East Sussex County Council (20 010 365)

Category : Children's care services > Friends and family carers

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 21 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse to allow her to supervise contact between a child and their father. We find fault with how the Council made its decision that it was inappropriate for family members to supervise contact. We have made recommendations.

The complaint

  1. Miss X is the special guardian of a child. She complains about the Council’s decision to refuse to allow her to supervise contact between the child and their father. She also complains the Council has refused to plan to enable her to supervise contact in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
  2. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
  3. I sent Miss X and the Council a draft decision for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. In November 2014, Miss X was appointed the special guardian for a child she is related to, Y. Y’s father, Mr A, was sent to prison in 2014.
  2. In January 2020, the probation service completed an updated risk assessment of Mr A as he was due to be released from prison. The risk assessment noted the probation service considered Mr A to be medium risk and was not to have unsupervised contact with children. The risk assessment did not specify contact would need to be supervised by a professional.
  3. In February 2020, Miss X contacted the Council to ask it to consider contact between Mr A and Y as he had been released from prison.
  4. In March 2020, the Council considered Miss X request. The case record showed the social worker noted Mr A could have contact with Y but, due to the high risk, it was not appropriate for family to supervise the contact. The Council decided that contact would need to be professionally supervised. There was no record of the Council’s rationale for the decision or what evidence it considered before reaching the decision.
  5. The Council said it told Miss X of its decision as advised Mr A to make a private law application to the courts if he did not agree with the decision.
  6. In June 2020, Miss X asked the Council to consider a trusted friend to supervise future contact between Y and Mr A. Miss X said the contact centres were closed because of the Covid-19 pandemic and she felt Y was missing out on contact with Mr A.
  7. The records showed the Council considered the request but noted it had previously assessed the matter in March 2020. The Council said there was no change to the assessment and its guidance remained the same as in March 2020. The Council reconfirmed to Miss X contact would need to be professionally supervised.
  8. Miss X made a complaint about the Council’s decision in August 2020.
  9. The Council said it offered Miss X a family assessment in November 2020. It opened this assessment in February 2021. The Council closed the assessment in April 2021 as Miss X did not want to engage until the Ombudsman had finished considering her complaint. The Council said the offer of a family assessment remains.
  10. Miss X said the Council did not offer her a family assessment until after the Ombudsman had decided to investigate her complaint.

Analysis

  1. It was appropriate for the Council to complete am assessment to consider Miss X’s request for contact between Y and Mr A in March 2020. This is because of the potential risk to Y from Mr A due to the offence he was sent to prison for in 2014.
  2. The Council decided Mr A could have professional, supervised contact with Y. In its assessment, the Council noted it was not appropriate for family to supervise contact between Y and Mr A. The Council also noted Mr A was high risk. The Council said it considered Mr A’s probation risk assessment when it made its decision.
  3. Mr A’s probation assessment noted he was medium risk. It is entirely appropriate for the Council to reach its own assessment of Mr A’s level of risk if it followed a proper decision making process. However, the records do not set out the Council’s rationale for assessing Mr A to be high risk. There is also no explanation as to why the Council decided it would be inappropriate for family to supervise.
  4. It would be reasonable to expect the Council to set out some analysis of why it was inappropriate for Miss X, or other family members, to supervise contact. Instead, the Council just stated it was inappropriate without expanding on its reasons for why it made the decision.
  5. Therefore, the decision is flawed as there is no evidence the Council followed a proper decision making process. At this stage, this is fault.
  6. The evidence shows the Council reconsidered Miss X’s request for family to supervise contact in June 2020. However, the Council’s decision was based on the flawed March 2020 assessment. There is no evidence of any further analysis of the circumstances, only acceptance of the assessment made in March 2020.
  7. Therefore, the June 2020 assessment is also flawed as the Council made its decision based entirely on the flawed March 2020 assessment. At this stage, this is fault.
  8. I consider the faults identified has caused some uncertainty. This is because I cannot say what decision the Council would have made if it had properly considered Miss X’s request for family to supervise contact.
  9. The Council has offered Miss X a family assessment. Miss X declined the assessment while the Ombudsman considered her complaint. I am of the view a family assessment is appropriate as it will give the Council the opportunity to gather relevant and up to date information on the family to help it decide whether it is appropriate for family members to supervise contact.

Back to top

Agreed actions

  1. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following:
    • Apologise to Miss X for its flawed decision making in March and June 2020.
    • Complete a family assessment and reconsider whether it is appropriate for family to supervise contact between Y and Mr A. The Council should ensure it records its analysis of the evidence and provide a clear rationale for its decision.
  2. The Council will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I find fault with how the Council made its decision that it was inappropriate for family members to supervise contact. The Council has accepted my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings