Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly placed his son on a child protection plan when it accepts it failed to follow the right process and completed a flawed single assessment. There were some errors in the single assessment which did not affect the overall outcome. The Council failed to consider sharing a redacted version of the single assessment with Mr B before the initial child protection conference. Those errors have undermined Mr B’s confidence in the process. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained about the way the Council dealt with a child protection case. Mr B complained the Council:
• failed to follow the right process when assessing his family and arranging an initial child protection conference;
• completed a flawed single assessment;
• unreasonably placed his son on a child protection plan when the initial child protection conference did not vote to approve that action; and
• unreasonably refused to delete the family’s record from the database when the Council accepts the single assessment was flawed.

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. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
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;
• considered Mr B’s comments on my draft decision; and
• considered the Council’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The Council received a police referral about Mr B’s family following an incident on 20 May 2018. The Council held a strategy meeting, at which a representative of the police attended. All professionals present agreed the threshold for significant harm had been met. The Council therefore agreed to carry out a section 47 investigation.
6. The social worker assigned to the case discussed it with her team manager on 23 May and visited Mr B’s wife later that day. Mr B’s wife later returned home and the social worker visited and met both Mr B and his wife.
7. On 11 June the Chair of the initial child protection conference agreed the Council should share the single assessment with the parents in the morning before the conference. The conference took place on 12 June. The conference decided to place Mr B’s son on a child protection plan.
8. The team manager signed off the single assessment on 15 June.
9. Mr B’s son remained on a child protection plan until the review child protection conference on 18 December 2018. At that point the Council stepped the case down to a child in need plan.
10. Following a stage three complaint the Council apologised to Mr B for inaccurate recording of dates within the single assessment, wrongly saying the Council had shared the single assessment with him before the initial child protection conference and for not providing him with a copy of the final single assessment with the manager’s comments included.

Cambridgeshire safeguarding procedures

11. The initial child protection conference brings together family members, the child, where appropriate, and those professionals most involved with the child and family following a Section 47 Enquiry. Its purpose is:
• To bring together and analyse in an inter-agency setting, the information which has been obtained about the child's developmental needs, and the parents' or carers' capacity to respond to these needs, to ensure the child's safety and promote the child's health and development within the context of their wider family and environment;
• To consider the evidence presented to the conference, make judgements about whether the child is suffering or likely to suffer Significant Harm in the future and decide whether the child is at continuing risk of harm; and
• To decide what future action is required to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child, how that action will be taken forward, and with what intended outcomes.
12. All initial child protection conferences should take place within 15 working days of the strategy discussion, or, where more than one strategy discussion took place, of the strategy discussion at which the Section 47 Enquiry was initiated.
13. In Cambridgeshire, the expectation is that all single assessments will be completed within 35 working days and the majority within 20 working days. Assessments must always be completed within 45 working days.
14. Although a single assessment is the means by which a Section 47 Enquiry is carried out, it is unlikely it will have been completed in time for the initial child protection conference. The report will therefore summarise and analyse the information obtained so far.
15. The conference decision should result from the Chair ensuring that:
• All the information available to conference has been scrutinised by the conference members and information that is missing has been noted;
• All conference members have had an opportunity to present their views and challenge the views of others;
16. When consensus cannot be reached, the Chair will decide whether or not the child will become subject of a child protection plan, giving reasons for this decision. This will be clearly recorded on the conference minutes.
17. There may be times when the Chair disagrees with the consensus of conference members and overrides the decision made. It is expected the conference minutes will clearly record this decision
18. The full engagement of parents in conferences must be encouraged and supported. As well as sharing the contents of their report with parents before each conference, social workers must explain the role and purpose of conference, who will attend, implications and function of a child protection plan, etc.

Analysis

19. Mr B says the Council failed to follow the right procedure when assessing his family and arranging an initial child protection conference. Mr B says due to flaws in the way the Council approached the case it should not have moved the case onto child protection or placed his son on a child protection plan.
20. The first issue is whether a team manager approved the decision to move to an initial child protection conference. Mr B says because the team manager added comments onto the single assessment retrospectively this means the manager did not sanction the initial child protection conference. In contrast the Council says the team manager considered the case on 6 June 2018. Having considered the documentary records I have found no note to suggest the team manager considered the case on 6 June. If that were the case I would have expected the case notes to record that fact. Nevertheless, I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the team manager sanctioned the decision to go to an initial child protection conference. I take that view as the case notes from 25 May 2018 record the need to discuss moving to an initial child protection conference with the team manager. I further note the team manager added her comments to the single assessment before the initial conference took place.
21. Mr B complains about the information included in the single assessment. Mr B says flaws in the single assessment mean the decision to place his son on a child protection plan is also flawed. The first concern Mr B has about the information recorded in the single assessment concerns how the social worker dealt with the concerns raised by the police. Mr B says the police did not refer to him of assaulting his wife or committing domestic violence. Mr B also says the single assessment ignored the fact the police did not pursue a criminal prosecution.
22. I have carefully considered the content of the single assessment and the information provided by the police. I note in particular the police risk assessment records a history of abuse in the relationship from 2015, with Mr B’s wife reporting Mr B had beaten her. The police risk assessment refers to Mr B twisting his wife’s arm in an arm lock the previous week, dropping the baby on the bed and assaulting his wife by pushing her in the face on 20 May 2018. I am satisfied the information in the single assessment reflects the police report. I further note the single assessment regularly uses the phrase ‘it was reported.’ By using that phrase I am satisfied the social worker made clear she was referring to what she had been told, rather than making a finding of fact. As the single assessment reflects the police report I have no grounds on which to criticise it.
23. For the police decision not to pursue a criminal prosecution, the Council has explained to Mr B that decision does not prevent the Council pursuing a child protection enquiry. That is because in considering whether to pursue a criminal prosecution the police have to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That is a different test to the test applied by the Council which considers whether there is risk of harm to a child. So, the fact the police did not pursue a criminal prosecution does not mean the Council should not have begun a child protection enquiry. Instead, the Council had to consider the circumstances of the case and decide whether a child protection investigation was suitable. In this case I am satisfied the police made clear during the section 47 investigation it believed the threshold had been met for a section 47 investigation, as did the other professional present. I am also satisfied the minutes for the initial child protection conference show members knew the police had decided to take no action on the allegation due to inadequate evidence. The evidence also records conference members knew about the second risk assessment which showed a reduced risk level. So, I am satisfied conference members had the relevant information about the police decision and the second risk assessment when they decided to move to a child protection plan. I am therefore satisfied the decision to move to a section 47 enquiry and then to a child protection plan were reached properly. So, I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
24. Mr B says the Council retrospectively amended the single assessment after the initial child protection conference to add in the manager’s comments. As I said earlier, I am satisfied the manager added her comments onto the single assessment before the initial child protection conference took place. The Council’s procedures are clear though the social worker may not have completed the single assessment in time for the initial child protection conference.
25. The Council has accepted the single assessment has some errors in it. That includes some dates recorded, reference to sharing the single assessment with Mr B before the initial conference and reference to the family consenting to the investigation. The Council accepts it did not share the single assessment with Mr B on the date recorded in the single assessment. That is fault. The Council accepts Mr B had not consented to the investigation. That is fault. There is also an error in a date recorded. That again is fault. Mr B suggests those errors undermine the decision to place his son on a child protection plan. I understand Mr B’s concern about errors in the report and why that would have undermined his confidence in the process. However, I do not consider the errors affected the decision to place his son on a child protection plan. I therefore consider the apology the Council has already offered Mr B a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint, although I recommended the Council amend the single assessment to wording to make clear who has consented to the assessment. The Council has now migrated to a new case recording system which provides a section to distinguish which family member has provided consent, which I consider meets my recommendation.
26. I am aware the Council did not share the single assessment with Mr B before the initial child protection conference took place. I recognise there are circumstances where the Council may not want to share reports with family members before the meeting takes place, particularly when the report includes information which the family member may not know about. However, I would expect the Council in those circumstances to consider whether it can provide the family member with a redacted version of the report before the conference. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council considered that in this case. That is fault. While I cannot reach a safe conclusion about whether the Council would have felt able to produce a redacted version of the report I consider Mr B is left with some doubt about whether he would have had more information available to him before the initial child protection conference. I recommended the Council apologise to Mr B for not considering whether it could redact the report. I also recommended the Council send a memo to those dealing with child protection enquiries to ensure officers consider producing a redacted report for parents before an initial child protection conference takes place where officers do not believe it appropriate to share the full report. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
27. Mr B notes the Council has two versions of the single assessment. The first is a 14 page document and the second is an 18 page document. Mr B says the social worker misled the initial child protection conference by referring to the 14 page single assessment as a draft version. As I said in paragraph 14, the Council’s procedures are clear the social worker may not complete the single assessment in time for the initial child protection conference. In those circumstances I am satisfied it is likely panel will receive a draft or uncompleted version of the single assessment which the social worker will then update after the meeting takes place. That is not fault. In this case I have compared the 14 page version of the single assessment with the 18 page version. I am satisfied the main difference between the two is the team manager’s comments. As I said earlier, I am satisfied the team manager logged those comments on 11 June 2018 before the initial child protection conference took place. Given that and the fact the procedures recognise the social worker may not complete the single assessment in time for the initial child protection conference I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
28. Mr B says the social worker misled the stage three panel by telling it the single assessment was the same as the child protection conference report. Mr B says that is misleading as the two are different reports. Having considered the documentary evidence I note the child protection conference report is different to the single assessment, although the single assessment forms the basis of the child protection conference report. I have found no evidence though to suggest any confusion about the status of the two reports affected either the outcome of the initial child protection conference or consideration of Mr B’s complaint. I therefore do not intend to pursue it further.
29. Mr B says the Council bribed his wife by offering her vouchers and furniture. Mr B suggests it was those offers of support which encouraged his wife to attend meetings. Having considered the documentary records though I note the social worker identified items of support such as food vouchers and exploring funding options for a double bed as items for the family due to their financial circumstances. I have found nothing to suggest the social worker only intended those offers for Mr B’s wife or made them based on Mr B’s wife’s agreement to take certain actions. As it is not unusual for the Council to offer food vouchers or help identifying funding for items a family cannot afford I have no grounds to criticise it. I have found no evidence to suggest the Council promised to help get Mr B’s wife permanent residency in the UK.
30. Mr B says the Council placed his son on a child protection plan when most members of the child protection conference did not support that conclusion. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. There were five people that expressed a view about how to proceed with the case at the initial child protection conference. Two of those people where Mr B and his wife. Neither of them supported a child protection plan. However, it is the professionals present at the meeting who decide the outcome, rather than family members. In this case I am satisfied two of the three professionals decided to move to a child protection plan. As conference reached that decision after properly considering the evidence, including the comments from Mr B and his wife, I have no grounds to criticise it.
31. It follows because I have found no fault in the Council’s decision to pursue a child protection plan I cannot criticise the Council for refusing to delete Mr B’s family’s case from the database. In any event, the fact the child protection investigation took place is a factual event and the Council therefore cannot remove it from its records.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B for the faults identified in this statement; and
• send a memo to those dealing with child protection enquiries to ensure where it is decided the single assessment cannot be shared with parents before the initial child protection conference consideration is given to producing a redacted version which can be shared.
33. The Council has now amended the process for recording cases which means the single assessment will make clear which family member has provided consent.

Back to top

Final decision

34. 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