Summary: Miss B complains that the Council has not properly dealt with child protection proceedings for her family because it has not implemented recommendations from her complaint and has not provided sufficient support. The Council was at fault because it did not provide sufficient support in the earlier stages of her case. The Council has apologised to Miss B, re-engaged with her family and has re-considered the necessary level of support for the family. The Council has agreed to pay Miss B £1000 in respect of the distress she and her family have suffered and pay Miss B £500 in respect of the risk of harm they were exposed to by the failure of services.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complains the Council has not properly dealt with child protection proceedings because:
• It has not implemented the recommendations made during the complaints process.
• It has offered insufficient support, including proposals for financial help, irregularly held meetings, inadequate support from a social worker, not holding legal meetings and providing inadequate support for her eldest daughter.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Miss B’s complaint about child protection meetings as made to the Council. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
8. 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

How I considered this complaint

9. I have spoken to Miss B about her complaint and considered the information she has provided to the Ombudsman. I have also considered the Council’s response to her complaint and its response to my enquiries.
10. I have written to Miss B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.
11. I have exercised discretion to investigate Miss B’s complaint because she has complained to the Ombudsman very soon after completing the statutory children’s complaints process.

Back to top

What I found

Children’s services complaints

12. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, he may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
13. There are time limits within which the Council should complete its investigations. At stage 2 the investigation of the complaint should take no longer than 25 days or 65 days where the complaint is more complex. The timescales only apply from the date when the complaint and scope of investigation is agreed with the complainant where the complaint has been submitted orally.
14. If a complaint goes to stage 3 then the panel’s consideration of the complaint should take no longer than 35 days and the Council has a further 15 days to respond to the findings.

Children Act 1989

15. The Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children by providing a range of services appropriate to each child’s needs. (Children Act 1989, section 17)
16. The Council must make enquiries when it has “reasonable cause to suspect that a child... is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm”. The Council has to decide what action, if any, it should take to safeguard the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)

Statutory Guidance

17. There is current statutory guidance on undertaking assessments of children under s17. (Working Together to Safeguard Children, DfE 2018)

What happened

18. Miss B lived with her four children. Following disclosures of potential abuse by Miss B’s ex-partner, a strategy meeting decided to make s47 enquiries, involving the police in part. The Council closed the case in October 2017 because it considered the children were safe with Miss B.
19. The police investigation continued. At the end of the police investigation in May 2018, no action was taken.
20. The children were made subject to a child protection plan in June 2018. Miss B’s eldest daughter was admitted to hospital in September 2018 and November 2018 for a total of approximately six weeks.

Miss B’s complaint

21. Miss B made a Stage 1 complaint in July 2018 that the Council had not dealt with her case properly regarding core meetings, lack of communication through successive social workers, reporting breaches of a protection plan and the lack of support from the Council. The Council responded to Miss B at stage 1 at the end of August 2018.
22. Miss B asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 in early October 2018. The Council agreed to this in October 2018 and the stage 2 report was completed and sent to Miss B in March 2019. The stage 2 investigation upheld most of Miss B’s complaint.
23. Miss B asked for her complaint to be considered at stage 3. She met with the Council to try to resolve her complaint but this was unsuccessful.
24. Miss B’s complaint was reviewed by a Stage Three Panel in May 2019. The Council agreed with the findings of the stage three review panel, including:
• That core group meetings were not held between the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) and the review conference. There was a four month delay in holding the first core group meeting.
• Support that should have been provided in the period immediately following the ICPC was not there.
• There was a persistent theme of inadequate communication and there was discontinuity between successive social workers allocated to Miss B.
• Miss B was unable to contact a social worker about her ex-partner breaching the child protection plan.
• The issues identified in the original child protection plan were poorly delivered and ineffective in supporting the family, until September 2018.
• There was confusion and uncertainty about the financial support that was offered or potentially available to Miss B.
• Miss B had not been communicated with in a consistent and helpful way.
• There have been strenuous efforts to recover the situation caused by the initial unacceptable response following the ICPC.
• The failure to hold core group meetings led to a lack of joined up working, which impacted on the delivery of services.
25. The stage three review panel Considered Miss B’s desired outcomes and made five recommendations:
• The Local Authority should inform Miss B in writing of its duties, and responsibilities, including financial, to her and her children now and in the future.
• The Local Authority should consider creating a simple resource that can be provided to all parents and carers to explain the processes involved in creating and implementing Child Protection Plans and Child in Need Plans, including a simple bespoke guide of who to contact in emergency situations.
• The Local Authority should facilitate the proposed parent focus group to look at suggested changes in system and what could be done better, from the perspective of those who have been in receipt of services such as Miss B.
• The Local Authority should continue to seek within their remit, along with Miss B, the most appropriate legal safeguards to protect the children now and in the future.
• The Local Authority should ensure through its Quality Assurance systems that child protection plans and child in need plans are appropriately implemented.
26. The Council wrote to Miss B in June 2019 accepting the Stage Three Panel’s findings and responding to the recommendations. Miss B remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

27. Miss B says the Council suggested in a telephone call that it could make a payment to her to allow her to take a sabbatical from work. Miss B says she was unable to agree and follow up this proposal. Miss B also says when she had moved house she approached the Council again about financial assistance. Emails between Miss B and the Council show Miss B requested financial assistance from the Council in September 2018 in respect of three months social care funding and a deposit for a house. The Council responded highlighting issues including impact on sick pay, benefits and the extent of foster care provided. The Council passed Miss B’s request on to be considered as part of the support plan.
28. Emails show the Council agreed in principle to provide limited social care funding for Miss B, subject to consideration of the issues it raised. The support plan in October 2018 includes Miss B moving house but does not contain any reference to the financial support she requested.
29. The Council agrees that no financial assessment was carried out in respect of the social care funding request. The Council says the stage two report explains why. The stage two report found the council would need to exercise due diligence and follow appropriate processes. I have not seen any evidence that this was considered further by the Council, or that Miss B provided clarification regarding issues the Council raised. On the balance of probabilities, no further action was taken by the Council.
30. The Council provided Miss B with a deposit to enable her to move house and is not requiring this to be repaid.
31. Emails from Miss B to the Council in December 2018 show the Council acknowledged there were continuing problems around delivering the support that was identified in the October plan.
32. The stage 3 panel notes that strenuous efforts had been made to recover the situation caused by the unacceptable response following the ICPC.
33. The Council has accepted the findings of the stage three panel upholding the majority of Miss B’s complaint, as summarised in paragraph 20.
34. The Council wrote to Miss B in June 2019 in respect of the five recommendations made by the stage three panel.
• In respect of recommendation one, the Council’s response outlined the law relating to financial assistance under s17(6) of the Children’s Act 1989. It stated the financial assistance previously provided to Miss B and the process which would apply if future financial support was requested. While Miss B does not agree with the outcome, the Council was clear about the position regarding financial assistance and in doing so, rectified any earlier opacity or misunderstanding.
• The Council said it would comply with recommendations two and three, to ensure a parent guide is available and to arrange a parent focus group to look at changes and what could be done better.
• In respect of recommendation four, the Council said all future intervention should be subject to legal advice.
• In respect of recommendation five, the Council explained changes that had been made to its quality assurance systems.

What has the Council done?

35. Since the Stage three panel hearing:
• The Council has held a legal planning meeting in June 2019, shortly after the stage 3 review panel hearing, to consider the options available. The legal planning meeting considered Miss B’s situation including the outcome of the legal planning meeting held in October 2018. It decided that matters, “should be progressed through private law if the risk is of ongoing intimidation/harassment which would provide reassurance to both the children and the mother. If there is evidence on ongoing harm from intimidation/harassment then the Council should work with the police as well as through the PLO process if necessary.”
• The legal planning meeting also noted that “During this meeting, it was clear that the family was at a crisis point with the children presenting with significant emotional and behavioural difficulties”, that during the initial stages, “no visits or core groups were made for 3 months.” and funding to apply for a Child Arrangement Order (CAO) had been refused in 2018.
• Child In Need (CIN) meetings were held in June and July 2019.
• the Council offered to meet with Miss B to explain the considerations made at the legal planning meeting. Miss B declined this offer.
• Miss B has disengaged and requested her case be closed, because she didn’t feel the Council was providing any support.
• Following contact from Child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) who expressed concerns, the Council asked to meet Miss B to discuss practical support for all the children. A home visit has been made to Miss B by the new team manager.
• A further CIN meeting has been held in October 2019. The outcome of this meeting was that Miss B and her family required targeted support. The children were made subject to a CIN plan. It decided that the case was to step down, with referrals being made to a range of services to provide the support deemed necessary.
• The Council then reviewed Miss B’s case again. It says Miss B’s case requires CIN statutory level engagement. It has offered continuing CIN support to Miss B and her family.
36. Evidence from the legal planning meeting shows the Council has considered the legal options open to it.
37. There has been a period of time when CIN meetings were not held monthly but this was due to Miss B choosing to disengage from statutory services. The Council has held CIN meetings when Miss B has reengaged.
38. Case notes and meeting records show that the Council has reviewed and assessed its response to Miss B and her family as circumstances have changed and new evidence has become available.

Was the Council at fault?

39. The Council has accepted the findings of the stage three panel upholding the majority of Miss B’s complaint.
40. The Council is at fault because:
• did not deal with Miss B’s case effectively and provide adequate support before September 2018.
• there were continuing communication problems in late 2018 concerning the delivery of support.
• the Council considered Miss B’s request for financial support but did not consider Miss B’s request for social care funding through the appropriate processes.
41. The stage 3 panel acknowledged the Council had made “significant efforts to recover a situation caused by the very poor initial response by Children’s Services.” and “there have been strenuous efforts made to recover the situation caused by the initial unacceptable response following the ICPC.”
42. The Council is not at fault in respect of its response to the Stage 3 panel’s recommendations or how it has dealt with Miss B’s case after the Stage 3 panel.

Did Miss B suffer any injustice?

43. Miss B and her family were not provided with support identified as part of the Family plan from June 2018 umtil September 2018. The stage 2 investigation found a high probability fault by the Council contributed to Miss B’s eldest daughter’s hospital admission in September 2018. Miss B and her eldest daughter particularly, have suffered distress as a result. The service failure also resulted in a risk of harm to Miss B and her family.
44. Delivery of support to Miss B and her family continued to suffer problems until December 2018. This has contributed to distress suffered by Miss B and her family.
45. There was confusion and uncertainty about the financial support that was offered or potentially available to Miss B in 2018. Miss B is unable to apply for assistance retrospectively. This has contributed to distress suffered by Miss B and her family.
46. It is also clear that factors outside the control of the Council have impacted on Miss B and her family. The police decision not to take action against Miss B’s ex-partner has been a causative factor, as well as the failure of statutory services. I am therefore unable to attribute all the problems faced by Miss B’s family to fault by the Council.
47. Miss B says the Council should compensate her for three months leave. I have considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. We aim to put the person who has suffered an injustice back in the position they would have been in, but for the fault. Where that is not possible, we may suggest a financial sum instead to recognise the injustice. This is not compensation. Compensation is a matter for a court and the sums awarded are on a different basis. In this case, the injustice to Miss B and her family was significant, which is reflected in the agreed remedy. If Miss B believes she needs financial support now, she should tell the Council and it should consider her request.

Agreed action

48. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Miss B £1000 for the distress caused to her and her family.
• Pay Miss B £500 for the risk of harm her family was exposed to as a result of service failure.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have found that the Council was at fault because it did not provide sufficient support to Miss B or her family. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

50. I have not investigated Miss B’s complaint about inadequate support from a social worker which did not form part of her original complaint to the Council, because it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault and there is no apparent injustice caused to Miss B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman