Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council’s failure to hold Child in Need meetings resulted in it receiving a safeguarding referral about her child. The Council has investigated and found it failed to follow Child in Need procedures. That caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and distress and meant her children may have missed the opportunity of further support. The Council has offered an appropriate financial remedy for any injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council’s failure to follow the correct Child in Need (CIN) procedure resulted in it receiving a safeguarding referral from its Special Educational Needs Service (SEN Service).
2. In addition, she said the lack of support from failing to provide CIN services had a significant impact on her children’s mental health and emotional and social development. She feels let down by the Council and has lost confidence in its ability to provide support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X.
7. I considered the Councils response to Mrs X’s complained and the Child in Need assessment.
8. Mrs X 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

Child in Need

9. The Children Act 1989 (the Act) imposes a duty on councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
10. Section 17 of the Act defines a child as a child in need if:
• He/she is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him/her of services by a local authority;
• His/her health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him/her of such services; or
• He/she is disabled.

Education Health and Care plans

11. A child with special educational needs may have an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC plan). This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.

Children Social Care complaints

12. There is a formal procedure, set out in law, which the Council must follow to investigate complaints made by children in need. The procedure involves three stages.
13. If a council has investigated something under the children’s social care complaints procedure, we would not normally re-investigate it. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

14. Mrs X has five children with social, emotional and/or behavioural difficulties. Four of these children have EHC plans.
15. In June 2018, following a Team around the Family meeting, Mrs X asked the Council to complete a CIN assessment to consider the children’s support needs.
16. The Council allocated the assessment to Social Worker A. They sought information from Mr and Mrs X, Children’s Social Care case records, the children’s GPs, and their schools.
17. The assessment identified that Mrs X’s main concerns were around educational provision for her children and the family were in dispute with the Council about the EHC plan provision for two children (P & Q). It said the family were getting some financial support through direct payments for social activities for two children at weekends.
18. Social Worker A finalised the CIN assessment at the end of September 2018. They recommended making all the children CIN to support P and Q’s reintegration back into education and to address their social inclusion needs.
19. In December 2018, the Council received a safeguarding referral from its SEN service. Social Worker A visited Mr and Mrs X to discuss the referral. The Council did not take any further action and closed the referral shortly after.
20. The Council ended two children’s CIN plans in February 2019. It said that was done in agreement with Mr and Mrs X as the children had no unmet needs.
21. In March 2019, Social Worker A contacted Mrs X to arrange a CIN meeting for the children remaining on the Plan. Mrs X was not available to meet because of the tribunal. Following that conversation, the Council closed the CIN cases for the three remaining children. The Council said it wrote to Mr and Mrs X and told them this. Mr and Mrs X said they did not receive that letter.
22. Mrs X contacted the Council about a CIN review in May and July 2019. She subsequently learnt the children were no longer open as CIN.
23. Mrs X complained to the Council that it had failed to provide any CIN support since it assessed the family the previous year. She said that three of her children had been out of education for most of the academic year. She said the Council’s visit about the safeguarding referral caused her children distress.

The Council’s investigation and complaint response

24. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s initial response and asked it to investigate further.
25. The Council escalated the complaint to stage two. It wrote to Mrs X and agreed to investigate her complaints that:
1. The Council had not followed the Child in Need procedure.
2. The Council’s communication from Children’s Social Care had been poor.
3. The communication between Children’s Social Care and the SEN service was poor.
26. The Council also asked Mrs X to contact it for a further assessment if she felt her children had unmet needs.
27. The Council allocated an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person to oversee the investigation. The Investigating Officer reviewed the case records, and interviewed staff and Mr and Mrs X. They found:
• The Council had failed to follow the Child in Need procedure and that it did not hold a CIN planning meeting, any reviews and the closure procedure was not followed.
• The social work team was not robust enough in ensuring appropriate professional attendance at meetings.
• The failure in holding meetings meant it was not possible to measure the children’s progress.
• The Council’s decision to end social care involvement after Mrs X said they were unable to attend a meeting was ‘flawed and outside process’.
• It found the CIN plans were ineffective and may have prevented support being offered to the family.
28. Where the investigating officer could not corroborate events, they partially upheld the complaints. That included Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that:
• Social Worker A had failed to give them a copy of the CIN assessment or sent a CIN closure letter in March 2019.
• Social Worker A’s visit to the family home in December 2018 caused the family distress.
29. The Investigating Officer recommended the Council offer Mr and Mrs X an apology for any distress caused. It asked the Council to audit a handful of CIN cases to establish whether the identified faults within the complaint were an isolated incident or common practice. They recommended the Council share a copy of the report with its SEN Service and Children’s Social Care.
30. The Council wrote to Mrs X and apologised. It offered her a financial remedy of £250 for avoidable time and trouble in having to complain and £150 to go towards the children.
31. Mrs X responded to the Council almost nine months later. She provided further information about the impact the lack of CIN support had had on her family. She wrote about the deterioration in her children’s mental health whilst they had been out of education and how she felt the lack of CIN support affected their access to education. She said Social Worker A’s safeguarding visit had had a significant effect on the family.
32. The Council arranged a stage three Panel to consider the complaint further. The Panel recommended an increase in payment for the children for the avoidable distress caused. It suggested an overall sum of £1200. Following that, the Council wrote to Mrs X with an increased financial remedy of £200 per child and £200 for Mr and Mrs X.
33. Mrs X remained unhappy and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She felt the Council’s findings did not acknowledge the impact the failure to hold CIN meetings had.

My findings

34. The Council has upheld Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s lack of Child in Need Services. Mrs X does not disagree with the findings of the Council’s investigation and I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Investigating Officer conducted their investigation. Therefore, I do no intend to investigate the complaints further.
35. Mrs X believes that if the Council had held an initial CIN meeting the SEN Service would not have made a child protection referral in December 2018. I cannot say with any certainty what would have happened if the Council had held a meeting. Subsequently, the Council’s faults have caused her avoidable uncertainty. The Council has already accepted it did not follow the correct process and offered Mrs X an apology and £200 to remedy this. The Ombudsman’s guidance recommends a payment of between £100 - £300 for avoidable distress. Therefore, I consider the Council’s offer of £200 appropriate.
36. The Council has also offered Mr and Mrs X a payment of £1000 for the children for any avoidable distress caused by lost support. As the CIN assessment and plan did not specify what the family support would look like, it is not possible to quantify what the children might have missed. I have taken into consideration the length of time the Council assessed the family as needing CIN support; the CIN assessment and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. I am satisfied the Council’s offer of £200 per child is appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

37. The Council has already investigated and identified fault in how it provided Child in Need Services to Mrs X’s children. It has offered a suitable remedy for any injustice caused. Therefore, I intend to complete my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman