Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to support her when she was having difficulty in managing her teenage daughter’s challenging behaviours and she felt forced to agree for her to be placed in the care of the Council. We do not find fault on this aspect of the complaint. The Council has accepted fault in other matters and has apologised. We have recommended a small payment to support the apologies provided.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complained to the Council about the following matters:
1. lack of support for the family when Ms X’s eldest child, Child B, was attacking family members in 2018;
2. factual inaccuracies in the social work assessments carried out:
3. the conduct of a social worker during a meeting;
4. mixed messages about how to parent Child B;
5. inappropriate sharing of information; and
6. delayed complaint handling.
2. The Council investigated the complaints under the statutory Children Act complaints procedure and some complaints have been upheld. The Council has told Ms X that the Council did not ‘get this quite right’ and social work practice fell below expectations.
3. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had not fully recognised the avoidable harm caused to her and her family by the Council’s faults and that the Council had not provided a sufficient remedy over and above an apology.
4. In addition, Ms X remains concerned about the way she felt ‘made’ by the social worker to sign an agreement, placing Child B into Council’s care. Ms X considers that this aspect of the complaint was not dealt with fully in the statutory complaint investigation. I will refer to this as complaint (7).
5. Ms X is also concerned that she says that she was promised in November 2020 a personal apology from the social worker, but she has never received this (complaint 8).
6. In addition, Ms X says that she has not been told whether the Council has referred her to the Disclosure and Barring Service (complaint 9).
7. Ms X says that the Council’s actions resulted in her having a hospital admission and adversely affected her employment in a childcare setting.

Back to top

What I have investigated

8. I have investigated complaints 1,3,4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The reasons I have not investigated complaints 2 and 5 are set out in the last paragraphs of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

9. 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)
10. 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)
11. 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

12. While the events of this complaint occurred in 2018, I exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate because Ms X only received the Council’s final complaint response in December 2020.
13. I made enquiries of the Council and sent a copy of the Council’s complaint response to Ms X. I have seen Child B’s social care records and the complaint documents. I issued a draft decision statement to the Council and to Ms X and I have taken into account their further comments before reaching a final decision.
14. I am satisfied that the Council’s investigation was thorough, and I can rely upon its findings. My investigation therefore looked at aspects of the complaint, which Ms X did not consider were covered, and also looked at the consequences of any faults found and considered whether Ms X had received an appropriate remedy.
15. I have not considered any injustice caused to Ms X’s employment for the reasons explained in the last paragraphs of this statement.
16. 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

Legal considerations

17. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (the Act) says it shall be the general duty of every local authority (council) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within its area who are in need and, as far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. A child is in need if:

• he is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; or
• his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• he is disabled.

18. Where a council assesses a child is in need it should arrange for a social worker to develop a child in need plan setting out the support the child needs. It will monitor the delivery of that support and keep the plan under review through regular child in need meetings.
19. Under section 47 of the Act, it states that if a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it shall make or cause to be made such enquiries they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare,
20. The statutory guidance-Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018-says that the purpose of an assessment is to decide whether a child is a child in need or is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. There is a presumption that children are best brought up within their families unless there is a risk of the child suffering from significant harm, if they remain.
21. Under section 20 of the Act, councils shall provide accommodation for any child in need in their area who appears to them to need accommodation as a result of:
• there being no person who has parental responsibility for him;
• his being lost or abandoned; or
• the person who has been caring for him being prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care.
22. Parents retain their parental responsibility and can ask for their child to be returned to their care at any time.
23. Where a person works with vulnerable people, if there is a safeguarding concern raised, councils should refer the case to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) to decide whether the allegation is substantiated or not. If substantiated, councils/employers have to consider referring the person to the DBS to consider whether the person should be barred from working with vulnerable people.
24. The statutory complaints process has three stages with timescales for all stages. Stage one should be completed within 20 working days; Stage two within 65 days maximum; and the final stage, the Complaints Review Panel, should be held within 30 days after the request for one.

Back to top

Findings

Complaint (1), complaint (3), complaint (7) and complaint (8): there was a lack of support for the family when Child B was attacking family members in 2018, the social worker raised her voice at a significant meeting, Ms X felt compelled to sign a section 20 agreement at this meeting and the Council agreed that the social worker would apologise to her personally.

25. In early 2000, there were concerns about Ms X’s lifestyle when Child B was young. Child B’s parents separated.
26. In 2018, Child B made an allegation about her mother and her partner. The Council became involved and arranged a plan to try to support Child B and the family. The Council told the family it was not appropriate to bring Child B into its care.
27. Subsequently, Ms X had to call the Police because Child B had caused damage to the house. It is recorded that Ms X was not prepared to allow Child B home. The Police took a Police Protection Order and Child B went to live with her great grandmother. But this placement broke down.
28. It is clear that family relationships were particularly strained at this time. Ms X says that this was because Child B, a young teenager, had started having contact with her birth father and her behaviours became more challenging. The records indicate that Ms X was finding it difficult to deal with Child B’s behaviours.
29. As Ms X worked in a childcare setting, the situation was reported to the LADO, as was required. There was a meeting arranged by the LADO with Ms X’s employers. Ms X was unaware of this initial meeting. The Council says that it was for her employers to tell her whereas her employers say it was for the Council to do this.
30. In August 2018, after the placement with the great grandmother had broken down, Ms X signed the Council’s consent form for Child B to be accommodated. The form recorded that Ms X was asking for Child B to be accommodated. The Council had looked to the wider family to see if Child B could live elsewhere while it assessed the situation. But, at this time, there was no other option but to place Child B into voluntary care under section 20.
31. Ms X says that she felt compelled to sign the section 20 form. It seems to me that it had become difficult for Child B and Ms X to live amicably and resolve difficulties within the family home and the situation was such that there was no other option available but to place Child B in Council accommodation. It seems also that there was no other support, which the Council could have provided, or which might have helped, when emotions were running so high.
32. The purpose of accommodating Child B was to enable the Council to assess the situation, to safeguard Child B from further harm and upheaval and to plan for her future. That aim has now been achieved.
33. It is during the signing of the section 20 form that Ms X says that the social worker raised her voice and made negative comments to her about her parenting. Ms X says that the social worker became angry with her. Ms X says she was so distressed by the comments made, and by the social worker’s attitude, that she took an overdose and was in hospital.
34. The Council was not able to determine what the social worker had said. But the social worker accepted she had raised her voice. In the Stage one complaint response, the Council acknowledged that practice did not meet expectations but that it was hoped the Council and Ms X could work together to bring Child B home. I consider that the Council was at this point referring to the social worker’s behaviour, like raising her voice, when talking of ‘practice not meeting expected standards’.
35. The Council has apologised to Ms X for this. It says that it was not agreed that the social worker would apologise personally. But the Director of Children Services apologised to Ms X on behalf of the department.
36. The Council’s consent form, which Ms X signed, asked appropriate questions for Ms X to consider to ensure that she was making a fully informed decision to place Child B in Council accommodation. The form alerted Ms X to the possibility of seeking legal advice. While I appreciate this was an emotive meeting, and Ms X might have felt compelled to sign the section 20 agreement, it seems to me that, at this stage, there were no other viable options.
37. Regarding the LADO process, the Stage two complaint investigation report highlighted numerous inaccuracies in the minutes of the meetings about Ms X’s situation and therefore her employers were provided with some factual inaccuracies. The Council has partially upheld this aspect of the complaint and I accept that finding.
38. On complaints 1,7 and 8, my view is that there is insufficient evidence of fault. On complaint 3, I accept the Council’s finding that this is upheld in so much as the social worker raised her voice inappropriately.

Complaint (4): that Ms X was given mixed messages about how to parent Child B

39. The Council’s investigation did not uphold this complaint. It may be that professionals had different ideas about how to manage Child B’s behaviours. But it was for Ms X, as the parent, to decide how she should manage her daughter’s behaviour.

Complaint (6): there was a delay in the complaint handling

40. The Council has explained why there was a delay. Ms X raised a complaint in August 2018, but the statement of the complaint for the Stage two investigation was not agreed until February 2019. The timescale for the investigation was extended to 65 days to be completed and Ms X was informed.
41. The Stage two investigation report was completed in April 2019.
42. Ms X requested a Stage three Review Complaints Panel (the Panel). I understand that initially the Council was unwilling to arrange this but agreed to do so in February 2020 after Ms X contacted the Ombudsman.
43. It was not until November 2020 that the Panel took place. But much of this delay was caused by the Covid 19 lockdown during March to September 2020 during which period the timescales were relaxed.
44. So, my view is that there were delays in completing the complaints process, and that amounts to fault. But the latter part of the delay was caused by Covid 19.

Complaint (9): that the Council has not told Ms X whether it has referred her to the DBS

45. The Council has confirmed that it has not referred Ms X to the DBS and that it would be for her employers to do this. I am satisfied that this now provides Ms X with an answer to her question.

Injustice

46. The Council has already apologised for the avoidable distress caused by the faults it has identified. While I accept that Ms X ‘s employment, well-being and family suffered as a result of these events. I cannot conclude that this was caused solely by the Council. Ms X’s employers took certain action which caused her distress, and the family dynamics were, at the time of these events, emotionally charged which would also have caused Ms X distress.
47. I recognise Ms X considers that personal medical information should not have been disclosed to her employers. But complaints about the wrong disclosure of information should be referred to the Information Commissioner (see paragraph 53).
48. However, there were delays in dealing with her complaint and it is recognised that there were some other faults, particularly in relation to the inaccuracies in the assessments and minutes of important meetings and the behaviour of the social worker.

Agreed actions

49. The Council has already apologised to Ms X for the faults it identified. But it has agreed to support this with a payment of £250 to Ms X in recognition of the avoidable distress its faults caused to her. This will be paid within four weeks of the final statement.

Back to top

Final decision

50. The Council has upheld some aspects of Ms X’s complaint and I accept those findings. I do not find fault on the complaints which I have considered. But I consider the Council should make a small payment of £250 to support its apologies already provided.
51. The Council has agreed to this. I have therefore completed my investigation and am closing the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

52. I have not investigated complaint (2) about factual inaccuracies in the social care assessments, partly because the Council has accepted that there were some, and has now placed, on file, Ms X’s list of factual inaccuracies. And partly because Ms X can complain to the Information Commissioner about this. But I have taken into account that these inaccuracies would have compounded a difficult situation.
53. I have also not investigated complaint (5) about the disclosure of confidential personal information to Ms X’s employers. Ms X says that, because of such a disclosure, she was not able to continue to work with children. This is a complaint which Ms X can and has referred to the Information Commissioner and she also had employment rights to appeal her employer’s decision to an Employment Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman