Summary: Mr B complained the Council contacted him about safeguarding concerns while he was in hospital in a vulnerable mental state. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council contacted him about safeguarding concerns while he was in hospital despite knowing he was in a vulnerable mental state. He also complains the Council ignored his request for children’s social care to not be involved with his family.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions caused him distress and triggered him to self-harm. He would like the Council to review how it contacts parents who are in a vulnerable mental state and train staff to act proportionately and sensitively in such circumstances.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Mr B’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
6. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr B 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

Children’s social care referrals

8. 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.

Duty to make enquiries

9. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (the Act), 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.

Back to top

What happened

10. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
11. For context, Mr B’s children were subject to Child in Need planning until May 2025 where the family was stepped down to Family Solutions support.
12. Concerns were raised with the Council in July 2025 about the children’s safety. The nature of the concerns related to mental health, alcohol and substance misuse and other concerns about the care of the children. The Council says Mr B did not wish to be stepped up from Family Solutions support and did not consent to a child and family assessment. As such, the Council held a strategy meeting. All professionals at the meeting agreed the section 47 threshold had been met and so an assessment under section 47 would begin.
13. Around the time the concerns were raised with the Council, Mr B had recently been admitted to hospital due to mental health reasons, where he stayed until roughly early September 2025. During this time, Mr B’s children were staying with a family member.
14. Mr B complained to the Council in mid-September 2025. He complained it had contacted him while he was in hospital about the safeguarding concerns and allegations, without evidence of the alleged events. He told the Council it went against his decision of having children’s social care involved with his family, and the contact from the Council had caused him emotional distress and triggered him to self-harm.
15. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint. It told him:
• The Council contacted him in line with its statutory duty to ensure the children’s welfare. The Council told him it is standard practice to discuss the referrals with the parent, even if they have not yet been verified, to ensure it can make an informed assessment.
• A section 47 investigation is not a process that is dependent on parental consent, and decisions about the Council’s involvement in such matters are guided by its statutory responsibilities under the Children Act 1989.
• It recognises receiving such information while in hospital may have been distressing, and the Council apologises for any impact this had on his wellbeing.

Back to top

Analysis

16. As outlined in paragraph 9, the Act places a duty on councils to make such enquiries as they consider necessary to establish the child’s situation and enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard the child. This involves the lead social worker contacting the parents. As it is a statutory duty, it does not require parental consent. Statutory guidance also outlines that councils should work collaboratively and in partnership with parents, so they can make fair and accurate decisions about how to support the child and maintain their safety.
17. Mr B says the Council’s contact with him was unnecessary as the children were not at immediate risk of harm, as they were staying with a family member at the time. But the Act sets out that enquiries are to be made if a child is suffering from harm, or likely to suffer harm in future. The Council acted in line with its statutory duty to ensure Mr B’s children’s safety by contacting him as part of its enquiries. If it did not do so, it would not have been able to satisfy itself whether it needed to take action to safeguard the children or maintain their welfare.
18. Mr B says the Council contacted him despite him being in a vulnerable mental state. I note Mr B’s circumstances; however, the Act says the child’s needs and welfare are paramount. The Council had a duty to make the necessary enquiries, which involved contacting Mr B. The Council says the allocated social worker offered to visit Mr B in hospital, which he declined. It also says it asked the hospital to speak to Mr B about the option of having an advocate. So, the Council considered different approaches in its contact with Mr B.
19. The Council acted in line with its statutory duty in this case. I have not found the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Decision

20. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint. I have found no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman