Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to invite him to a Child Protection Conference (CPC) and its refusal to consider two further complaints. The Council is at fault for giving Mr X an incorrect impression he would be able to attend the CPC. The Council has agreed to a financial remedy and an apology to Mr X. The Council is not at fault in refusing to consider Mr X’s further complaints.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, says the Council failed to invite him to a child protection conference relating to a child, Y, despite being aware of his paternity of Y and his role in Y’s life. He says this is a breach of the Council’s policy on child protection conferences (CPC)s. He also complains that the Council refused to consider a complaint he made on behalf of Y under the children’s statutory complaints procedure because he did not have parental responsibility for Y. Finally, he complains that the Council refused to investigate his complaint about a social worker because he had raised the matter with Social Work England.
2. Mr X says that these faults have caused him upset and anxiety. He seeks an apology and compensation.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s actions in relation to the CPC.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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

6. I spoke to Mr X. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including recordings of meetings, as well as the relevant policies and guidance. I also provided Mr X and the Council with my draft statement and considered Mr X’s comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The law also says who can make a complaint on a child’s behalf. This may include a person with parental responsibility or a person the local authority consider has sufficient interest in the child or young person’s welfare.
8. Government guidance titled Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018 and the Council’s safeguarding children procedures for 2020 state: “Initial Child Protection Conference bring family members (Child where appropriate) and practitioners together to make decisions about the child’s future safety”.
9. Government guidance titled Getting the Best from Complaints states that any person may complain on behalf of a child if the local authority considers they have sufficient interest in the child’s welfare.

What happened

10. Mr X is separated from Y’s mother, S. The Council had concerns about Y and initiated a child protection investigation. Soon after, Mr X attended a meeting between S and the Council in which S advised that Mr X was Y’s father and had regular involvement in Y’s life. At this time Mr X was not named on Y’s birth certificate, which did not identify a father. Neither did Mr X have parental responsibility for Y. Documents provided by the Council show it had previously recorded a different individual as Y’s father.
11. Having decided Y was at risk of significant harm, the Council decided to schedule a child protection conference. Its policy is to hold conferences within 15 days of the initial strategy decision. Mr X has told me he learned of the child protection conference through S.
12. Two Council staff members met Mr X at this property where his paternity was again discussed. During this meeting Mr X advised the Council that he had obtained a DNA test which proved his paternity. His attendance at the CPC was also discussed. Mr X and the Council’s version of what else was said at the meeting differ.
13. The Council staff member told the Ombudsman she asked Mr X to send a copy of the paternity test result to the Council, which he agreed to do. She said she also informed Mr X that the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO), rather than herself, would decide whether Mr X should be invited, but that she would ask the IRO to invite him.
14. Mr X’s recollection is that he was not asked to send a copy of the DNA test results. He said he was reassured that he was accepted as Y’s father and would be invited to the CPC.
15. Mr X video recorded the meeting with the knowledge of the Council staff members present. I have listened to the recordings. While there is discussion of the DNA test and its cost to Mr X, at no point does the Council ask for the test result to be provided to the Council. Neither is Mr X informed that the Council only accepts the results of DNA tests performed to a legal standard.
16. In the recording the Council staff member says Mr X will be invited to the section of the CPC that concerns his daughter. She implies that it does not matter that Mr X is not on Y’s birth certificate as Y’s mother has said she wants him to attend, before adding that the decision actually lies with the IRO. She then states: “But having worked with [this IRO] he will be happy with that.”
17. The staff member told the Ombudsman she contacted the IRO on the same day as the CPC to advise him of her visit to Mr X and to request Mr X be invited to attend the meeting.
18. The IRO has confirmed his decision to exclude Mr X from the CPC. He told me he was informed on the day of the CPC about the Council’s visit to Mr X, that Mr X was not named on Y’s birth certificate, that he did not hold parental responsibility and that previous Council records named another man as Y’s father. The IRO therefore did not consider Mr X to be “family” as specified in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018. The IRO also told me the Council had advised of concerns Mr X posed a potential safeguarding risk to Y and her mother. The CPC therefore went ahead without Mr X.
19. On 22 June Mr X forwarded the paternity test result to the Council. The test was named as a “peace of mind” test, which is not court-admissible. The Council advised Mr X it did not consider this result sufficient to prove his paternity of Y and advised him on how to obtain an acceptable DNA test from the same provider. The Council has told me that to date, Mr X has not provided a further result. It therefore still considers Y’s paternity unproven.
20. Mr X complained to us about the Council’s failure to invite him to the CPC. When I spoke to him he questioned whether the conference could have been held at a later date, allowing him more time to prove his paternity. He also said the Council should have made its enquiries about his paternity and discussed his DNA test earlier, given it had been aware of his involvement with Y since mid-May.
21. Based on information received from S about matters discussed at the CPC, Mr X also complained to the Council on behalf of Y with S’s consent. He said inaccurate statements had been made and he wished these to be corrected. The Council did not accept his complaint under the statutory complaints process on grounds he did not have sufficient interest in Y because he was not present at the CPC and it considered his paternity to be in question. It says it nevertheless fully considered his complaint and concluded it could not share information about the CPC or Y with him. It has advised that should Mr X’s paternity be proven it will reconsider his request with regards to the recording of any inaccuracies.
22. In response to my draft decision Mr X said S’s consent was sufficient to allow him to complain under the statutory guidance and that there was no evidence he posed a safeguarding risk.
23. Mr X also complained to the Council about a social worker’s conduct. He advised the Council he had also raised these complaints with Social Work England (SWE). The Council has told me it decided not to investigate this complaint until SWE had reached a decision as it felt it was “excessive and oppressive” to subject the social worker to a second investigatory process. It said it had given Mr X the opportunity to raise his concerns again once SWE had made a decision.

Analysis

24. I can see no fault in the Council’s decision not to invite Mr X to the CPC. The IRO has presented a well-reasoned and logical account of his decision. I have seen sufficient evidence that the Council had safeguarding concerns about Mr X to justify the IRO considering those concerns, whether or not the concerns themselves later turned out to be justified.
25. At a meeting on the last working day before the CPC a Council staff member gave Mr X a misleading impression that he could expect to attend the CPC. While she mentioned the IRO, she indicated his decision in favour of Mr X was a foregone conclusion. The Council then provided the Ombudsman with a misleading account of what had been said to Mr X at this meeting.
26. This is fault by the Council. There was injustice to Mr X in that he was given an incorrect impression, leading to disappointment, and an erosion of trust in the Council. The Council has agreed to pay £250 and apologise to Mr X to reflect this injustice and his time and trouble in bringing the complaint.
27. Under the Council’s policy the CPC had to be held within 15 days of the strategy decision. The CPC was held 10 days after the decision. Given the potential risk to Y there is no fault by the Council in choosing not to delay the conference. In addition, Mr X has not yet provided a test result of a standard acceptable to the Council. It is therefore unclear that earlier efforts by the Council to establish Y’s paternity would have resulted in an acceptable test result being available in time for the CPC even if the conference had been delayed.
28. Mr X contends that S’s consent meant the Council was obliged to consider his complaint under the statutory procedure. However, Government guidance gives the Council discretion to decide whether any person has “sufficient interest” in a child’s welfare to warrant their complaint being considered.
29. The IRO had concluded that Mr X should not be invited to the CPC on grounds that his relationship to Y was unclear and he presented a possible safeguarding risk. The Council’s later decision - that Mr X was not a suitable person to bring a statutory complaint on Y’s behalf about the content of the CPC - was consistent with the IRO’s assessment. I can find no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making with regards to its refusal to use the statutory complaints procedure.
30. I can see no fault in the Council’s decision to pause Mr X’s complaint about the social worker until the process with SWE had resolved. However, Mr X has advised he has received no response from SWE since lodging his complaint. I therefore recommend the Council contact SWE to establish its timescale for investigation of the complaint. If SWE does not expect to begin this before the end of the 2020 calendar year, I recommend the Council investigate this part of the complaint and forward its conclusions to SWE for use in its own investigation. This should avoid the staff member concerned being subjected to two concurrent investigations.

Agreed action

31. Within one month of my decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Pay Mr X £250 to compensate him for his disappointment at being unable to attend the child protection conference and for his time and trouble in bringing the complaint; and
2. Apologise to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

32. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed to pay a financial remedy and make an apology.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman