Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate a concern about his sons’ wellbeing he raised in June 2021. We found no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly investigate a concern about his sons’ wellbeing he raised in June 2021.
2. He says that because of the Council’s failure to investigate and speak to the children, his ex-partner’s actions are continuing to have an impact on their sons. He says this resulted in his sons refusing to turn up for their scheduled contact with him and being reserved with him.
3. Mr X says this further caused him stress and additional pressure that affects his everyday life.
4. He would like the Council to properly investigate his concerns and speak to his sons about the impact his ex-partner’s behaviour is having on them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr X's comments; and
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

10. The Children’s Act 1989 sets out the circumstances where a local authority with responsibility for social services may become involved in family life because of concerns for a child’s welfare. The law places an overarching duty on the Council to act in the best interests of the child.
11. The Council may receive referrals from third parties expressing concerns about a child’s welfare. It will consider these under ‘safeguarding’ procedures. This term refers to a set of policies and procedures used by agencies to report concerns for a child’s welfare and set out how a council will investigate such concerns.
12. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. The Children Act 1989, section 47 says they must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. A child protection enquiry will start with an assessment of the family circumstances and may move on through Strategy Meetings and a Child Protection Conference, which may decide on a Child Protection Plan.
13. These duties are set out in Statutory Guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children’. When a council children’s social care service receives a referral about a child who may be at risk of significant harm it must decide within one working day what type of response is needed. This will include determining whether:
• the child requires immediate protection and urgent action is required;
• the child is in need, and should be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989;
• there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, and enquiries must be made and the child assessed under section 47 of the Children Act 1989;
• any services are required by the child and family and what type of services;
• further specialist assessments are required in order to help the authority to decide what further action to take; or
• no further action is required.

What happened

14. In June 2021 Mr X raised a concern about the wellbeing of his sons to the Council. He said that his ex-partner was subjecting them to parental alienation, and this was affecting their mental wellbeing.
15. The Council’s records show that it contacted Mr X and told him it would screen his concern. Mr X consented to the screening and to the Council making enquiries with his sons’ school and his ex -partner. Mr X says that he told the Council this was not the best way to investigate the allegation of parental alienation but agreed to the Council making enquiries with the school.
16. The school told the Council that it did not have any safeguarding concerns about Mr X’s sons. It was aware of a dispute between Mr X and his ex-partner; however the children had not displayed any changes in behaviour, their attendance was high and they had good friendships.
17. The following day, the Council contacted Mr X’s ex-partner. The Council recorded that Mr X’s ex-partner admitted to sometimes speaking negatively about Mr X in front of the children. The records show that the social worker told her she should keep any opinions of Mr X and disputes she had with him away from their children. They also said sharing any such information with the children was inappropriate. The social worker noted they would call Mr X and discuss this with him also.
18. The following day the social worker called Mr X. They told him what they discussed with his ex-partner and that she admitted to sharing inappropriate information with the children. The social worker told him that he could contact the school and ask for regular updates about his sons’ wellbeing. Mr X expressed his concerns about the investigation not being thorough and the school’s ability to know if the children were being emotionally abused.
19. The social worker advised that both Mr X and his ex-partner must not involve children in the adult disputes, and that in their view his concern did not meet the threshold for a statutory assessment. This meant that the Council would take no further action. The social worker explained that if the problems continued, this may need to be revisited.
20. The Council’s records show the social worker did not consider it necessary to subject the children to an assessment when the issue was the behaviour of adults in their life. The Council recognised that this may change if Mr X and his ex-partner did not address the behaviours, but they should have the opportunity to resolve this between themselves.
21. A senior officer at the Council reviewed the decision to take no further action and agreed with the social worker’s recommendation to close the case. This was because the case did not meet the threshold for any further enquiries.

My analysis

22. The Council was not at fault for how it considered Mr X’s concern about his sons’ wellbeing.
23. Before deciding his concern did not meet the threshold for further enquiries the Council:
• consulted with the children’s school, which would be well placed to notice behavioural and wellbeing changes;
• spoke to Mr X’s ex-partner to advise that her behaviour was inappropriate;
• spoke to Mr X to update him of the findings and the provisional view;
• reviewed its decision by a senior officer; and
• correctly recorded its thinking and decision-making process.
24. We cannot question the outcome of the Council’s screening process that has not been affected by an administrative fault. Nor can we substitute our own opinion for the professional judgement of the officers involved. We are satisfied the Council screened Mr X’s concern in line with the statutory guidance and took account of all relevant evidence in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Council was not at fault for how it investigated a concern about Mr X’s sons’ wellbeing he raised in June 2021.I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman