Summary: Mr B complained the Council showed bias against him during a child in need case, failed to invite him to meetings and provide minutes, failed to provide a letter of support for his housing application, failed to carry out adequate monitoring and cancelled meetings at short notice or turned up late. The Council did not invite Mr B to all the child in need meetings, delayed sending him minutes of some of those meetings, failed to communicate properly with him and failed to provide him with a letter for his housing application. There is no evidence of bias in how the Council handled the case. The failures undermined Mr B’s trust in the process and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology, payment and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained about the way the Council handled a child in need case which involved his son. Mr B complained the Council:
• showed bias against him by treating his ex-wife more favourably;
• failed to invite him to child in need meetings, keep him up-to-date with decisions made at those meetings or provide minutes until he asked for them;
• failed to provide him with a letter of support for his housing application as it promised to do;
• failed to provide him with adequate notice of visits;
• set up meetings where key decisions about his son were made where the social worker either failed to arrive, turned up late or notified him of a cancellation when the meeting was due to take place;
• failed to monitor the progress of the court plan for shared care;
• unfairly asked his current partner to have a DBS check when his ex-wife was not asked to do the same for her partners;
• tried to set up a meeting when his ex-wife harassed his partner verbally and through social media rather than telling him to refer the matter to the police; and
• made unscheduled calls asking personal questions not linked to the well-being of his son.

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.
5. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Chronology of the main events

6. Mr B has a son with his ex wife. His ex wife has two older children from a previous relationship. The Council became involved when concerns were raised relating to the older children in 2017. The Council carried out a child and family assessment. The Council decided to make all three children subject to child in need plans to look at longer term support for the family.
7. Child in need meetings took place in November and December 2017 at which the children remained subject to child in need plans. The Council did not invite Mr B to those meetings.
8. In 2017 Mr B applied to the court for a contact order for his son. The court asked the Council to complete a section 7 report. The social worker completing the section 7 report for the court visited Mr B in February 2018.
9. A further child in need meeting took place in March 2018. The Council did not invite Mr B to that meeting.
10. In May 2018 the court issued a child arrangements order. The order said Mr B’s son should live with both parents under a shared care arrangement and directed contact to take place between Mr B and his son. The Council was to monitor that contact for six weeks. Checks by the social worker with both parties identified contact was working properly.
11.  
12. A further child in need meeting took place in May 2018. The Council did not invite Mr B to that meeting.
13. In June 2018 Mr B’s ex-wife told the Council she had asked Mr B for a different contact time which he could not do and therefore contact had been cancelled for that week. The social worker told Mr B’s ex-wife the child arrangement order came from the court and therefore contact should still go ahead. The social worker then had a similar conversation with Mr B. The social worker reiterated that advice the following week when Mr B reported he had not seen his son the previous weekend as his son had been too tired.
14. A further child in need meeting took place in July 2018. The Council did not invite Mr B to that meeting.
15. The social worker was due to carry out a home visit to see Mr B and his son in July 2018. The social worker contacted Mr B to rearrange the appointment on that day. Mr B said contact was working well.
16. In September 2018 Mr B’s ex-wife told the Council her son had reported sleeping in the same bed as Mr B and his partner. The Council’s social worker spoke to Mr B about that. Mr B said he and his partner slept on the sofa and his son slept in the bed on his own. The social worker later visited Mr B and spoke to Mr B’s son at school. That satisfied the Council the allegation made by Mr B’s ex-wife was inaccurate. The Council said it needed a police check for Mr B’s partner given she was in contact with his son. Mr B agreed but asked the Council to ensure his ex-wife’s new partner also had the same check. Mr B asked the Council for a letter to support him to get a larger flat given his son stayed with him regularly.
17. A child in need meeting took place in September 2018. Mr B attended that meeting.
18. Following an altercation at Mr B’s son’s school in October 2018 the social worker advised Mr B’s ex-wife not to attend school when Mr B was dropping their son off.
19. Mr B put in a complaint in October 2018. The Council responded to that in November 2018.
20. The social worker contacted Mr B on 13 November to arrange a visit for 18 November, which was a Sunday. The social worker said she would work around the time offered.
21. A child in need meeting took place in December 2018. Mr B attended part of the meeting.
22. In December 2018 Mr B raised concerns about the Council’s response to his complaint and asked for further information about the meetings which had taken place. He also asked the Council to confirm his partner did not need a DBS check as she had not shared a bed with his son.
23. The Council’s social worker contacted Mr B on 7 January 2019 to ask whether he was available to meet on 23 or 24 January. The social worker asked Mr B to suggest alternative dates if those dates were not suitable.
24. A child in need meeting took place in February 2019. Mr B attended the meeting. The meeting agreed to end the child in need plan.
25. The Council wrote to Mr B in February 2019 to confirm it required his partner to have a DBS check. The Council said the social worker could not provide him with a letter for housing but could speak to the allocated housing officer.
26. Mr B chased the Council for the minutes of the February 2019 child in need meeting in June 2019. The Council hand-delivered the meeting minutes to Mr B.
27. A team around the child meeting took place in June 2019. Mr B could not attend as he had already had a day off work earlier that week to attend a medical appointment with his son. The Council sent Mr B the minutes of the meeting in July 2019.
28. In September 2019 the Council received a referral from the London Ambulance Service when Mr B’s son attended accident and emergency with a burn caused by his older brother. The Council decided to complete another child and family assessment to assess risk and ensure the family were adequately supported and the children’s welfare and safety prioritised.
29. The Council’s social worker carried out a home visit in September 2019 and emailed Mr B to tell him about the safety and support plan.
30. Mr B chased the Council for an update on what was happening in October 2019. The Council sought to arrange a date to seek Mr B’s views for the child and family assessment. That meeting took place later in October. At the meeting Mr B again asked for a letter to support his housing application.
31. In November 2019 the Council completed the children and family assessment. The Council recommended a child in need plan to ensure consistent boundaries and routines in the home and to consider the children’s well-being and safety.
32. The Council held a child in need meeting in December 2019, which Mr B sent his apologies for. The Council sent Mr B a copy of the minutes of the meeting in January 2020. At that point the Council told Mr B the next meeting would take place on 12 February.
33. Mr B wrote to the Council to raise concerns about how it had communicated with him about the reopening of the child in need case in January 2020. The Council responded to that in February and March 2020.
34. A child in need meeting took place in February 2020, which the Council had invited Mr B to.
35. In March 2020 the Council’s social worker telephoned Mr B. The social worker told Mr B the next child in need meeting would take place on 4 June, depending on restrictions due to COVID-19. Shortly after that the Council suspended child in need meetings and visits. From that point social workers remained in contact by telephone unless they had identified a risk of harm.

Analysis

36. Mr B says the Council showed bias against him by treating his ex-wife more favourably. Mr B says the social worker accepted his ex-wife version of events without giving him the opportunity to present his side and asked him to alter his behaviour when his ex-wife fabricated some allegations. Having considered the documentary evidence I have found no evidence of bias. The recordings made by the social worker are even handed in the treatment of both Mr B and his ex-wife. I am also satisfied the social worker did not take allegations made by Mr B’s ex-wife at face value. Rather, the evidence I have seen satisfies me the social worker discussed those concerns with Mr B, spoke to Mr B’s son and to other professionals where relevant. That is what the Ombudsman would expect the Council to do. I have therefore found no evidence of bias in this case.
37. In reaching that view I understand why Mr B would believe the social worker was biased towards his ex-partner given the notes from the September 2018 child in need meeting refer to him not being invited to previous child in need meetings because his ex-partner did not agree for him to be invited. As the notes from that meeting record, as Mr B also had parental responsibility he should have been invited irrespective of his ex-partner’s views. I am concerned this was not picked up during supervision sessions with the social worker at an earlier stage. Failure to invite Mr B to the earlier meetings is fault. It seems to me though this is an issue of misunderstanding and failure of supervision to identify the issue rather than bias given, as I have said, the recordings made by the social worker show an even handed approach. Nevertheless, I understand why Mr B saw this as him not being treated equally.
38. Mr B says on the day of the court case in May 2018 the social worker arrived and left the court with his ex-partner. Mr B cites that as evidence of undue favour. There is nothing in the documentary evidence to clarify the circumstances in which the social worker and Mr B’s ex-partner arrived at court. I therefore cannot reach a safe conclusion on that specific issue. As I have made clear though, there is nothing in the documentary records to suggest the social worker dealing with the case was biased towards Mr B’s ex-wife. Indeed, the documentary records show Mr B’s ex-wife also raised concerns about the social worker favouring Mr B.
39. Mr B says the Council failed to invite him to child in need meetings, keep him up-to-date with decisions made at those meetings or provide minutes until he asked for them. I have found no evidence to suggest the Council invited Mr B to child in need meetings which took place before September 2018. There is no clear explanation as to why the Council did not invite Mr B to those meetings. Although I am aware the meetings were mainly concerned with the half siblings of Mr B’s son the fact Mr B’s son was also living in the household means the Council should have included Mr B, as a person with parental responsibility, in all the meetings. Failure to do that is fault. The evidence I have seen though suggests following September 2018 the Council invited Mr B to the various meetings which took place.
40. With a few exceptions I have not been able to verify the dates on which the Council sent minutes of the child in need meetings to Mr B. On one occasion those minutes were delayed by four months. On other occasions the minutes were sent relatively promptly following the meeting. Delay providing child protection minutes is fault as is failure to send minutes following meetings. It is unlikely Mr B felt fully involved in the process in those circumstances.
41. Mr B says the Council failed to provide him with a letter of support for his housing application as it promised to do. I have not found any evidence to show the Council promised to provide Mr B with a letter of support for his housing application. However, the evidence shows Mr B asked for such a letter in September 2018 and again in October 2019. There is no evidence the Council took any action in response to those requests. It is not unusual for social workers to provide a letter of support or explanation for housing applications when they are involved with families. So, to fail to provide such letter or explain to Mr B why it had not provided such a letter is fault. I cannot reach a safe conclusion though about whether Mr B would have been able to secure a larger property for his son to stay with him earlier had the social worker provided a letter. I therefore consider his injustice is limited to frustration. I consider an apology an appropriate outcome for this part of the complaint. The Council has agreed to do that.
42. Mr B says the Council failed to provide him with adequate notice of visits. I understand Mr B’s concern here because he works full-time. He therefore has to take time off for appointments for his son and it is more difficult for him to be available at short notice. On the other hand, it is not unusual for social workers to seek to make appointments with relatively short notice. In this case though I am satisfied the Council tried to work around Mr B’s home situation by offering him a choice of dates on occasion and by seeking to work around the dates he could provide. I therefore do not make a finding of fault here.
43. In terms of Mr B’s concern about the social worker failing to arrive at prearranged meetings or turning up late, the documentary evidence does not shed any light on those allegations. I therefore cannot reach a safe conclusion about whether the social worker failed to arrive for prearranged meetings. The Council refers to one occasion where the social worker was delayed due to adverse weather conditions, noting the social worker told Mr B about that on the day. In addition to that, I have identified one short notice cancellation of a visit in July 2018. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me this was due to unforeseen circumstances. As that is the only occasion where I have identified a cancellation at the last minute, I only have evidence of one occasion when the social worker was late and as I am satisfied the social worker notified Mr B in both cases I do not consider this warrants a finding of fault.
44. Mr B says the Council failed to monitor the progress of the court plan for shared care, as it had agreed to do. Mr B is referring here to the court order which recommended the social worker monitor contact from 3 June 2018 for a six-week period. I am satisfied there is evidence of the social worker discussing with both Mr B and his ex-partner how contact was going during that six-week period. Neither side raised concerns about contact. I am satisfied though there was one occasion where Mr B’s ex-wife told the social worker she had asked Mr B to amend the contact time for one of the visits. I am satisfied the social worker acted appropriately by advising Mr B’s ex-wife contact should still go ahead on the day in question given the court had made the child arrangements order. As I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council handled the contact arrangements during the six week period I have no grounds to criticise it.
45. Mr B says the Council unfairly asked his current partner to have a DBS check when it did not ask his ex-wife to do the same for her partner. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr B is referring here to discussions about his partner’s role in his son’s life following allegations made by his ex-partner. I am satisfied the Council discussed with Mr B’s ex-wife the need for her partner to have a similar check. However, the Council accepts it failed to tell Mr B it had decided not to pursue a DBS check after carrying out a further investigation. I am concerned the Council did not identify that failure when responding to Mr B’s complaint in November 2018. Failure to communicate properly with Mr B is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise. I consider that a reasonable outcome for this part of the complaint.
46. Mr B says the social worker tried to set up a meeting when his ex-wife harassed his partner verbally and through social media. Mr B says the social worker should have advised him to refer the matter to the police. There is nothing in the documentary records about Mr B’s ex-wife harassing his partner through social media. There is, however, reference in the documentation to occasions when Mr B’s ex-wife turned up at school when Mr B was dropping his son off and then had a verbal altercation with his partner. In relation to the latter point, I am satisfied the social worker followed that up by discussing the matter with Mr B’s ex-wife and making clear she should not attend school on the days Mr B was dropping his son off. So, I am satisfied the social worker took appropriate action. As there are no documentary records in relation to allegations about harassment through social media I cannot reach a safe conclusion about that particular point.
47. In terms of advising Mr B to contact the police, I do not consider this is the social worker’s responsibility unless there is a clear criminal act. In this case Mr B reported his ex-partner being verbally abusive to his partner when dropping his son off at school. I do not consider that would have necessarily led to the social worker identifying the need to report a criminal act to the police. I am satisfied though when Mr B referred to the matter as harassment the Council properly advised him to report his ex-wife to the police. In the circumstances I do not consider the Council’s actions warrant a finding of fault.
48. Mr B raises concerns about the social worker contacting him without prior arrangement and asking him personal questions not linked to the well-being of his son. As I understand it this relates to questions the social worker asked Mr B about his current partner and the arrangements when she stayed with him. I am satisfied the social worker asked those questions in light of information that Mr B’s partner was present when his son stayed with him. As the Council’s responsibility is to assess the child’s situation this will necessarily involve discussions about the people involved in the child’s life. As Mr B’s partner was involved in his son’s life and present during some of his contact with Mr B it was not fault for the Council to ask Mr B about their living arrangements. I therefore cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B for the faults identified in this statement;
• pay Mr B £150 to reflect the time and trouble he had to go to pursuing his complaint, along with his frustration;
• send a memo to those dealing with child in need cases to ensure those with parental responsibility are invited to all meetings, in split meetings if necessary, and provided with minutes of meetings; and
• send a memo to officers supervising social workers to remind them of the need to check during supervision sessions that all those with parental responsibility are invited to meetings.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mr B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman