Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it assessed and supported Z, under section 17 of the Children Act, prior to court action being taken.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council’s children’s services department failed to provide support to his daughter, his ex-partner and himself. He says that this lack of support led to his daughter going into local authority care.
2. I refer to Mr X’s ex-partner as Ms Y, and their daughter as Z.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the level of support provided by the Council between August 2016 and May 2017.
4. The final section of this decision statement sets out why I did not investigate other matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint, and considered information from Mr X and the Council.
10. I wrote to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

The Children Act 1989

11. Section 17 of the Act sets out the duties and powers of councils in respect of children who it decides are ‘in need’.
12. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to identify children in need within their area and, when identified, to assess their needs.
13. When a council has assessed a child and decided they are in need, it is under the duty to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare by providing services appropriate to their needs. Services can also be provided to family members, if this safeguards or promotes the child’s welfare.
14. Councils, in exercising their functions under section 17 of the Act, can provide accommodation or cash, as well as other services.
15. Section 20 of the Act sets out the duties of councils to provide accommodation to children in need.

What happened

16. In August 2016 the Council received information from the housing department of a district council in its area. The district council raised concerns about the mental health of Mr X and Ms Y. It said they were experiencing issues with debt and were shortly to be homeless.
17. The Council visited the family on 25 August. By that point, Ms Y had been admitted to a local mental health hospital for four days, but had been discharged. She was, however, receiving support from the community mental health team (CMHT), and Mr X had been trying to access adult social care support for her. The Council decided to conduct an assessment of Z’s needs.
18. The Council completed its assessment in October. It decided Z’s needs could be met with support from her nursery and from CMHT. It said there was no evidence that Ms Y’s mental health issues were affecting Z’s welfare. It closed the case, and recorded that Mr X and Ms Y were happy with this course of action.
19. In November the Council received a further referral from a local hospital, which had concerns about Ms Y’s mental health. The Council spoke to Mr X, who said they were no longer receiving support from Z’s nursery because she no longer attended. He said this was because they had not paid the fees.
20. A week later, Ms Y was detained in hospital again. Mr X told the hospital that he could no longer look after both Ms Y and Z.
21. The Council visited Mr X on 6 December. He said he wanted the Council to fund a nursery place for Z, so he could work when Ms Y was ill (instead of having to look after Z, which was preventing him working). The Council told him that it was not the role of children’s services to fund nursery places.
22. However, later in December the Council changed its mind about potential nursery funding. It asked Mr X to provide evidence of his finances, so it could decide if he was eligible for financial support from children’s services.
23. On 11 January 2017 the Council asked Mr X, again, to send evidence of his finances.
24. On 6 February the Council visited Mr X and Ms Y (who, by that point, had been discharged from hospital). Mr X asked for further support from children’s services to care for Z. The Council asked him, once more, for evidence of his finances.
25. On 15 February Mr X asked the Council when it would start paying for Z’s nursery fees. The Council told him he had still not provided evidence of his finances.
26. On 20 February Mr X asked for a Mental Health Act assessment for Ms Y.
27. On 3 March the Council completed an assessment of Z’s needs. It decided there was a continued role for children’s services. It said Mr X was struggling to care for both Ms Y and Z. It said he was unable to work because Z was not attending nursery, and this was contributing to financial difficulties.
28. On 9 March the Council agreed to pay Z’s arrears at nursery and to fund one month’s nursery fees. A child in need meeting was held the same day, and professionals raised concerns about both Mr X and Ms Y’s mental health. Mr X said they needed more support from CMHT.
29. On 5 April, during a home visit, the Council recorded concerns about Mr X’s behaviour. It said he appeared paranoid and thought the Council was part of a conspiracy against him.
30. After the visit, Mr X took Z to the hospital, and said he suspected she had been poisoned. The hospital called the Council and said it had concerns about Mr X’s behaviour.
31. That evening, Z stayed with Mr X’s brother overnight. However, he told the Council the following day that he could not look after Z any longer.
32. On 6 April Ms Y was admitted to hospital again. Mr X and Ms Y requested that Z be accommodated by the Council. The Council placed Z with a foster carer under section 20 of the Children Act.
33. On 10 April Mr X and Ms Y told the Council that they did not want Z to return home until they had recovered. On 11 April CMHT told the Council that both Mr X and Ms Y were receiving support for their mental health.
34. On 17 April, during a planning meeting, Mr X told the Council that he wanted it to ensure that he and Ms Y were receiving proper mental health support.
35. On 2 May Mr X and Ms Y withdrew their permission for Z to be in the care of the Council. Z returned to their care.
36. On 4 May the Council applied to Court for an Emergency Protection Order, which was granted. An Interim Care Order was issued on 15 May.

Analysis

37. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to identify children in need within their area and, when identified, to assess their needs. When a council has assessed a child and decided they are in need, it is under the duty to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare by providing appropriate services.
38. Mr X asked the Council’s children’s services department to provide more mental health support to Ms Y, including a Mental Health Act assessment. However, this was not a power that children’s services had. Ms Y – apart from being in and out of hospital – received support from CMHT, which is part of the NHS. It was for the NHS to decide the level of mental health support it provided to Ms Y, not the Council.
39. However, there is evidence in Z’s social care file that the Council gained information from CMHT and invited it to be a part of Z’s child in need plan. This means that the Council worked in tandem with CMHT to meet Z’s needs.
40. Mr X asked for three things from the Council which it could actually deliver. Firstly he (and Ms Y) asked the Council to accommodate Z under section 20 of the Children Act. The Council did this.
41. Secondly, Mr X and Ms Y asked the Council to return Z to their care (by withdrawing their consent for the Council to provide accommodation). The Council did this as well.
42. Thirdly, Mr X asked the Council to provide funding for Z to attend nursery. The Council asked him to provide his financial information four times before he did, and it then agreed to pay his arrears and to fund one month’s fees.
43. A month after the Council agreed to this, the Council accommodated Z, and therefore did not need to give Mr X more money for nursery fees.
44. The Council initially told Mr X that it was not the role of children’s services to fund nursery placements. This is incorrect, if by funding the placement the Council would be safeguarding and promoting the welfare of a child in need.
45. However, it is clear that – once Mr X provided evidence that he needed the money – the Council provided funds promptly and paid for the placement until Z entered local authority care.
46. As a result – and apart from the services, such as those provided by the NHS, which the Council was unable to provide – I can see no evidence that the Council failed to deliver services to meet Z’s assessed needs, or that it ignored Mr X’s requests for support.
47. I acknowledge that Mr X considers the Council’s support (or alleged lack thereof) to have been a contributory factor in the Court’s decision that Z should enter local authority care. However, this was a matter for the Court to decide, not the Ombudsman.
48. For the reasons given above, I consider the Council to have met its duties, and I have not found that it was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

49. The Council was not at fault in how it assessed and supported Z, under section 17 of the Children Act, prior to court action being taken.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

50. I did not investigate events from before August 2016. Mr X first complained to the Ombudsman in October 2017, and I cannot look at events from more than 12 months before that unless there are good reasons. As a new period of children’s services involvement began in August 2016 – 14 months before Mr X’s complaint – I decided there were good reasons investigate events from then. However, I did not look at older events.
51. I did not look at events from May 2017 onwards. Court proceedings in respect of Z began on 4 May 2017, and I cannot investigate complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman