Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council supported her son while he was in local authority care. Based on current evidence, we have found that the Council was not at fault. It respected her wishes and made decisions about Y’s care which do not appear unreasonable. The Council was, however, at fault for keeping incomplete safeguarding records. It was also at fault for how it considered Mrs X’s complaint. Neither of these things caused her an injustice, but the Council should nonetheless take steps to improve its complaint handling in future.

The complaint

1. Mrs X’s son, Y, was in local authority care for a short period in 2023. She complains that:
• The Council ignored her request that Y had no social media access. This led to Y having contact online with his father, who held inappropriate conversations with him.
• The Council put Y at risk of harm by ‘handing him over’ to his father, Mrs X’s ex-husband (with whom Y now lives).
2. Mrs X says these matters caused her distress. She wants procedural changes within the Council.

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. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs 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

The Council’s responsibilities

‘Section 20’ accommodation

8. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 places the duty on councils to provide accommodation for children who need it because their parents are prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing them with suitable accommodation or care.
9. Such children are routinely referred to as being ‘under section 20’ arrangements (or similar).
10. The Council has its own procedures which set out what it will do to support children in its care.
11. These procedures explain that, when the Council accommodates a child under section 20, it does not have parental responsibility for the child. This remains with the parents. The only part of the parents’ responsibility which has been delegated to the Council is the provision of accommodation.
12. The child’s parents can remove the child from section 20 accommodation at any time. If the Council does not agree, it can only prevent this by taking court action.

Complaints about children’s social care

13. The statutory guidance, ‘Getting the best from complaints’, sets out a three-stage procedure for complaints about certain aspects of children’s social care. I refer to this as ‘the statutory procedure’.
14. Parents can use this procedure to complain about their children’s social care assessment, support and accommodation.
15. The benefit of the statutory procedure is that the parent gets an independent investigation of their complaint (at stage 2), and, if they wish, an independent review (at stage 3).
16. If a complainant wants to progress their complaint through all three stages of the statutory procedure, then they have the right to do so.
17. The Ombudsman normally expects councils (and complainants) to follow the full statutory procedure before involving us. A complaint can only be referred to the Ombudsman earlier if, following a robust stage two investigation, all significant parts of the complaint have been upheld.

What happened

18. In September 2023, Y alleged that he had suffered physical abuse in Mrs X’s care. The Council’s children’s social care service intervened, and Mrs X agreed that Y could move into section 20 accommodation (foster care) for a period.
19. On the section 20 document (which Mrs X signed), she made clear that Y could not have access to social media. The Council’s records agree that this was a priority for her.
20. At around this time, Mrs X shared information with the Council about being a victim of domestic abuse from Y’s father in the past (to which Y had allegedly been exposed).
21. The Council held a multi-agency strategy meeting to discuss the risk to Y. In the meeting, information was shared with the Council about the family’s prior involvement with another council’s social care service. I refer to the other council as Council B.
22. The Council decided it would “need to seek the information held by [Council B] to develop further insight into the patterns present for the family".
23. The Council says it sought this information from Council B, but did not put it onto Y’s file. It has, however, sent me the information, which was obviously provided to the Council at some point.
24. The Council accepts that its failure to put this information onto Y’s file was “clearly an oversight”.
25. At the point at which he went into foster care, Y had no relationship with his father (who had joint parental responsibility for him). But Y told the Council that he wanted this to change. The Council took steps to approach his father and, in November, father and son re-established contact.
26. The Council ensured its foster carer was aware of Mrs X’s views on Y’s social media use. And efforts were made to enforce this by both Mrs X (who restricted the apps on Y’s telephone) and the foster carer (who confiscated his telephone more than once).
27. Irrespective of these efforts, Y still managed to access social media. And his father’s view was that Y needed his telephone so he could speak to his family.
28. Miss X’s views on Y’s section 20 status changed more than once over the three months that Y was in local authority care:
• First, in October, she said she wanted Y to return home in the long-term, but she needed support first.
• Then, in November, she said she wanted Y home immediately.
• Shortly afterwards, she agreed that Y’s return home could happen slowly to prevent chance of breakdown. She said Y could remain in care until January 2025 so family support could be put in place.
• Later in November, she told the Council that Y could live with his father if he wanted, and that she would “sign whatever papers” were needed.
• In early December, she told Y’s school that she wanted no more contact from them. She refused to agree to a face-to-face contact session with Y.
• Then, in mid-December, she withdrew her section 20 consent, and insisted Y either live with his father or be made subject to a Care Order.
29. Y’s view throughout this period was that he did not want to return home. He continued to allege physical abuse in Mrs X’s care. And, by December, he had repeatedly told the Council that he wanted to live with his father.
30. After Mrs X finally withdrew her section 20 consent, Y’s father told the Council that he wanted Y to live with him. The Council did safeguarding checks and sought legal advice.
31. The Council decided that, as Y’s father had parental responsibility for Y, he was entitled to exercise that responsibility and take Y home with him. It told Mrs X and Y’s father that any further dispute between them should be settled in court.
32. The Council did, however, refer the matter to Y’s father’s local council, who could then decide if the family needed any further children’s social care support.
33. From that point on, the Council was no longer responsible for Y’s social care support.
34. Mrs X complained to the Council about how it had handled Y’s case. The Council responded to her under its corporate complaints procedure. It told Mrs X that it had identified no concerns about Y’s father’s ability to care for Y, nor about his online communication with Y while Y was in foster care.
35. The Council tells us that, although the information from Council B was not available to the social worker who was working with Y when he moved in with his father, they “remained curious” about potential risks to Y.
36. The Council also says it was aware of the domestic abuse between Y’s parents from the information shared within its strategy meeting and by Mrs X herself. It says the allegations were historical and – at the time of the strategy meeting – the parents had not been in contact for several years.
37. The Council accepts it would have been helpful had the information from
    Council B been available. But it says this would not have affected the outcome, because of the age of the information and because Y’s social worker did not identify any other concerns.

My findings

38. Although it is clear that Y accessed social media while he was in foster care, against Mrs X’s wishes, there is no evidence that this was the Council’s fault. It took reasonable steps to restrict Y’s social media use, without removing his telephone completely (which would have gone against his father’s wishes). I have no reason to criticise the Council on this point.
39. The Council’s records demonstrate that it took steps to consider the potential risk to Y from his father, and took legal advice, before deciding not to take further action.
40. Y’s father was legally entitled to take Y home with him if he wanted to, and, if the Council objected, it would have needed to go to court. It decided not to do this. I have seen no reason why this decision was obviously unreasonable. And Mrs X raised no objection at the time either (and had not, in fact, offered an alternative).
41. The Council accepts that it did not keep Y’s case records up to date with safeguarding information it had received, for which it was at fault. However, it has given us an explanation why, in its view, this would not have made a difference to its decision-making. This explanation does not appear unreasonable. As a result, this did not cause Ms X or Y an injustice, and it would not be proportionate to recommend that further action be taken.
42. The Council should have considered Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, which would have given her the benefit of an independent investigation into the issues she raised. It did not do so, for which it was at fault.
43. Given the apparent lack of other injustice arising from the Council handling of Y’s case overall, I do not consider this lack of a statutory complaint response to have caused Mrs X a significant injustice either.
44. Nonetheless, the Council should take steps to ensure that similar complaints are dealt with under the correct procedure in future.

Back to top

Action

45. Within a month, the Council has agreed to ensure that relevant staff are sufficiently aware of all the Council’s children’s social care functions which are covered by the statutory complaints procedure (and of who is able to make a complaint under that procedure).
46. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done this.

Back to top

Decision

47. The Council was at fault. It will take action to improve its service.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman