Summary: We found no fault on Mrs Y’s complaint about the Local Authority Designated Officer asking for a child protection plan to stop her working. There was no evidence of the social worker sharing information with Ofsted about going on such a plan before any decision was formally made. The evidence showed the social worker talked about recommending a plan which would need to be considered by the legal team.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council actions, when looking at child protection procedures concerning her son, which involved:
1. the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) asking for a child protection plan to prevent her from returning to her childminding business; and
2. a social worker sharing information with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) about going on a child protection plan before this decision was even made at a conference meeting.
2. As a result, she lost her job, she lost contact with her son who moved in with his father, and it placed her under great financial strain and stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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.
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs Y and the Council. I considered their responses which included copies from Mrs Y of witness statements by an Ofsted officer about her appeal against suspension of her registration.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection law and guidance

8. 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)
9. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect 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 started where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
10. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
11. 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 the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
12. 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 hold a strategy meeting.

13. 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”.
14. 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’ and implementing a safety plan.
15. Under section 20 of the Act, a child or young person may be accommodated by a council where there is usually agreement to this by those who have parental responsibility. The child is then a ‘looked after’ child but is not in care. A person with parental responsibility can change their mind and decide not to agree any longer at any time. A council needs to consider whether the request puts the child back at risk of immediate significant harm.

Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO)

16. The role of the LADO is set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018; Chapter 2, paragraph 4) and is governed by a council’s duties under section 11 of the Children Act 2004. The LADO is responsible for managing allegations against adults who work with children. This involves the LADO working with the police, children’s social care, employers, and other involved professionals. The LADO does not directly conduct investigations but oversees and directs them to ensure they are thorough, timely, and fair. The LADO does not usually have direct contact with the adult against whom the allegation is made. This is to ensure impartiality. The LADO is responsible for providing advice, information, and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations about allegations and concerns about workers, and monitoring the progress of cases to ensure they are dealt with as quickly as possible

Council: The Role of the LADO and The Allegations Management Process

17. The Council’s LADO, from the Allegation Management Service, needs to be consulted when significant safeguarding allegations are identified about any individual who has a role as a professional or volunteer and is involved in working with children.
18. The Allegation Management Services does not carry out any investigation. Nor does it have direct communication with the person subject to the allegation

Council: Allegations Management: managerless individuals

19. Where an individual is not employed during allegations management, the LADO should share information as usual with other agencies. Where there are no criminal proceedings, it should consult with other agencies and consider communicating separately with the person against whom the allegation is made to advise them of the allegation and seek their views, offering advice on practice and policies.

What happened

20. Mrs Y ran her own self-employed business which involved contact with children. During allegations made against her in 2023, she claimed the LADO asked a social worker to pursue a child protection plan to stop Mrs Y from working. She pointed out it was not the role of the LADO to decide this but the ICPC. The Council denied her claim, saying there was no evidence to support it.
21. She also claimed a social worker contacted Ofsted about a child protection plan before it had even been decided. Ofsted carried out its own investigation of Mrs Y and wanted regular updates from the Council about its investigation.
22. While the social worker has not been employed by the Council for some time, a manager understands the social worker did not agree this happened as claimed. The Council believes Mrs Y made a subject access request to Ofsted and in a document, a member of staff recorded this was said by the social worker during a telephone conversation. The Council has no record of this happening.
23. Mrs Y was suspended from carrying on with her business by Ofsted and she resigned from it at the end of the year.
24. The evidence showed:

• In July 2023, the Council received notification from Ofsted that it had received a self-report from Mrs Y following contact from the parents of a child in her care which was injured. (allegation 1)
• In August, an Allegations Management Meeting (AMM) was held. The minutes show the LADO advised as Mrs Y was self-employed, it would need exploring under the Managerless Pathway process. As this would mean Mrs Y investigating herself, the LADO suggested enquiries be made within the Council’s Early Years service to see whether it could carry out the task on its behalf. The minutes stated Early Years were to consider whether it could complete an internal investigation and update the LADO.
• The Council became further involved with Mrs Y in September. This was after contact from the police about her son claiming she injured him (allegation 2). It was agreed he would be a ‘looked after’ child under section 20. A strategy meeting was held, and section 47 enquiries started.
• In October, there was an AMM about allegation 2 and section 47 enquiries concluded. Her son would carry on with the current plan. There would be a single assessment for her other children, which ended a few weeks later. The Council closed their case.
• Later the same month, the LADO told Ofsted the section 47 enquiry was ongoing, which the Council accepted was incorrect.
• In November, there was another strategy meeting for allegation 2 because of further information received and section 47 enquiries would start. The Council looked at holding an ICPC should her son move back home with Mrs Y. The evidence of the meeting showed the LADO acknowledging there had been a lot of email exchanges with Ofsted and Mrs Y but, it was up to Ofsted to decide whether they were happy to allow her to continue working in her business. The record also said it was unclear whether Mrs Y would be able to continue working but if child protection was pursued, then it would be unlikely she would be reinstated.
• Later that month, section 47 enquiries ended as her son would continue with the current plan.
• The witness statement from an Ofsted officer noted in November: the social worker saying the Council was looking at putting a suitable plan for the child to return home; she was completing a single assessment; the social worker’s recommendation at that stage was for the child to be on a child protection plan upon returning home; the social worker’s recommendation would be sent to the legal team to check if there was enough evidence of risk to move forward with it; a later update from the social worker said her recommendation was for the child to remain in foster care for the time being.

25. The Council confirmed the LADO did not tell the social worker to pursue a child protection plan to prevent Mrs Y from working.
26. Mrs Y sent evidence which showed the following:

• An email sent to the LADO dated 3 August 2023. This said there was a suggestion at the AMM that morning that there should be an investigation by Early Years of Mrs Y. The email explained this was not something it would do but could have a conversation/meeting with her to ask questions if she agreed. There is nothing to show who the person writing this email worked for, but I assume it was from Early Years and was about allegation 1.
• An undated investigation report noted the AMM decided an investigation of Mrs Y was needed and as she was an independent childminder, Early Years was asked to do the investigation. The report noted the writer and another Early Years officer visited Mrs Y as part of the investigation four days after the August email to the LADO. The report I was sent was incomplete, consisting only of one page.
• A single paragraph which I assume was part of a complaint response letter to Mrs Y. This clarified the visit was not an investigation but explored whether it was possible the injury could have occurred in her care.
• A further single paragraph which referred to allegation 1 and said Ofsted had been asked to suspend Mrs Y but it was unclear what happened since. There was no information about who wrote this, why, the date, or the organisation the writer worked for.

27. In its response to her complaint in September, the Council confirmed the LADO set up a conflict of interest when asking the Early Years officer to do a follow-up visit. This was because the LADO was asking them to take on the role of the employer, which was not its role. Its role was to provide Mrs Y with support and advice.
28. The Council also accepted the use of the term ‘investigation’ by Early Years in its notes at this time was incorrect. The Council would work with the LADO and Early Years to ensure a clear and transparent understanding of their respective roles. This was because Early Years cannot do follow-up work for AMMs. It was for Ofsted to consider how to give childcare providers access to an independent intermediary who can act to investigate AMM issues. The Council accepted there were some wider learning from this about asking Early Years to do the follow up visit.

My findings

Complaint a): LADO wanting to prevent her working (allegation 1)

29. I found the following on this complaint:
1. Having reviewed email correspondence from the LADO, and reading minutes of meetings, I found no fault on this complaint. This is because there is no evidence showing the LADO asked the social worker to pursue a child protection plan so Mrs Y would be prevented from working.
2. I am satisfied the evidence showed the LADO correctly said it was for Ofsted to decide if Mrs Y continued in her line of work. The LADO gave a view it was unlikely she would continue in her job if child protection was pursued. I see no fault with this comment because it was only the LADO’s opinion given within a meeting.
3. I considered all the evidence Mrs Y sent, including the single paragraph note. On balance, I am not satisfied this alone was enough to make a finding of fault on this complaint. This is because there was no supporting information to show the context in which this statement was made. There is nothing to show who made it, why it was made, or indeed whether it was factually accurate.
4. The evidence shows the LADO asking Early Years to carry out a follow-up visit to Mrs Y on behalf of the AMM. The Early Years record of the visit wrongly referred to it being an investigation. The Council accepted Early Years should not have been asked to do this on behalf of the AMM and the reference in the notes to an investigation was wrong. It apologised to Mrs Y for these errors and set out that the LADO, Early Years, and the AMM service will ensure there is a clear and transparent understanding of their respective roles and functions to ensure Early Years do not carry out follow-up work for AMMs.
5. I am satisfied the Council remedied any injustice caused on this complaint during its complaints process before our investigation.

Complaint b): Social worker and Ofsted before plan made

30. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because I have seen no evidence to support Mrs Y’s claim the social worker told Ofsted her child was going on a child protection plan before one was ever made. I have only seen evidence of the social worker discussing what her recommendations were likely to be when the single assessment was completed.
31. The evidence shows the social worker told Ofsted her recommendation was for the child to go on a child protection plan should he return home. This would need to be considered by the Council’s legal team to ensure the evidence of risk justified it. This recommendation was later changed to the child remaining in foster care for the time being.
32. I am satisfied the evidence shows the social worker talked to Ofsted in terms of recommendations only. The initial recommendation even explained the legal team would need to consider the evidence to decide if that was an option the Council could pursue. It is clear the social worker talked only about a possibility, not a certainty.
33. The later recommendation was changed to the child remaining in foster care. Child protection was not mentioned at all at this point in time.

Back to top

Decision

34. I found the following on Mrs Y’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): no fault; and
• Complaint b): no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman