Summary: the Council failed to follow its procedures when conducting a child in need investigation, misled Mr B, delayed closing the case and delayed responding to his complaint. That left Mr B frustrated, uncertain about whether the outcome would have been different but for the fault and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology, procedural changes and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to follow its procedures when conducting a child in need investigation;
• failed to properly inform him about the status of the investigation and the recommendations made;
• failed to properly explain what had happened when responding to his complaint; and
• delayed dealing with the complaint.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• gave the Council and Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
5. 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

What I found

Background for the child in need process

6. Mr B separated from his ex-wife in 2014. Mr B’s children live with his ex-partner and stay at Mr B’s address every other weekend. Mr B lives with his new partner and her daughter. During one visit Mr B’s daughter bit his partner’s child. After Mr B had tried all other options to manage her behaviour he smacked his daughter. Mr B’s ex-partner reported that to the NSPCC. The police cautioned Mr B and the Council began a section 47 investigation.
7. Following a strategy discussion the Council decided a child in need plan was appropriate given Mr B’s willingness to engage with support.
8. A child in need meeting took place on 16 May 2017 and the Council’s social worker completed a single assessment on 19 May. The Council put in place a child in need plan which included various recommendations. That included Mr B attending a perpetrator programme, parenting programme and anger management programme. At that point Mr B’s ex-partner had stopped the children going to Mr B for contact.
9. A child in need meeting took place on 6 July 2017. The Council did not invite Mr B to the meeting. Mr B’s ex-partner attended the meeting and asked the Council to hold split meetings in future. Mr B’s ex-partner said she would support supervised contact every other week.
10. Mr B raised concerns about the Council’s lack of contact with him. The Council apologised for that.
11. The Council assigned a new social worker and that social worker contacted Mr B on 3 August. The social worker then visited Mr B on 8 August. The social worker told Mr B about the child in need meeting planned for the following day, which Mr B did not know about. Mr B attended the child in need meeting on 9 August.
12. On 16 August the Council’s social worker made some enquiries about available courses. The Council’s social worker advised Mr B to contact his GP to get a referral for an anger management course.
13. On 18 August the Council sent Mr B an amended single assessment. The Council had made changes following a complaint from Mr B’s ex-partner.
14. On 26 September the Council invited Mr B to the second part of the child in need meeting planned for 5 October. Mr B attended the meeting. The social worker agreed to tell Mr B about the dates for the perpetrators programme and parenting programme when it was available. The meeting noted Mr B would register with his GP for the anger management course. The social worker agreed to supervise the first contact session between Mr B and his children, with the follow-up sessions supervised by his father.
15. The Council held child in need meetings on 3 and 21 November. At the first of those meetings the Council noted it could not supervise contact between Mr B and his children. Mr B did not attend those two meetings.
16. Mr B’s father attended the next child in need meeting on 12 December. Mr B’s father explained Mr B could not take time off work to attend courses. The social worker noted Mr B had said he had contacted his GP who had advised they could not make a referral for anger management. Mr B’s ex-partner told the meeting she was happy for Mr B have contact with the children when he had completed the courses. Mr B’s ex-partner said until then she wanted supervised contact.
17. On 2 January 2018 the Council made enquiries about whether there was an evening parenting course because Mr B could attend only after work. I understand the Council identified a course which Mr B began in February 2018.
18. Mr B contacted the Council on 29 May. Mr B told the Council his ex-partner had stopped contact because he had not completed the courses. Mr B raised concerns about that. He chased the Council for a response on 12 June. On 13 June the Council advised Mr B to take legal advice. The Council told Mr B it could refer him for anger management which the Council would pay for.
19. On 11 July commissioning told the social worker dealing with the case it did not have a service to deliver anger management. Commissioning suggested the social worker tell Mr B to seek a referral from his GP.
20. On 11 July the Council decided the case was ready for closure as Mr B’s ex-partner had safeguarded the children and no concerns had been raised. The Council noted it could not do anything about anger management as it did not have a service to deliver that although Mr B could seek a referral from the GP or contact MIND.
21. On 13 July the Council told Mr B it had closed the case and stepped it down to early help which could help with anger management through the standard family support. It later became clear early help could not provide an anger management course.
22. Mr B queried the Council’s advice about anger management on 18 July. The Council told Mr B the anger management course was recommended but the Council could not enforce it. The Council therefore suggested he pursue the matter privately.
23. On 22 July Mr B queried the closure of the case when there were outstanding actions. The Council told Mr B as it did not have safeguarding concerns as his contact with the children was supervised it had closed the case. The Council told Mr B if he wanted unsupervised contact the Council would recommend an anger management course. The Council also noted Mr B’s ex-partner would not facilitate and supervise contact until the course was completed.

Background for the complaints process

24. Mr B put in a complaint on 16 October 2017. Mr B chased the Council on 3 and 13 December. The Council responded at stage one on 7 February 2018.
25. Mr B asked for his complaint to go to the next stage but agreed a meeting with the service to discuss his concerns. That meeting took place on 22 March. Following the meeting the Council assigned the case to a stage two investigator on 25 April. The investigating officer met with Mr B on 10 May. The investigating officer completed the report on 17 September and upheld the complaint. On 22 September the Council wrote to Mr B to provide its response to the stage two report and to give him a proposed action plan. The Council apologised for the failures.
26. The Council’s stage three review panel considered the case on 12 March 2019. The Council wrote to Mr B to set out the stage three panel’s findings on 15 April 2019.

Stage 2 findings

27. The Council has already investigated and upheld Mr B’s complaints at stage two. The investigating officer’s main findings were:
• the standard of service provided to Mr B and his children fell short of that reasonably expected;
• the Council did not fully include Mr B in the process which denied him the fullest opportunity to have his views discussed and recorded;
• the Council did not invite Mr B to the first core group meeting, which did not give him the opportunity to share his views;
• the Council delayed sending the meeting minutes out from the first core group meeting;
• the Council relied too heavily on parents self-reporting for completion of various courses recommended in the plan;
• social workers did not know about services available for parents to take part in before adding the recommendations into the plan, with the Council expecting Mr B to source and fund courses himself;
• Mr B’s ex-partner drove the requirement for Mr B to attend an anger management course, rather than the core group or the Council;
• management supervision was poor with little evidence of formal supervision;
• there was a lack of corroboration between different forms of reliable information and evidence:
• the Council amended the original assessment without discussion with Mr B, with the social worker’s opinion removed. Both of those actions are contrary to good practice;
• there was little effective progress made during the excessive time the children were subject to a plan with a significant lack of consistency of approach and continuity;
• lack of consistency among officers about whether a child in need plan was mandatory or voluntary;
• parents poorly informed about the status of the plan's requirements;
• it took the Council three months to respond to Mr B’s complaint at stage one, a further two months for the local resolution meeting and a final response almost 6 months after the formal complaint;
• Mr B had a right to move to stage two once the Council had exceeded the stage one timescale and it should not have taken over six months to do so.
28. The stage two investigator recommended:
• an apology to Mr B;
• for the Council to ensure adequate and appropriate recording practices and supervisory practices are maintained to progress effective case management;
• for the Council to ensure staff are aware of their duty to ensure both parents are equally involved in meetings, communications and updates;
• for the Council to remind staff of their statutory duties for complaint management;
• for social care staff to keep full, clear and accurate records and to complete records promptly.
29. In response to the stage two report the Council drew up an action plan. That involved:
• a letter of apology to Mr B;
• making new staff aware of the supervision policy which encourages good quality recording and regular case file audits. For current staff the Council reinforced that through a managers meeting;
• reinforcing to staff through supervision, team meetings and the managers meeting that it should involve all parents with parental responsibility in meetings and communications unless there are specific reasons not to and it should treat parents equally;
• all ongoing complaints to appear on the weekly report so senior managers are aware when it is out of timescale; and
• reinforcing the need for good accurate records and appropriate recording through supervision and training. The Council to carry out regular audits to review the standard of case records, with any issues reported to the manager.
30. At stage three panel noted:
• there was drift and delay in the child in need plan due to social workers’ lack of knowledge of the courses they put forward;
• senior management should ensure robust systems are in place to monitor and review the action plan to prove its effectiveness over time;
• for the Department to raise staff awareness about the need to work effectively together with children, parents and carers to ensure their safety.
31. The Council wrote to Mr B following the stage three panel. The Council told Mr B it was carrying out a whole systems programme of improvement. The Council told Mr B that would include ensuring greater clarity about the thresholds for various levels of intervention. The Council said the aim of that was to ensure children who required protection were properly safeguarded and families that needed help and support got the right service at the right time for the right length of time. The Council told Mr B it was strengthening its management oversight of cases to ensure managers provide the right level of supervision and case direction to social workers. The Council again apologised to Mr B.
32. When responding to the Ombudsman the Council said it had made the following changes:
• there is now a permanent complaints manager and vacancies have been filled;
• the management structure in children's services is now more stable;
• there are clear service level agreements in place with the service manager regarding complaint handling;
• early contact with all new complainants is now a requirement of the complaints procedure;
• weekly reports are produced for managers to highlight currently active and any outstanding complaints;
• complaints that are at risk of breaching timescales without an agreed extension are escalated and monitored by the assistant director; and
• the complaints team is now more proactive in escalating issues if a delay occurs at stage one.

Analysis

33. I do not need to decide whether there was fault in this case. The Council has already accepted that and I set out the main findings in paragraphs 27 and 30. My role is therefore mainly to consider what impact those failures had on Mr B and what remedy is suitable, which I will come on to in a moment.
34. Part of the complaint to the Ombudsman though is the Council, when responding to the complaint, failed to explain why it had treated Mr B’s family as it did. I understand why Mr B would want some clarity about why things went so wrong in this case. However, I consider the stage two and three processes were clear there was a failure in overall management of the process as well as a failure to follow processes and guidance and a lack of understanding amongst those involved in the case. It is also clear staff turnover at both social worker and management level has been high, which has had an impact. I do not believe there is anything further the Council can say, other than to make clear the management of this case was unacceptable, which it has already done.
35. I therefore move on to what remedy is appropriate for this case. It is clear Mr B believes if the Council had handled this case properly his ex-partner would not have prevented unsupervised access to his children. I understand why Mr B would take that view. The Council had included contact arrangements in the child in need discussions and plans and had included a recommendation for Mr B to complete an anger management course. As well as that the Council had not clearly explained to either Mr B or his ex-partner that the child in need process was voluntary and the Council’s ability to secure actions was limited. Nor had the Council properly explained contact arrangements were a private law matter between Mr B and his ex-partner.
36. I understand in those circumstances why Mr B would believe if the Council had explained all of that properly his ex-partner would not have prevented him seeing his children unsupervised. However, as Mr B has also noted, it was his ex-partner that pushed for the anger management course before she would allow unsupervised access. The documentary records show Mr B’s ex-partner said at an early stage she did not want Mr B to have unsupervised access to their children without him undertaking some kind of anger management course. That impetus came from Mr B’s ex-partner rather than the Council. It is also clear from the documentary evidence that even when Mr B’s ex-partner became aware the Council could not enforce the anger management course and contact arrangements could only be decided by the courts she still decided not to allow unsupervised access between Mr B and his children. In those circumstances I cannot say that without fault by the Council Mr B would have had unsupervised access to his children. I accept though Mr B has some uncertainty about whether the situation would have been different but for the Council’s fault. I therefore consider Mr B’s injustice relates to his frustration the Council did not properly explain the process to him and his ex-partner, his uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different and the time and trouble he has had to go to pursuing his complaint. In addition to the practical changes the Council has put in place, which I will need evidence of, and the apology the Council has already given, I recommended the Council pay Mr B £750. The Council has agreed to that recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• pay Mr B £750 and
• provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the action it has taken to comply with the action plan.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman