travelled to the UK a few weeks earlier and wished to take the children abroad with him. Ms X alleged Mr P had engaged in coercive control throughout their marriage, committing acts of financial and emotional abuse. Both parties had engaged solicitors in respect of a dispute over where the children should now live.
17. On 25 November 2024, the Council spoke with both Ms X and Mr P by telephone, to confirm it had received the referral. The Council said it could not be involved in private legal proceedings and the parents should continue seeking legal advice over where the children would live, taking the matter to court if needed. The Council said its role was to explore the concerns for the children's emotional wellbeing. The next step would be for the Council to assess whether the children were safe and at risk of harm.
18. On 28 November 2024, a social worker visited the family at home. The social worker spoke separately with Mr P, the children, and Ms X. During these conversations:
• The children expressed views that Ms X had been withdrawn from them, alleged historic acts of physical and emotional abuse, and shared general feelings of being unsafe. The children said they wished to travel with Mr P, but Ms X would not allow them to do so.
• Ms X alleged Mr P had coerced the children into making their allegations. The Council put the children's allegations to Ms X. Ms X offered explanations for these allegations.
• Ms X said she had initially opposed the children returning abroad with Mr P. However, having heard the children's testimony, wishes and feelings, she said she would not prevent them from leaving, despite concerns over their educational arrangements. The Council said it advised Ms X to reflect on this and seek legal advice before making a decision.
• Ms X asked about next steps. According to the report compiled, the social worker said they believed the children had been honest about their lived experience. The social worker said their view was the children’s emotional wellbeing had been affected, with them experiencing neglect and emotional harm. According to the report, the social worker said if the children remained in the country, the case would progress to a section 47 enquiry, with a view to progressing to child protection proceedings.
• Ms X said she had spoken with her manager and the police about the situation. The social worker said Ms X’s manager had contacted the social worker that morning and was awaiting an update. It was recorded that if Ms X was found to have subjected the children to neglect or emotional harm, she would be unable to continue working in her current role. The social worker recorded they were concerned about Ms X’s wellbeing and advised her to stay elsewhere that evening, allowing Ms X space to think and be with support.
• The Council told Mr P if the children remained in the country, the Council would hold a strategy meeting with the aim of progressing to section 47 enquiries. This was because the Council was concerned the children had suffered significant harm in Ms X’s care.
19. On 29 November 2024, Mr P sent an email received from Ms X to the Council. In this email, Ms X said she was forced to give consent to allow the children to leave with Mr P. She said she did not believe leaving would be in the children’s best interests; however, she said considering recent events, she understood the children were determined to travel with Mr P. She said her relationship with the children had become strained and needed time. She said this was not an easy decision to make. She said there would need to be an agreement between Ms X and Mr P on how Ms X would keep in contact with the children.
20. On 5 December 2024, Ms X’s employer wrote to her, following a meeting held that day. The employer said Ms X would be subject to restricted duties until further notice. The employer said this was needed while further information was gathered around the concerns raised. The employer said this would be reviewed weekly, accounting for any further information received.
21. On 8 December 2024, Mr P wrote to the Council, confirming he and the children had now moved.
22. On 6 January 2025, Ms X’s employer wrote to Ms X. They said because the children had left the country, a section 47 investigation would not go ahead. Ms X’s employer advised this meant the usual procedures could not be followed. Having considered the circumstances and available evidence, the employer advised it would lift the restricted duties imposed on Ms X.
23. On 28 January 2025, the Council formalised its completed child and family assessment. This detailed the events and submissions considered and recommended no further action, because the children were now out of the country in Mr P’s care. The Council said if the children returned, it would need to reassess the matter, given the children's allegations against Ms X.
24. On 18 February 2025, the Council wrote to Ms X, formally closing the case.

Ms X’s complaint

25. On 7 February 2025, Ms X complained to the Council. Ms X also sent the Council further correspondence on 18 February and 27 February 2025. The Council responded to the issues raised in all correspondence in its response to Ms X’s complaint on 18 March 2025. I have summarised these exchanges as follows:
• Ms X said the Council had repeatedly misspelt her child's name throughout the report. The Council accepted this error and apologised.
• Ms X said she had received a copy of the assessment through Mr P and his solicitors, not from the Council. The Council said Ms X had received a copy of the report. It apologised for any delay and said it recognised the frustration this caused.
• Ms X raised concerns the social worker interviewed the children and Ms X in the social worker’s car, without inspecting the rest of the house to see the living arrangements, or conditions in the home. The Council said the social worker decided to conduct interviews outside the home to ensure the children had privacy, time and space to discuss the allegations without pressure. The Council said there were no allegations of poor living conditions and so these were not the focus of the visit.
• Ms X said when the social worker interviewed her, she could not process what was happening, but the social worker had not shown any understanding of this. Ms X was not clear whether she could have had someone with her for support. The Council accepted Ms X felt uncomfortable and said it would check interview surroundings with families in future. It said it would not be usual to have someone present for support, but this could be considered a learning point moving forward.
• Ms X said there had been a history of coercive control, which the social worker made no effort to address. The Council said it was evident Ms X and Mr P’s relationship had broken down. However, it said the focus of the assessment was the children's wellbeing and allegations of harm caused by Ms X.
• Ms X said for some months she had been concerned Mr P would try to leave with the children. The Council said it was evident the children wished to return with Mr P and had asked Mr P to collect them. The Council said Ms X had consented to the children leaving.
• Ms X said the report misrepresented allegations of abuse occurring abroad. The Council disagreed, saying the children had spoken candidly of their experiences. It said it could not investigate historical allegations about events in another jurisdiction; however, it said the accounts were clear and consistent. It said the report recorded these descriptions as the children's recollections.
• Ms X said allegations she had left the children unattended for extended periods were a misrepresentation. She said the social worker had not requested available evidence about this. The Council said Ms X’s own account showed she stayed away from the home, leaving the children in the care of the oldest sibling. The Council said the children's accounts were consistent.
• Ms X said the report portrayed Ms X as racist in her identity. The Council disagreed this was the case.
• Ms X said the social worker's communication had been poor during and after the assessment. She said they had not clearly explained procedures. When suggesting Ms X leave the family home, the social worker's manner had been threatening. Ms X also said the social worker did not complete the report properly, meaning Ms X’s work restrictions were left in place longer than they otherwise would have been. This had a significant impact over the festive period, both personally and professionally. The Council accepted Ms X had been distressed and the home environment had been tense. The Council said the social worker had asked whether Ms X wanted to leave the home, or whether she wanted the children and Mr P to leave. This was because the children had been clear they did not want to communicate with Ms X. The Council said the social worker had checked on both parties the following morning and then received a copy of Ms X’s email, where she agreed the children could leave with Mr P.
• Ms X said while the report was now finished and her work restrictions lifted, the impact on her remained, with ongoing discussions about parenting arrangements. She said the prospect of further proceedings meant her children could not visit her, or stay with her. The Council said it could not comment on future contact or visiting arrangements. It said it would add Ms X’s letter to the file. It said if the children returned to the country, and either parent sought support or advice at that stage, the Council would recommend a referral to social care then.
26. The Council also said:
• It would not amend the report, but would record Ms X’s comments on file as her right to reply.
• It would not change the outcome of the report. It said there could now be no reassessment, as the children had left the country.
• The social worker was experienced and the assessment took account of relevant information. The Council’s involvement had been appropriate and procedurally compliant, with the children's wellbeing being paramount.
• It did not uphold Ms X’s concerns around further training, the social worker’s neutrality, or the timeliness of the assessments being completed.
• The closure letter Ms X received was of a standard format and not meant to cause distress in the circumstances.
27. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint. On 21 March 2025, the Council responded. It said it would not review the complaint further, because the outcome would not change. It apologised for the delay in responding to the initial complaint, while noting it had kept Ms X updated. It recognised Ms X disagreed with its response, but said it did not agree with Ms X’s assertions of bias and the outcome would not change on review.

Analysis

Conduct and communication during visit

28. From the evidence available, I understand the social worker conducted interviews with Ms X and her family separately, outside the home in the social worker's car. Ms X said this was inappropriate and made her feel intimidated. The Council said this was to ensure the children could discuss the allegations without undue pressure.
29. I have not found the Council at fault for opting to conduct the interviews in this way. Doing so was consistent with the principles set out in the Guidance. This says where needed, practitioners should conduct interviews separately and in a way that maximises the likelihood of interviewees providing a full account.
30. However, I note Ms X’s point that she was unclear whether she could have had somebody accompany her during the interview, and the Council’s suggestion this would be unusual. I am unclear whether Ms X asked for this when being interviewed. In any event, the Guidance says practitioners should give parents information about the meetings beforehand, including explaining they can be accompanied for support. I have not seen any evidence to show the Council told Ms X this in advance. The position the Council set out in its complaint response is also inconsistent with the Guidance. I have therefore found the Council at fault for this.
31. However, I cannot say this caused Ms X a significant injustice. The Council’s notes show Ms X was upset and distressed, which I fully recognise. I believe this was likely due to allegations being put to Ms X to consider and respond to. Given the specific nature of the discussion, it is unlikely it would have been significantly different, or materially less upsetting, if Ms X had had another party present. This fault could though cause significant injustice to others in future, if not addressed.
32. When Ms X asked what would happen next, the social worker said the case would progress to a section 47 enquiry if the children remained in the country. Ms X later said she perceived this statement as an ultimatum, with it influencing her decision-making.
33. This is a nuanced point. The social worker was entitled to exercise professional judgement by forming a view the threshold for initiating section 47 enquiries had been met. This would ordinarily lead to a multi-disciplinary strategy discussion, where that judgment would be formalised, and where professionals would decide what further enquiries were needed. These further enquiries would then be used to decide what action was needed. Multiple outcomes could follow, including ending the section 47 procedure, providing support or targeted interventions, or arranging an initial child protection conference with a view to taking greater safeguarding action.
34. The social worker would not be at fault for expressing an indicative view around likely next steps, particularly as Ms X had asked for this. It would though have been better had they provided a fuller explanation of the range of possible outcomes. That said, I note the social worker encouraged Ms X to get independent legal advice and reflect carefully on any decision before making it. Ms X had legal representation at this point and I consider it was open to Ms X to seek this advice and account for it before making a decision.
35. Considering these points together, while the Council’s communication could have been clearer, I have not found the Council at fault.

Information gathering

36. Ms X disputed the accuracy of the Council’s assessment, stating the Council failed to properly consider relevant evidence, information and context.
37. I would stress it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the accounts put to the Council had merit or not. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the Council can show it had regard for the information it received when making its decisions.
38. I have considered the Council’s assessment document. This records the information disclosed by Ms X’s children. I would agree with the Council’s view the disclosures and wishes were detailed and consistent.
39. Ms X’s complaint concerned the Council failing to properly record her views about:
• Leaving the children in the care of their adult sibling.
• The context of comments around discouraging conversation about race.
• There being no previous concerns raised about Ms X, either personally or professionally.
• The impact of alleged coercion and abuse perpetrated by Mr P, including influencing the children’s accounts.
40. I find the Council’s assessment sets out the social worker’s interview with Ms X, which includes Ms X’s views and points of disagreement. Ms X’s points around alternative care planning, alleged abuse and coercion, and the context of comments and validity of allegations can be understood from that assessment. I would also note in its complaint response, the Council explained while it acknowledged Ms X’s position on these points, its assessment was focused on the children’s wellbeing in relation to the alleged harm caused by Ms X.
41. Given this, while I fully recognise Ms X’s strong disagreement with the Council’s conclusions, I have not found the Council at fault for failing to reflect Ms X’s concerns in its decision-making.

Delayed case closure and failure to provide copy of assessment

42. The Guidance says all assessments must be completed within 45 working days of receiving a referral. The Council formally completed its assessment on 28 January 2025, which was day 45. The assessment was completed within the maximum timescale. I have not therefore found the Council at fault for the time taken to complete the assessment.
43. The Council told the Ombudsman it sent a copy of the assessment to Mr P on 29 January 2025, because he had asked for a copy. The Council said it understood legal representatives would share a copy with Ms X. Ms X complained about receiving the assessment in this way and not directly through the Council. In response, the Council focused on the fact Ms X had received a copy, rather than how it was received.
44. I have found the Council at fault for how it shared the assessment. The Guidance says unless there is a lawful reason to withhold information, authorities should provide parents with clear and timely information, so they understand what is happening. The Council relying on assurances Ms X would receive this information through Mr P’s solicitors was inappropriate, given they are separated, in different countries and engaged in legal proceedings. I believe this fault caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and distress, which are injustices.
45. Despite completing the assessment on 28 January 2025, the Council did not write to Ms X to confirm it had ended its involvement until 18 February 2025. This was a delay of around three weeks. I have found the Council at fault for this delay. Taken together with the Council failing to share a copy of the assessment with Ms X in a timely and suitable way, this fault further compounded Ms X’s avoidable uncertainty and distress.
46. Evidence I have seen shows Ms X’s employer lifted restrictions on her work conditions in early January 2025, before the Council formally completed its assessment. This suggests the Council’s delay in providing a written notification of the closure did not significantly affect Ms X’s employer’s decisions about Ms X’s work restrictions. I recognise Ms X’s point the restrictions could have been removed sooner in the circumstances, though this would ultimately be a decision for Ms X's employer.

Complaint handling

47. The Council accepted it had delayed responding to Ms X’s initial complaint, citing its complexity as part of the reason for the delay. The Council said it had kept Ms X updated about the delay, though provided an apology for the inconvenience caused. I consider the Council’s apology is appropriate and do not propose any further recommendations on this point.

Back to top

Action

48. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Ms X for the injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our published Guidance on Remedies.
2. Pay Ms X £200 to recognise the avoidable distress caused by the Council failing to share its final assessment with Ms X directly, instead inappropriately relying on Mr P’s solicitors to do so, and for its delay issuing the closure letter.
3. Remind officers the Guidance says individuals can be accompanied by others during interviews, where appropriate, and that individuals should be advised of this right.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman