Summary: Mr C says the Council refused to provide him with information about his daughter, failed to act on safeguarding concerns he raised, produced an unbalanced child and family assessment, failed to see his daughter away from the family home when completing the assessment and delayed considering his complaint. There is no evidence the Council refused to provide Mr C with information about his daughter or any fault in how the Council obtained his daughter’s views. The Council failed to record its view for one of the safeguarding concerns, included some factually inaccurate information in the child and family assessment and delayed considering his complaint. An apology, training for officers and payment to Mr C is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complained the Council:
• failed to deal appropriately with a safeguarding investigation in 2017;
• refused to provide him with information about his daughter despite the fact he has parental responsibility;
• failed to act on safeguarding concerns he raised in 2018;
• failed to share with him information about the education provided to his daughter when she became homeschooled;
• produced an unbalanced child and family assessment in 2018 which contained factually inaccurate information;
• failed to properly seek his daughter’s views away from the family home for the child and family assessment;
• accessed his medical records without his permission;
• produced an inaccurate section 7 report for court;
• delayed completing the section 7 report for court; and
• delayed considering his complaint.
2. Mr C says these matters have caused him a significant amount of personal stress and he believes his daughter continues to be at risk of long-term psychological harm.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated those parts of the complaint which relate to events from 2018 onwards and which do not concern court proceedings. 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

4. 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)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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 C disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended and section 34 (3)
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
10. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
11. 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

What should have happened

12. Northumberland Children's Services Procedures Manual (the procedures) covers what should happen when the Council becomes aware of a child in need of help or protection.
13. The procedures say within one working day the social worker should make a decision about the type of response required. This will include determining whether:
• the child requires immediate protection and urgent action is required;
• there is reasonable cause to suspect the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, and whether enquires must be made and the child assessed under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989;
• the child is in need and should be assessed under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989;
• any services are required by the child and family and what type of services.
14. The procedures say the initial disposal of a referral, which must be authorised by the manager, may be:
• the child does not appear to be a child in need, which will result in one of the following: provision of information, advice, sign-posting to another agency, referral to Early Help and/or no further action;
• the child appears to be a child in need with a moderate level of need, in which case, the manager may authorise a child and family assessment;
• the child appears to be a child in need with a high level of need, which must result in an assessment;
• it is suspected that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer from significant harm, which will result in an assessment, with a view to conducting a strategy discussion, prior to a section 47 Enquiry commencing.
15. The Council’s elective home education guidance (the guidance) makes clear parents have a duty to ensure their children receive a suitable full-time education either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. Elective home education is a form of ‘education otherwise than at school’.
16. The guidance says, once informed of a decision to home educate, the Council has a responsibility to make informal enquiries of the parent to satisfy itself they are providing a suitable education for the child.
17. The guidance says under Section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996 councils can intervene if they have good reason to believe parents are not providing a suitable education.

What happened

The substantive events

18. Mr C has a daughter who lives with her mother, from whom Mr C is separated. Until 2017 Mr C had regular contact with his daughter. At the end of 2017 the mother of the child decided to home educate her. The Council visited the mother and obtained an education plan which the Council was satisfied with. The Council provided Mr C with a copy of that plan in May 2018.
19. In February 2018 the Council received contact from the school Mr C’s daughter previously attended, raising some concerns the paternal grandfather had reported. Mr C also contacted the Council. Mr C said he was concerned the mother was isolating his daughter by withdrawing her from education and seeking a diagnosis of Asperger’s in order to obtain benefits. The Council told Mr C it would refer the matter for consideration of the best person to support the family. The Council explained to Mr C withdrawing a child from school was not a safeguarding concern in itself. Mr C contacted the Council the next day to reiterate his concerns and raise new concerns about the mother taking the child to work with her. The Council told Mr C he should report that to the mother’s employer.
20. The Council decided to carry out a child and family assessment. A Council officer visited the mother and child to begin the assessment as well as contacting the former school and the GP surgery. The Council’s officer also visited Mr C.
21. The Council’s officer contacted the youth team due to concerns about the child being isolated. The youth team provided some details of sessions it could provide for Mr C’s daughter. The Council’s officer visited the mother and child and both agreed to a visit from the youth team to discuss social activities. I understand Mr C’s daughter later decided not to pursue those options.
22. The Council shared the child and family assessment with Mr C and he raised some concerns about the content, although he said overall he was happy with the recommendations and observations made. Mr C asked for some amendments though in relation to factual inaccuracies in the report.
23. A court hearing took place in June 2018 as Mr C was seeking contact with his daughter, for which the Council had to complete a section 7 report.
24. Mr C contacted the Council for an update on 24 June. The Council provided an update on 27 June. The Council provided further updates on 2 and 13 July.
25. Mr C asked the Council for an update on 20 July and again on 3 August. The Council provided an update on 23 August. The Council told Mr C his daughter still did not want to see him. Mr C withdrew his court proceedings at the end of August 2018.
26. The Council told Mr C as court proceedings had ended it had no further involvement with his daughter. The Council encouraged him and the mother of the child to communicate about the homeschooling taking place.
27. In October the Council sought an advocate for Mr C’s daughter and an advocate was appointed in January 2019. When the advocate visited in March 2019 though Mr C’s daughter said she did not need an advocate at that point.
28. The Council’s only involvement now with Mr C’s daughter is to check annually with her mother to see that appropriate education is in place for her at home.

The complaints process

29. Mr C put in a complaint at the end of July 2018. Council officers met with Mr C and confirmed the points of complaint in August 2018. The Council contacted Mr C again on 5 October and apologised for the delay. Following amendments to the complaints document Mr C confirmed on 14 October he wanted his complaint investigated. Mr C chased the Council for a response in December 2018. The Council apologised for the delay and said it could progress the complaint to stage two if Mr C wanted due to the delay. Mr C agreed to that.
30. Mr C met with the investigating officer appointed in January 2019. Mr C chased what was happening with his complaint at the end of January and in February signed the statement of complaint. The investigating officer began investigating the complaint at that point.
31. The Council received a draft report from the investigating officer on 7 May. Mr C chased what was happening at the end of May. Mr C received a copy of the draft report on 11 July. Following that Mr C met with the investigating officer on 18 July.
32. The investigating officer provided the Council with a copy of the final report on 24 July. Mr C contacted the Council on 18 August to raise concerns both about the meeting which took place on 18 July and about not having any update. The Council told Mr C it was writing the stage two adjudication letter.
33. The Council sent Mr C the stage two adjudication letter on 15 November 2019. Mr C told the Council he was unhappy with the outcome and would rather complain to the Ombudsman then go to stage three. However, when Mr C approached the Ombudsman the case was referred back to the Council to complete stage three. The Council agreed to start the stage three process in April 2020, although this was delayed by Covid 19.
34. Mr C declined to take part in the stage three review panel hearing. That took place by video link on 12 October 2020. The Council shared the panel notes with Mr C on 19 October and wrote to him with its final response 5 November. In that letter the Council proposed the following actions:
• to review the delays in the complaints process to ensure all future complaint were processed within the national guidance;
• to send a reminder to staff regarding the quality and timeliness of case recordings;
• carry out training relating to disability discrimination around terminology used within social work reports, particularly when referring to autistic spectrum disorder;
• provide Mr C with an opportunity to submit a document containing any corrections he believed were required to the records held in relation to him;
• offer £300 to reflect the delays in the complaint process.

Analysis

35. Mr C says the Council refused to provide him with information about his daughter despite the fact he has parental responsibility. I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate the period from 2018 onwards given Mr C’s complaint to the Ombudsman was delayed due to delays in the Council’s complaints process.
36. Having considered the documentary evidence I have found no evidence the Council refused to provide Mr C with information about his daughter. There was one occasion when Mr C emailed the Council for an update and I have seen no evidence the Council provided a response, which is fault. However, that did not involve a refusal to provide information. I therefore consider an apology for failing to respond to Mr C’s email of 20 July 2018 satisfactory remedy for this part of the complaint.
37. Mr C says the Council failed to act on safeguarding concerns he raised in 2018 relating to his daughter’s removal from school, her mother seeking a medical diagnosis of autism and her mother taking his daughter to see clients when at work. I set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 the process the Council should go through when receiving these types of referrals. As that makes clear, one of the outcomes is for it to pursue a child and family assessment if it considers the child is in need but is not satisfied the threshold is reached for child protection. That is what happened in this case. I recognise Mr C believes the Council should have taken child protection action. However, for the issues relating to the daughter’s removal from school, this is an option parents can pursue. Removing a child from school is therefore not necessarily a safeguarding issue. In this case the Council had carried out the appropriate checks before home education began. The Council did not consider that or the issue of the mother seeking a medical diagnosis for her daughter a safeguarding issue which would warrant anything other than a child and family assessment. That is a decision the Council was entitled to reach and it is not one I could criticise.
38. I have seen no evidence though to suggest the Council, in deciding to pursue a child and family assessment, considered the issue Mr C raised about the mother taking the child to visit clients as part of her work. I would have expected the Council to record its view on that. The Council says a social worker spoke to the mother about that issue. I have seen no documentary evidence to verify that. Having said that though, I have also seen no documentary evidence to suggest this was an ongoing problem. So, while I consider the Council should have recorded its view on this part of the safeguarding concern when completing the child and family assessment I do not consider it likely if the Council had done so the outcome would have been different given there is no evidence the mother continued to take her child to clients’ addresses. I therefore consider an apology to Mr C satisfactory remedy for this part of the complaint.
39. Mr C says the Council failed to share with him information about the education provided to his daughter when she became homeschooled. As I said in paragraphs 15-17, a parent has a right to home educate their child and the Council’s responsibility is limited to ensuring a suitable education is being provided. In this case I am satisfied the Council met with the mother of the child and received information from her about the education plan she intended to put in place. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council considered the education plan proposed by the mother of the child appropriate. I am satisfied the Council shared that education plan with Mr C in 2018, although Mr C says he did not receive one in 2018.
40. The Council’s involvement with a child who is electively home educated is limited however. In this case I am satisfied the Council has obtained information from the mother of the child each year to satisfy itself the education in place is suitable for the child. There is, however, no responsibility for the Council to provide updates to Mr C. I understand the difficulty here given Mr C is separated from the mother of the child and there is a difficult relationship between them which means Mr C is not obtaining updates from the mother. Nevertheless, as the Council has no role in provision of education to Mr C’s daughter and no responsibility to provide updates to Mr C I have no grounds on which I could criticise it. The situation is also complicated now by the fact Mr C’s daughter is of an age where the Council would need her consent to share anything with Mr C. I have no evidence Mr C’s daughter has provided such consent.
41. Mr C says the Council included inaccurate information in the child and family assessment and failed to ensure the assessment was balanced. Having considered the assessment I understand Mr C’s concern about the Council not contacting his then partner to obtain her views given the assessment includes the views of the mother’s partner. I also understand Mr C’s concern some of the issues he raised with the social worker were not included in the assessment. I can understand why he considers that means the assessment is unbalanced. I consider it would have been good practice to include Mr C’s then partner in the assessment and the various representations he made. I am satisfied though the assessment is balanced and is not biased towards the mother of the child. The assessment sets out most of what Mr C had said as well as what the mother of the child had said and recorded the child’s contribution. It is clear from the assessment the social worker shared some of the concerns Mr C had raised. In those circumstances I do not consider the report unbalanced. I welcome though that the Council has agreed to provide refresher training to officers involved in child and family assessments to ensure they recognise the need for a balanced family viewpoint, particularly when estranged parents of the child have established new relationships.
42. It does appear though there are some inaccuracies in the assessment, particularly where it refers to Mr C having an autistic spectrum disorder, referring to this as a mental health issue when it is not. The assessment also refers to the medical status of the maternal grandfather when it is clear this information was provided by the mother of the child and not verified with the paternal grandfather. I understand Mr C’s concern about inaccuracies in the assessment. I do not consider though the inaccuracies undermine the overall thrust of the assessment. I also welcome the fact the Council has identified the need for additional training for officers around terminology in relation to autistic spectrum disorder. As I do not consider the inaccuracies affect the overall assessment I consider an apology a satisfactory remedy, alongside an agreement for the Council to place on file Mr C’s comments about factual inaccuracies in the report so they can be read alongside it.
43. Mr C says the Council failed to properly seek his daughter’s views for the child and family assessment. Mr C says the Council should have seen his daughter away from her home as her mother was always present. I understand Mr C’s concern. The Council will often speak to a child at school when completing an assessment. In this case though Mr C’s daughter was homeschooled and therefore this option was not open to the Council. I am satisfied though the records show the Council spoke to Mr C’s daughter on her own. I am also satisfied the child and family assessment properly recorded the input Mr C’s daughter had given. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
44. It is clear there was a significant delay in the Council considering Mr C’s complaint. There is no evidence the Council completed stage one, which resulted in the Council agreeing to progress the complaint to stage two instead. There was then considerable delay completing stage two, followed by a further delay completing stage three, although the latter was affected by Covid 19. Delay in the complaint process is fault and is unlikely to have encouraged Mr C to believe the Council was taking his concerns seriously. The Council has apologised, increased the resources available to its complaints team and offered Mr C £300 to reflect the time and trouble he had to go to pursuing his complaint. I consider that a reasonable outcome for this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr C for failing to record its reasoning in relation to his concerns about the mother taking the child to work, for the failure to provide an update following his email on 20 July 2018 and for the factual inaccuracies in the child and family assessment; and
• invite Mr C to list the factual inaccuracies in the child and family assessment for the Council to append to the file.
46. The Council has already apologised to Mr C for the delay in the complaints process, has carried out training for officers and has paid Mr C £300 to reflect his time and trouble.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

48. I have not investigated Mr C’s concern about the content of a section 7 report the Council presented to court or his concerns about the Council’s delay producing that report. That is because, as I said in paragraph 6, the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider matters which have been part of court proceedings. If Mr C had concerns about the section 7 report or the delay producing that report he would have needed to raise those concerns with the court.
49. I have also not investigated Mr C’s concerns about the Council obtaining medical records without his consent or for including details of his medical history in reports which were shared with third parties. That is because those matters are data protection issues and it is the Information Commissioner, rather than the Ombudsman, that considers those complaints.
50. Finally, I am not investigating Mr C’s concerns about the Council’s safeguarding investigation carried out in early 2017. That is because, as I said in paragraph 4, the Ombudsman will not normally consider a complaint about matters which occurred more than 12 months ago. As Mr C was aware of the issues in early 2017 I see no reason to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate complaints about matters before 2018. I have, however, exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate what has happened since the beginning of 2018 as Mr C put in a complaint to the Council in July 2018 and put in his complaint to the Ombudsman promptly following completion of the Council’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman