Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to inform him that two of his daughters had been taken into care and he only learned of this development through social media. He also complains it failed to contact him when his daughters were at risk of harm or keep him updated about key developments and decisions affecting them once he became aware of their circumstances. Moreover, he complains about the way the Council handled his complaint about these matters. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s complaint about these matters, but not for any other part of his complaint. In addition, we were unable to investigate his concerns about the Council not contacting him prior to April 2016 because this matter has been considered by the courts. The fault we did identify caused Mr X some distress therefore we recommend the Council apologises to him to remedy this injustice. We have also made a service improvement recommendation to prevent this fault from reoccurring. The Council has agreed to carry out these recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to inform him that two of his daughters had been taken into care and he only learned of this development through social media. He also complains it failed to contact him when his daughters were at risk of harm or keep him updated about key developments and decisions affecting them once he became aware of their circumstances. Moreover, he complains about the way the Council handled his complaint about these matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:
• Read Mr X’s complaint and the documents he submitted in support of it.
• Considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
• Provided both parties with an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. In 2007, Mr X’s two daughters lived with his ex-partner, Ms Y. At the time, they were aged two and three. Mr X retained parental responsibility but he did not have any contact with his daughters and lived in a different part of the country.
9. In February 2015, Ms Y was arrested by the police and taken to a station to be detained overnight. The officer dealing with the case used his powers to place her daughters in the care of their grandparents for the night. He also contacted the Council’s duty social worker about the incident. She noted the officer had undertaken checks and visited the grandparents’ property. Consequently, she decided not to conduct a visit because the officer was satisfied the girls were safe and well. Moreover, she stated another social worker would visit first thing the next morning.
10. The following day, the Council decided to remove the girls from their grandparents’ care due to concerns their grandfather posed a risk to children. It returned them home to their mother and initiated a child and family assessment. It also put a safety plan in place which stipulated the girls should not be allowed to visit their grandparents’ house or have any unsupervised contact with their grandfather.
11. In April 2015, the Council completed the child and family assessment. Ms Y and her daughters were subsequently placed under a child protection plan.
12. At the beginning of 2016, the Council decided to initiate court proceedings to remove Ms Y’s daughters from her care.
13. In mid-April 2016, the Court issued an interim care order and Ms Y’s daughters were placed into foster care. The judge instructed the Council to locate Mr X as his whereabouts were unknown.
14. After the hearing, Mr X contacted the Council before it started making enquiries. Both parties then attended a case management hearing at court a few days later. Mr X stated he wanted to take his daughters into his care.
15. In mid-August 2016, the Court issued a Child Arrangement Order and six-month supervision order. Mr X’s daughters subsequently went to live with him, his partner, and their children.
16. In October and November 2016, Mr X daughters revealed their grandfather had abused them both.
17. In December 2016, one of his daughters, Z returned to foster care after the placement broke down. His other daughter remained with him and his family.
18. In May 2017, the Court issued a full care order placing Z under the care of the Council.
19. In August 2017, Z returned to live with Mr X for a short trial period but left a day earlier than expected. It was subsequently decided that Z would remain in foster care.
20. At the end of September 2018, Mr X submitted a complaint to the Council. He said it had failed to contact him when his daughters were taken into foster care in April 2016 and stated he found out this had happened through social media. Similarly, he said that social services had not made him aware of its involvement or concerns over the years, despite stating it would when he contacted it in 2007. In addition, he noted his daughters were placed in the care of their grandfather and had been abused by him.
21. At the beginning and end of October 2018, the Council emailed Mr X and said the investigation into his complaint was ongoing.
22. In mid-December 2018, Mr X emailed the Council and asked it to escalate his complaint to the next stage as he had not received a substantive response. The Council then emailed him twice before Christmas to apologise for the delay. It said its investigation was ongoing and it would respond after the festive season had passed.
23. In mid-January 2019, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said he did not complain about the issues he had raised at the time they occurred, meaning it could not uphold his complaint. It also asserted he was aware of the care proceedings and had no concerns about the contact that was made in 2007. Regarding the placement of his daughters in the care of their grandfather, it stated the police took this decision and advised him to contact them if he wanted to pursue the matter.
24. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman. He feels the harm that his daughters were subjected to could have been avoided had he been contacted by the Council sooner. Consequently, he wants it to acknowledge its failures and apologise to him and his two daughters.

Analysis

25. There are four parts to Mr X’s complaint. The first relates to the Council not contacting him prior to his daughters being taken into care in April 2016. The law says I cannot investigate this matter as the Court has already considered it. This is because the Judge that issued the interim care order instructed the Council to find Mr X. I understand Mr X then established contact with the Council before it had initiated its enquiries. However, I cannot investigate this matter or the events which led up to it.
26. I have considered whether the Council should have contacted Mr X prior to the events which took place in February 2015. However, there is no evidence of any significant involvement between Children’s Services and Ms Y that would have warranted this.
27. The second part of Mr X’s complaint is about the decision to place his daughters with their grandfather in February 2015. The evidence I have seen shows this decision was taken by the police, therefore Mr X should contact them if he wants to pursue this matter. I have considered whether the duty social worker could have done anything differently but I have found this not to be the case. She was told the girls had been placed under police protection, checks had been undertaken, and they were safe and well. There was no reason to doubt this information, especially since it was given by a fellow professional. Moreover, the Council quickly removed the girls from their grandparents’ home when it started investigating what happened the following morning.
28. The third part of the complaint relates to the Council notifying Mr X about key developments and decisions affecting him and his daughters once he became aware of their circumstances. The evidence I have seen shows there was extensive contact between the Council and Mr X after he stated he wanted to take his daughters into his care in April 2016. There is less contact when Z returned to foster care after the trial period in August 2017, however the evidence shows that Mr X did not seek contact or request frequent updates. Therefore, I cannot find the Council was at fault.
29. Conversely, I have found the Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s complaint about these matters. This is the fourth and final part of his complaint. It took approximately three and a half months to provide a substantive response to the complaint that he made in September 2018; this is too long. In addition, it did not deal with his concerns in accordance with the children’s statutory complaints procedure and the response it gave was confusing. It said it could not investigate the complaint because it was late but proceeded to respond to the various parts, deciding whether they were upheld or not. Moreover, it failed to understand that Mr X was complaining about not being contacted before care proceedings were initiated. It also did not explore the reasons why he took so long to submit his complaint, which it should have done.
30. This fault caused Mr X some distress as he felt his concerns were not being taken seriously. Consequently, I recommend the Council apologises to him for this failure.
31. I note the Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in another case in December 2017 for not adhering to the children’s statutory complaints procedure. As a result, I am concerned that some members of staff do not have a good working knowledge of this procedure and how complaints should be handled. Therefore, I have recommended the Council delivers some training to address this issue.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of this final decision, the Council has agreed to write to Mr X and apologise for the way it handled his complaint. It will acknowledge the impact of its fault and outline what it will do to prevent this from reoccurring.
33. Within three months of this final decision, the Council has agreed to deliver a training session about the children’s statutory complaints procedure to the Complaints Team and those officers in Children’s Services that deal with complaints. The session should cover the following points:
• The circumstances in which this procedure should be followed.
• The importance of exploring the reasons why someone has submitted a late complaint before exercising discretion whether to investigate it.
• The need to inform complainants whether their concerns are being dealt with under the children’s statutory complaints procedure or the Council’s own corporate procedure, if an investigation is undertaken.
• The importance of adhering to the statutory timeframes in the children’s statutory complaints procedure and providing responses in a timely manner.
34. The Council has stated it is currently reviewing its complaints process and will deliver the training after this review is complete. It has fully embraced the findings of this decision and I welcome the willingness it has shown to learn from its fault.

Back to top

Final decision

35. The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s complaint but not for any other part of his complaint. I cannot investigate his concerns about the Council not contacting him prior to April 2016 because this matter has been considered by the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman