Summary: Ms B complains the Council’s decision to hold a child protection conference without informing her and with a male chairperson. She says the Council did not consider the history of the case and this caused distress. The Ombudsman finds fault but does not find this caused a significant injustice to Ms B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, complains the Council did not tell her about its decision to hold an initial child protection conference for her son. She complains it decided to hold the conference without properly considering the history of the case or information from other agencies supporting her son. Ms B also says the Council appointed a male chairperson, which was inappropriate given her traumatic personal history.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Ms B provided and spoke to her about the complaint. I then made enquiries of the Council. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms B and the Council for their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

6. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. Where initial assessment shows a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm the council and the police hold a strategy discussion. A strategy meeting may include other professionals involved with the child. The strategy meeting decides whether to make section 47 enquiries.
7. Section 47 of the Children’s Act 1989 places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make ‘such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area’.
8. If the information gathered under section 47 substantiates concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange a child protection conference within 15 working days of the strategy meeting.

Background

9. Ms B’s son, C, is diagnosed with high functioning autism. He receives support from several organisations independent of the Council. Ms B says C has a history of making false allegations. She says that, before 2016, he made a false disclosure to his school that Ms B had hit him with a belt and slipper. Ms B says no further action was taken by police.
10. In late 2019, C attended a police station and told the police Ms B had kicked him out and would not allow him back home. He alleged Ms B had recently physically chastised him. Following contact with Ms B, the police placed C under a police protection order (“PPO”). It contacted the Council and arranged a placement for C with a foster carer.
11. The Council visited Ms B and discussed the situation with her. It arranged for C to return to her care. It then held a strategy meeting, which police and social workers attended. The Council also invited representatives from C’s school and other agencies involved in supporting him. They did not attend but the Council obtained their views before the meeting.
12. At the meeting the Council decided to initiate section 47 enquiries. It wrote to Ms B six days after the meeting to notify her that it would hold an initial child protection conference within 15 days. Ms B says that before she received the letter no one told her there would be a conference.
13. The conference took place in early 2020. The Council initially allocated a male chair for the hearing. Ms B complained about this as she said the Council knew she could not work with males. The outcome was to place C on a Child in Need Plan, which remained in place for six months.
14. Ms B complained to the Council about the way it handled the matter. She said the Council knew C’s history of making allegations due to his autism and should not have gone to a child protection conference.
15. The Council investigated and responded to Ms B under the following heads of complaint:
• Complaint 1 – You had not been told about the decision to convene a child protection conference
• Complaint 2 – When he visited you on 6 December 2019, [a social worker] expressed surprise that the police had used their protection powers to remove C and that this action was contrary to advice he issued in a previous email
• Complaint 3 – During the same visit [the social worker] had also not expressed any concerns about C’s welfare or safety and failed to tell her there would be a child protection conference
• Complaint 4 – It was inappropriate given your traumatic personal history to have allocated a male chair to the conference
16. The Council upheld the first complaint and apologised. It said there was no evidence the social worker informed Ms B of the strategy meeting and the decision to make section 47 enquires, or the reasons for this, until the letter six days later. It did not uphold the second complaint as the social worker did express surprise but it was a matter of professional judgement for the police. It also did not uphold the third complaint as it said no decision had been taken by that visit so the social worker was not in a position to tell Ms B there was a conference. It upheld the fourth complaint as it had information already that Ms B could not work with male workers and there was a need for a female chair. It apologised for this.

Findings

17. The Council has accepted there was fault in the delay in informing Ms B about the strategy meeting decision and section 47 enquiries.
18. There is nothing any statutory guidance or the Council’s policy that sets out how promptly it must inform parents of the decision of a strategy meeting. It is important for councils to keep the parties involved updated of developments. However, in this case it was a relatively short delay of six days and gave Ms B two weeks’ notice of the conference, so she had the opportunity to give her views and attend. Therefore, I do not find this caused a significant injustice to Ms B.
19. Ms B’s main concern seems to be the decision to hold a conference at all. I cannot question the decision to make section 47 enquiries or hold a conference as this is a matter of professional judgement for those involved. I can see the Council obtained information from other agencies involved in C’s care and invited them to the strategy meeting. Therefore, I cannot find fault in how the Council managed the child protection procedure.
20. The Council has also accepted fault in appointing a male chairperson. It has provided information it already had showing Ms B’s preference not to have male workers involved in the case. I understand the appointment of a male chair alone caused Ms B some distress. However, the Council rectified this by arranging for a female to chair the meeting instead. Therefore, I do not find this caused a significant injustice to Ms B.
21. The Council has agreed to review the alert/warning mechanism on its case management system, which it could potentially adapt to place a marker that only female staff should be allocated to the case. This would help avoid any further incidents in the future. I have not made a recommendation on this point as I have not found fault causing significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

22. The Council is at fault for the delay in updating Ms B and appointing a male chairperson. However, this did not cause a significant injustice to Ms B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman