Summary: The Council was largely not at fault for the support it offered to Miss X while her daughter, Y, was subject to a child protection plan. It was also not at fault for considering other family options before arranging a foster placement for Y. However, it was at fault for failing to handle Miss X’s requests for financial support properly. It has agreed to apologise to Miss X, and will take steps to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council’s children’s social care service dealt with her daughter’s (Y’s) case. Specifically, she complains that:
• Between the end of May and November 2024, the Council failed to support her to look after Y.
• After an incident in late October 2024 (following which Y ended up in hospital), the Council refused to accommodate her (even though Miss X had made clear that she could no longer care for her). It told Miss X she ‘had to’ have Y back home. It only changed its mind after Y had been in hospital for 10 days.
• When Miss X tried to complain to the Council’s social work manager(s) about how it had dealt with Y’s case, she received no response.
2. Miss X says the Council’s failure to provide support meant she could not look after Y. She also says she and Y suffered distress.

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. 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)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, guidance and procedures.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and procedures

Child protection

8. ‘Child protection’ is the set of multi-agency activities and processes that happen when a professional is concerned that a child is suffering (or likely to suffer) significant harm.
9. When concerns of significant harm are substantiated, and the child is judged to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, the council should convene an initial multi-agency child protection conference. (Statutory guidance, ‘Working together to safeguard children’)
10. The conference may agree that a child protection plan should be issued. The aim of this plan is to ensure the child is safe from harm, and to prevent them from suffering further harm. (Statutory guidance, ‘Working together to safeguard children’)
11. The success and ongoing suitability of the child protection plan should be reviewed at further conferences. The first review should be held within three months of the initial conference, and further reviews should be held at least every six months for as long as the plan remains in place. (Statutory guidance, ‘Working together to safeguard children’)
12. A ‘core group’ of professionals will monitor the plan in between conferences. The Council will arrange meetings of this core group, which – following a review conference – will take place at least every two months. (Kent and Medway Safeguarding Children Partnership Procedures Manual)
13. The Council’s social worker will also see the child regularly. The frequency of visiting must be determined in the child protection plan and reviewed by the core group. (Kent and Medway Safeguarding Children Partnership Procedures Manual)
14. The Council’s child protection Chair will also conduct a ‘mid-way review’ to monitor the Council’s case handling. (The Council’s children’s social care procedures)

Financial support

15. The Council is able to make one-off payments to families who need them. These are referred to as ‘section 17 payments’. (The Council’s children’s social care procedures)
16. All requests for such payments will be discussed with a social work team manager. Team managers can authorise small payments. Larger payments, or repeat requests, will need to be authorised by a service manager or the Council’s ‘access to resources panel’. (The Council’s children’s social care procedures)

Duty to provide accommodation

17. Councils must provide accommodation to children who need it because there is no-one with parental responsibility for them, they have been abandoned, or the person who has been looking after them is prevented from providing suitable accommodation. (Children Act 1989, section 20(1))
18. A council cannot provide accommodation to a child if someone who has parental responsibility for them – and who can provide accommodation for them – objects. This does not apply when the child has reached the age of sixteen and consents to the council’s provision of accommodation. (Children Act 1989, sections 20(7) and 20(11))

What happened

19. In May 2024, Y – who had been living with her father – moved into Miss X’s care. She was 15 years old.
20. The Council held a conference to review Y’s existing child protection plan. In their report, the social worker noted that:
• A ‘family group conference’ (a family-led process to plan for a child’s welfare) had been offered to Miss X but she did not feel it was necessary.
• A social work assistant had been supporting (and would continue to support) Y – fortnightly – to develop her resilience, self-esteem and confidence.
• Miss X knew there were services available to help her with her emotional health, but she did not feel they were needed and refused to access them.
• Y had been encouraged to engage with a substance misuse service but had refused to do so.
• Miss X had refused formal parenting support as she felt she did not need it. But support had been provided (and would continue to be provided) by the social worker and the social work assistant over the telephone and in person.
• The social worker would visit Y every ten days.
21. The conference agreed to continue the child protection plan, and to review it again five and a half months later.
22. The Council’s social worker continued visiting Miss X. This was not always every ten days. The records show that this was largely because either:
• the family were stuck on holiday abroad having lost their passports;
• Miss X would say the visits were not convenient; or
• Y refused to see the social worker.
23. Eight visits took place over the five months following the child protection conference. There are records of numerous attempts by the social worker to complete visits within the ten-day timescale.
24. Y’s records show that, during visits and over the telephone, Y’s social worker:
• Provided Miss X information about claiming benefits, and a letter of support.
• Responded to questions Miss X had about supported accommodation and mental health services.
• Made clear that support was available from Y’s father, who wanted to look after Y.
• Offered mediation to help Miss X’s relationship Y, which Miss X refused.
• Referred Y for a family group conference.
25. The Council also held three core group meetings following the child protection conference, at intervals of four, six and seven weeks. Miss X told the core group more than once that things were going ‘okay’ or ‘fine’. The Council noted that Y had refused to engage with the support offered.
26. In the third core group meeting, and on another occasion following an incident in the family home, Miss X told the Council that she wanted Y to go into care. The Council told her that this would not be justified, because there were several family members (including Y’s father) who would happily care for her if needed.
27. The Council’s child protection Chair reviewed Y’s case in October and noted that Y was unlikely to meet the ‘significant harm’ threshold at the next conference.
28. Twice, Miss X asked the Council to provide financial support. The first time, this was because she was struggling to pay bills and food. The second time, this was to help pay for a gym membership for Y. On both occasions the officers she spoke to said they would send her requests to their managers, but did not do so.
29. In early November, following another incident in the family home, Y ended up in hospital. Miss X made clear that she would not let Y return home. She refused to provide details of family members who might be able to look after Y instead.
30. The Council spoke to Y’s father, who said he would be happy for Y to move back in with him. The Council recorded that this was its preference for Y’s care, although it would consider a foster placement for her.
31. Y – who, by this time, had turned 16 – told the Council that she wanted to go into foster care. Six days after her admission to hospital, the Council arranged her a placement.
32. A week later, the planned review child protection conference was held. The plan was ended as Y was now a looked-after child who would receive support through a different process.
33. Miss X complained to the Council about how it had dealt with Y’s case. Although the Council did not accept failings to the extent she had alleged, it did acknowledge that one of its social work managers had apologised to her for delays in addressing her concerns via email.

My findings

Support for Miss X

34. The Council maintained a child protection plan for Y during the period Miss X complains about. The plan was reviewed and monitored in line with procedural expectations. When home visits were delayed, there were good reasons.
35. I will not repeat the list of support Miss X was offered, which I have summarised earlier in this decision statement. But I am satisfied that a significant amount of support was available to her should she have chosen to accept it. The Council was not at fault for the efforts it made to deliver that support.
36. Miss X did, however, also ask for financial support, which the Council could have provided if it felt this was necessary. On each occasion the Council said these requests would be passed to a manager for consideration (which, according to its procedures, would have been the correct way to deal with them). This did not happen, for which the Council was at fault.
37. It is not possible to conclude whether Miss X missed out on any financial support, but the Council should apologise for the uncertainty she likely experienced.

Refusal to accommodate Y

38. The Council would have been under a duty to accommodate Y if there had been nobody with parental responsibility for her, she had been lost or abandoned, or if Miss X had been ‘prevented’ from providing suitable accommodation or care.
39. As it had been Miss X’s choice to refuse to allow Y back into her care, as Y’s father had clearly offered to look after her, and as the Council had decided he would be a suitable carer, it is not obvious that the Council’s duty to accommodate Y had immediately arisen following her admission to hospital.
40. Certainly, I do not consider the Council to have been at fault for trying to explore the support Y’s family could offer before taking her into foster care. Its attempts to do this were frustrated by Miss X refusing to provide any information about family members.
41. Six days after Y was admitted to hospital, the Council moved her into a foster placement. This was what both Miss X and Y (who was 16, and therefore able to exercise her own choices) wanted.
42. Given the potential availability of options within the family and the obstruction the Council apparently faced in trying to explore those options, I do not consider this to have been a significant delay, and I have found no fault with how the Council dealt with this matter.

Miss X’s complaints

43. Outside the Council’s complaints procedure, I have seen no record of Miss X unsuccessfully trying to complain to social work managers about how the Council dealt with Y’s case.
44. Nonetheless, I note that the Council has already apologised to Miss X for a delay in answering her emails.
45. As the Council has already apologised to Miss X, and as there are no records suggesting that this was a systemic issue which caused her a significant injustice, I will not comment on this matter further.

Back to top

Action

46. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X for failing to properly consider her requests for financial support, and for the likely uncertainty and distress this caused her. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Ms X.
47. Within eight weeks, the Council has agreed to ensure that its frontline children’s social care staff are fully aware of its ‘Section 17 Children Act 1989 Financial Assistance Guidance’.
48. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

49. There was some fault in how the Council dealt with Miss X’s requests for financial support. This caused her an injustice, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman