Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of children’s social care support for his family after it carried out an Early Help assessment in 2019 and the actions of a social worker working with the family. There was no fault in how the Council completed the Early Help assessment. The Council appropriately investigated his complaint about the social worker’s actions under the children’s statutory complaints procedure, but there was some delay during the complaints process. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £250 to recognise the frustration caused by this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s lack of support for his family after it carried out Early Help and a child and family assessment with them in 2019. He also complained about the actions of a social worker working with the family. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint about the social worker’s actions under the children’s statutory complaints procedure however he is unhappy with the outcome and the delays in bringing it to a conclusion.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him distress and frustration. He says the Council’s lack of support has damaged his relationship with his daughter.

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. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
5. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
7. 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

8. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
9. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
10. I considered the records and outcome of the Council’s investigation of Mr X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child and Family assessment

12. The purpose of a child and family (CAF) assessment is to gather sufficient information and the child and family to understand its needs and make decisions about:
• The nature and impact of the concerns or needs described in the referral and what intervention or support is necessary
• Whether the child meets the criteria for ongoing services.

Child in Need Plan

13. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.

Early help services

14. Early help (or early intervention) is support given to a family when a problem first emerges. Early help services can be delivered to parents, children or whole families, but their main focus is to improve outcomes for children. Early help is voluntary and families do not have to participate if the do not want to. Examples of early help services include:
• Parenting support
• Emotional health and wellbeing support
• Referrals to relevant agencies

Statutory children’s complaints procedure

15. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
16. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
17. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
18. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
19. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

20. Mr X has three children, one of whom is his daughter, F. Mr X is separated from the children’s mother, Ms Y. In 2018 and the early part of 2019 the Council received safeguarding referrals following a domestic related incident between Mr X and Ms Y. Referrals were also received from the children’s school who raised concerns that Mr X and Ms Y’s separation and negative relationship was having an emotional impact on the children. The families doctor also raised concerns, specifically about F who had started stating she would self-harm.
21. The Council carried out an Early Help assessment in March 2019. The assessment recommended the family engage with CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service) to support in the agreement of contact arrangements. It also recommended referring the children to CAMHS and for both Mr X and Ms Y to engage in co-parenting therapy. The Early Help assessment recommended the matter met the threshold for a social worker to carry out an assessment due to concerns about Mr X and Ms Y failing to prioritise the needs of the children.
22. The Council carried out a Child and Family assessment which was delayed until September 2019 due to Ms Y and the children being away for holidays. The assessment noted the impact the acrimonious relationship between Mr X and Ms Y was having on the children. The assessment also found the children wanted less contact with Mr X. The assessment reiterated the recommendations suggested by Early Help and said therapeutic intervention would assist them as a family. It said the family would benefit from a short CIN plan.
23. Records show the Council developed a CIN plan around F. The plan detailed that Mr X and Ms Y should work to address their co-parenting style and give F the opportunity to make decisions about contact with each parent. The plan detailed efforts should be made for F to re-establish a positive relationship with Mr X. It said the parents should agree to attend a separated parenting programme together.
24. The records show Mr X and Ms Y agreed to attend the co-parenting programme. Mr X did attend however Ms Y changed her mind and did not. The Council referred the children to CAMHS. However, a psychiatrist wrote to the Council and said F did not have significant problems with her emotional wellbeing. They said as F was having counselling at school then there was not anything helpful that CAMHS could do.
25. In early 2020 the Council decided close the case. It decided there were no safeguarding issues and therefore it no longer had a role to play. It said the CIN plan had worked in that Mr X and Ms Y were no longer exposing the children to their disagreements.

Mr X’s complaint

26. Mr X complained to the Council in March 2020. Mr X’s complaint centered around the social worker who dealt with the case. Mr X was unhappy with aspects of the social worker’s conduct and felt they failed to help rebuild his relationship with F. He said Ms Y had alienated him from F and the social worker had failed to take steps to help him with contact with her. Mr X also complained about inaccuracies and errors in the CAF assessment
27. The Council investigated his complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
28. The Council’s stage 1 response said it agreed to make necessary amendments to the CAF assessment. However, it considered the assessment balanced and appropriately focused on the children’s wellbeing. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 in June 2020. The Council appointed an independent investigator (IO) and independent person (IP) to consider Mr X’s complaints.
29. The IO issued the stage 2 report in December 2020 and the Council sent Mr X its adjudication letter in January 2021. It upheld various aspects of Mr X’s complaint including errors in the CAF assessment and failing to include some relevant information in the assessment. The Council said it was satisfied steps were put in place for Mr X and Ms Y to try and resolve their relationship. It said the focus of the CAF assessment was around the children and their wishes. The Council apologised for the faults found and agreed to amend the CAF assessment to include the various omissions and correct the errors.
30. Mr X remained unhappy and escalated his complaint to stage 3 in February 2021. The Council held the stage 3 panel in June 2021. Mr X wanted the Council to set out clear steps to help him rebuild his relationship with F. The panel further found that the social worker had not adequately communicated with Mr X around a decision not to respond to every email and call Mr X made. However, the panel noted that although Mr X blamed the social worker for a lack of contact with F, it was down to F’s views and wishes.
31. The Council sent its adjudication letter to Mr X in October 2021. It apologised again for administrative errors in the CAF assessment and said it had reminded officers that decisions around reduced communications should have management oversight. The Council confirmed it had made the necessary amendments to the CAF assessment documents and provided Mr X with a copy. It also confirmed it had made a referral for F to receive mental health support.
32. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us. He confirmed he had complained to Social Work England about the conduct and behaviour of the social worker. Mr X’s ongoing concern was that the Council did not do enough to support the family following the Early Help assessment in 2019 which he says has permanently damaged his relationship with F. As this had not been fully considered under the statutory procedure, I agreed to consider this as part of my investigation.

My findings

Complaints considered under the statutory procedure

33. We do not re-investigate complaints which has been through the statutory children’s complaints procedure unless we consider the investigation was flawed. The Council appropriately considered Mr X’s complaint at all three stages of the process. I have reviewed the stage 2 investigation and the findings at each stage. The stage 2 investigation was robust and thorough and considered all the relevant documents. There is no evidence of fault in the process and so we will rely on the findings. The faults identified during the investigation were administrative faults which did not affect the overall outcome. The Council has already apologised and amended the CAF assessment as necessary which is sufficient to remedy any injustice the faults caused Mr X.
34. A large proportion of Mr X’s complaints were about the conduct of the social worker who dealt with the family. Mr X has complained to Social Work England about the social worker which is the appropriate body to consider such complaints.
35. Although the Council appropriately investigated Mr X’s complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, there were significant delays above and beyond what the statutory timescales allow. Although the process began during the first COVID-19 lockdown it took over a year to carry out stage 2 and stage 3 between June 2020 and October 2021. There is no evidence to show these delays were solely down to COVID-19. The significant delays to complete the statutory procedure was fault and caused Mr X frustration.

Early Help

36. Mr X’s remaining concern is whether the Council did enough to help his family following the Early Help referral in 2019 and the subsequent lack of contact with F. Recommendations from Early Help are not binding. Early Help recommended the Council refer the children to CAMHS and to provide Mr X and Ms Y with therapeutic support to help with their relationship. The Council carried out both of these actions. The CAF assessment reiterated these recommendations, however it was not for the Council to enforce them. The fact Ms Y decided not to engage in the therapy is therefore not Council fault and CAMHS decided its services were not appropriate. There was no fault in how the Council carried out Early Help for Mr X and the rest of the family.
37. The purpose of the CAF assessment was to ensure the children were safe and being provided with basic care. The focus was on the children. Ultimately, following the CAF assessment and the CIN plan, the Council decided there were not safeguarding concerns, other concerns were low level and therefore it closed the case. It is open for Mr X to seek legal advice if he wishes to pursue contact with F.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £250 to recognise the frustration caused to him by the delays in investigating his complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I completed my investigation. There was fault identified following the Council’s investigation into Mr X’s complaint. It has already provided a remedy for the injustice this caused. It agreed to provide a further remedy for the injustice caused to him by the delays in completing its investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman