Summary: There was fault by the Council because it failed to involve Mr X when it received child safeguarding allegations about his daughter Y. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty about the actions and decisions the Council might have made had it involved Mr X. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete training to front line staff around best practice for engaging and working with fathers.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. Failed to notify him about child safeguarding allegations relating to his daughter Y, despite a previous action plan saying it would inform him
2. Did not properly follow up on referrals, taking the mother’s view as fact
3. Failed to amend Y’s file to clarify allegations against him were unproven.
2. Mr X said the Council’s fault caused avoidable distress, negatively impacted a custody hearing and has affected his child’s safety and welfare.

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. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) 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)
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)
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated complaints (a) and (b).
8. I have not investigated complaint (c.) This is about an agreed action following an upheld complaint Mr X made to the Council in 2014. The Council said it made errors in the child in need plan and children and family assessment and these needed to be corrected or removed or a marker placed on the file with a clearly visible warning that the document was inaccurate. Mr X said he found out during custody proceedings in 2025 that his child’s file still said there had been domestic abuse by him and no correction had been made.
9. The ICO deals with complaints about data protection. Mr X has a right to rectification of the inaccurate information under Article 16 of the General Data Protection Regulation. It is reasonable for him to go to the ICO.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr 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

Relevant law and guidance

12. Councils have a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area. (Children Act 1989, section 17)
13. Guidance for councils and schools emphasises the importance of treating both parents equally. It says those who have parental responsibility for care of a child have rights to:
• Receive information, such as school reports
• Be asked to give consent
• Be informed about meetings involving the child.

(Understanding and dealing with issues relating to parental responsibility, 2023)

14. Guidance says:
• Safeguarding and promoting welfare includes promoting the upbringing of children with their birth parents wherever possible and where in the child’s best interests
• Early help is a system of support (rather than a single service) that improves a family’s resilience and reduces the chance of a problem getting worse.

(Working Together 2023)

15. The Council has guidance for working with families outside formal child safeguarding processes. This says the Council works in partnership with families and will enable parent and carer involvement in discussions and decision-making which impacts on them and their children. It recognises parents as the experts within their family. (Right Help, Right Time a continuum of need: multi agency guidance for delivering effective support to children, young people and their families)
16. The Council’s Guidance sets out principles for working with parents and carers, building positive relationships by
• Adapting their responses to meet the diverse needs of parents and carers including fathers
• Being mindful of negative stereotypes when making decisions which might lead to false assumptions.
• Practitioners empowering carers to participate in decision-making to help, support and protect children

(Working with Children and Professionals – Northamptonshire Safeguarding Children’s Partnership)

What happened

17. The Council’s muti-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) received referrals about Y from five agencies between 2018 and 2024. Y was living with her mother during this time. Mr X did not know about the referrals until 2025.
18. The Council’s action plan in relation to Mr X’s previous complaint said “all staff need to consult with the father on core assessments in line with current policies and procedures.”
19. Mr X complained to the Council in March 2025 about the matters he has raised with us. He said in his complaint to the Council that he only found out about the referrals in March 2025 having had contact with the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service as part of custody proceedings.
20. The Council’s first response to the complaint summarised only one referral to the Council’s MASH in February 2025 from an NHS mental health team and the outcome of that referral (to refer the case to Children and Family Support Services (Early Help). The response went on to say that:
• The MASH did not inform parents as the Early Help team would decide around further action, including contact with parents.
• On this occasion MASH did not screen the referral (as it was passed to Early Help.) MASH would speak to parents when it was screening cases.
21. Mr X was unhappy with the first response and escalated his complaint to stage two. The Council’s second response said there were five safeguarding referrals concerning Y:

April 2018 A referral from the police that a registered sex offender was staying in the property. MASH contacted Y’s mother to discuss. Y’s mother said she was unaware and would have no further contact with him. Mr X was not informed.

May 2022 A referral from Y’s school alleging Y’s mother had hit her. The contact note indicates the social worker tried to trace Mr X, however this was not possible. The outcome of the referral was that school was to offer support around Y’s behaviour.

April 2024 An emergency services referral due to Y having problems with her leg. No safeguarding concerns were raised. Mr X was not contacted. Y’s mother declined support.

May 2024 A second emergency services referral due to further health problems Y was experiencing. Y’s mother told the ambulance not to contact Mr X as he may overreact. MASH did not contact Mr X either. The referral was sent to the Early Help team for them to contact both parents and offer support.

Feb 2025 A third referral from emergency services saying Y was having contact with a male adult. Y’s mother was spoken to, but not Mr X.

22. The Council’s complaint response said it discussed the action plan of 2014 as an outcome to a complaint at the time and it accepted it had not followed the plan. It also said learning from case audits into contact with absent fathers would be included in staff training.

Findings

23. There was fault by the Council because it failed to work in line with its guidance as I have set out in paragraphs 15 and 16. The Council did not act in partnership with Mr X and did not treat him equally. Decisions were made without his involvement or input which may have had an impact on Y (including referrals to other services and decisions not to take any action.) The failure to involve Mr Y was not in line with ‘Working Together’ which stresses the importance of working collaboratively with both parents.
24. Mr X said the Council’s fault impacted a custody hearing and he considers decisions taken by the Council have had a negative impact on Y’s safety, school attendance and school applications. The failure to involve Mr X has caused avoidable uncertainty about whether the Council may have provided different interventions and/or services, had he been informed and consulted about the referrals at the time.

Back to top

Agreed Action

25. Within one month the Council will issue a further written apology to Mr X and make him a symbolic payment of £250 to reflect his avoidable uncertainty and distress. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
26. Within three months the Council will deliver training for relevant staff on the importance of engaging and working in partnership with fathers when receiving referrals from other agencies and generally.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman