Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s social worker made false claims to justify a child protection plan for his child, Y. Mr X said the social worker used threats and blackmail to pressure Y. Mr X also said the social worker and the Council did not consider his concerns or the family’s health, cultural background and religious beliefs. The Council was not at fault. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s evidence does not support his concerns about the social worker.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a social worker from the Council made false claims to justify a child protection plan, and used threats and blackmail to pressure his child, Y, into making statements. Mr X also complained the Council ignored his concerns about the social worker, failed to consider his health and criticised his religious beliefs. Mr X said the social worker’s behaviour caused Y severe trauma and nightmares and meant the Council removed Y from his care. Mr X would like the Council to pay compensation for the damage it caused to the family’s physical, mental and emotional health. He would also like the Council’s children’s services to have no further involvement with his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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).
3. 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.
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. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended).
6. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Child protection

9. 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).
10. 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.
11. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
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. 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.

14. 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”.
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.
16. Harm means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development, including, for example, impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. (The Children Act 1989 31(9)).
17. 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’.

What happened

18. The Council received a safeguarding concern for Mr X’s child, Y, in October 2024. In November 2024, the Council then received a referral raising concerns about Y’s welfare.
19. The Council visited the family home a few days later. In early January 2025, the Council held a strategy meeting, during which it decided it should conduct section 47 enquiries. After the Council completed the enquiries, it decided to progress the case to an ICPC and consider putting Y on a child protection plan. The Council held the ICPC in late January 2025, which Mr X attended. The Council told the meeting it had received several concerns and allegations of physical and emotional abuse from family members towards Y. The Council identified several next steps it should take, including a social worker working directly with Y. The Council also decided to put Y on a child protection plan.
20. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2025 about the alleged behaviour of the social worker, saying they had made up information, been deceitful and made allegations against the family members. Mr X also alleged the social worker had used pressure, threats and blackmail to force Y to change their answers. He said the Council had wrongly considered this false information when deciding about the child protection plan. Mr X also complained the social worker criticised the social, cultural and religious backgrounds of Mr X and Ms Z and did not consider their health. The Council responded that it used information from various professionals and sources when it decided to start the child protection plan. The Council asked Mr X to provide more information about his allegations about the social worker’s behaviour and lack of consideration of his health and religious beliefs.
21. Mr X raised a stage two complaint with the Council, in which he provided some further information about his allegations. He also reiterated his views about the social worker and asked for the Council to change the social worker. The Council responded that it found no evidence the social worker had acted inappropriately. It also said its view was the ICPC report was accurate as it included the views of several professionals and not just the social worker.
22. The Council held a child protection review meeting in April 2025. During the meeting, the Council said it had not made much progress since the child protection plan started, as Y’s parents were not allowing the social worker to visit. The Council also said Mr X and his wife, Ms Z, continually said to the social worker and other professionals the ICPC report was based on made up information and lies. Ms Z told the Council she did not want the social worker visiting as it made Y anxious. The Council responded saying it would send two professionals to visits. The Council decided to continue the child protection plan.
23. The Council placed Y in a foster home in May 2025 after the court granted an emergency protection order. Y returned to the family home in November 2025.

My findings

24. Mr X alleged Y was scared of the social worker and the social worker used threats and blackmail to pressure Y into making statements. The information shown in the case notes and email correspondence the Council provided does not support these allegations.
25. The Council has a duty to investigate concerns about harm or potential harm a child may suffer. The evidence shows the Council used considered information from several professionals when it made decisions about Y. The Council was not at fault.
26. On Mr X’s point about the Council not considering his concerns about the social worker, the Council’s complaint responses show it addressed the individual points of Mr X’s complaint and explained its findings. This is not fault. On balance, the evidence shows the Council considered Mr X’s complaints.
27. Mr X alleged the social worker breached her professional standards by failing to respect the family’s religious, cultural beliefs and health needs. We cannot investigate concerns about a social worker’s professional standards or fitness to practise. Mr X can report his concerns about the social worker’s alleged actions and behaviour to Social Work England to consider.
28. We cannot investigate the point about the Council placing Y in foster care as this was the court’s decision.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find no fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman