Summary: Mr Y complains the Council placed unreasonable restrictions on his contact with children. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. The Council appropriately responded to a safeguarding referral about the children of Mr Y’s ex-partner. Following this, both Mr Y’s ex-partner and his sisters decided to stop unsupervised contact between their children and Mr Y. The Council has no control to influence these parental decisions but has agreed to assess Mr Y’s risk should the parents want contact with Mr Y to resume.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr Y, complains the Council has unreasonably informed third parties that they should not allow him contact with their children. It has failed to properly assess whether he is a risk to children. It has failed to support him with services.
2. Mr Y says he has experienced avoidable distress from the Council’s actions because he is prevented from seeing children of friends and family members.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. During my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mr Y, made enquiries of the Council and third-party enquiries of the NHS Trust responsible for assessing and treating Mr Y’s mental health needs. I considered information from all these sources.
6. I consulted any relevant law and guidance, cited where necessary in this statement.
7. I issued a draft decision statement setting out my provisional view and invited comments from Mr Y and the Council, which I considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

8. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and to determine whether protective action is required under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. Significant harm covers the risk of neglect or physical, sexual and emotional abuse.
9. The Council’s safeguarding procedures state that all referrals to Children's Social Care should be regarded as children in potential need. The Council should evaluate the referral on the day of receipt, and no later than within one working day, to decide the next course of action. This will often involve meeting with the child and parent to help the Council assess the potential risk.

What happened

10. In January 2020 Mr Y made a disclosure to hospital staff regarding intrusive thoughts he had about children. The thoughts were of a sexual nature. Mr Y also disclosed that he had purposely brushed his hand past the groin of his partner’s young child but immediately informed the child’s mother of his actions.
11. Hospital staff made a safeguarding referral to the Council. The Council then undertook an assessment under S47 of the Children Act to identify any potential risk to the children involved. The Council made a joint visit with the police to the child’s address.
12. Notes of the visit show that Mr Y was still living with his partner and her three children. While I cannot reveal the contents of the discussion for confidentiality reasons, the records show Mr Y’s partner was already aware of his disclosures.
13. Mr Y complained to the Council about the restrictions he said the Council placed on his life, and particularly with relation to having contact with his ex-partner’s children and his sister’s children. In the complaint response, the Council said, “My understanding is that your previous partner is not agreeing to you seeing her children. This is following you presenting yourself to hospital as you were having sexually intrusive thoughts about the children and you were alleged to have inappropriately touched one of her children. The children’s fathers are also in agreement that you should not be having any contact with their respective children… My understanding is that you are not in a position to see your sister’s [name removed] child for reasons I am unable to go into for confidentiality reasons”.
14. The Council went on to say, “If there are risks to children that we are worried about we have a duty to discuss these with parents and enable them to make choices that demonstrate they will take any precautionary measures to keep their children safe from any potential harm”.
15. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr Y approached the Ombudsman for an impartial review of his case.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr Y?

16. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. The records show the Council expressed concern about Mr Y having unsupervised contact with children due to the nature of his disclosure, but the parents referred to in this case made an informed decision to restrict contact between their children and Mr Y. There is no evidence of any formal agreements in place between the parents and the Council.
17. Furthermore, there is no evidence the Council notified Mr Y’s sisters about his disclosures. To the contrary, one of Mr Y’s sisters confirmed receiving a text message from him about his intrusive thoughts. According to the Council, Mr Y’s sister then decided not to allow unsupervised contact between Mr Y and her children based on the information he shared in the text message.
18. The Council discussed child protection matters with Mr Y’s ex-partner, but this was appropriate in the circumstances because the Council had a duty to assess the potential risk to her children following receipt of the hospital’s referral. It is evident from the records that Mr Y’s ex-partner was already aware of the disclosures.
19. Mr Y says the NHS Trust responsible for assessing his mental health agreed to liaise with the Council about his assessed levels of risk. We are not investigating the actions of the Trust, so I cannot make any findings about the actions it undertook. Instead, I am considering whether the Council failed to act on something the Trust shared with it about Mr Y. Based on the information seen, there is no evidence the Council failed to act on information from the Trust. There was a brief email exchange between the two bodies to clarify the extent of social care’s involvement, but the Council made its position clear.
20. The Council has confirmed it will assess any potential risks should Mr Y’s sisters, or his ex-partner, decide they would like for Mr Y to resume contact with their children. When doing so, the Council would consider any work or therapy which Mr Y has undertaken since the initial safeguarding referral.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We have completed our investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council for the reasons explained in this decision statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman