Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided what support to give to Mr X’s children after a court issued a Family Assistance Order. It followed its procedures and when the concerns about Mr X’s children were reduced, it ended its involvement. There was fault in the process the Council used in deciding to close the case, including how it communicated the closure to Mr X. There was no injustice to Mr X from the Council using the wrong process, and it has apologised for not updating him when the case was closed, so it has already remedied his injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that after a court issued a Family Assistance Order (FAO), the Council did not support him or keep him updated in the way it should have. Mr X says the Council did not consider safeguarding concerns.
2. Mr X also says the Council did not tell him when it ended its involvement and the decision to close the matter without ‘Early Help’ support was wrong.
3. Mr X says this caused him concerns about unfairness and about the support the Council gave him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 wrote to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
9. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
10. I considered the Council’s policies and guidance on Children in Need (CIN) and FAO’s.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

12. In October 2020, a family court issued an FAO to the Council about Mr X, his estranged partner (Ms Y), and their children. The FAO lasted for 12 months. Before the FAO was issued, the Council had completed a report on the family to assist the court proceedings.
13. I have looked at each part of Mr X’s complaint in turn.

The Council did not provide support to Mr X in line with the FAO

What should have happened

14. The Council’s procedures say a CIN plan should say what support the Council will give and what this support will achieve. They also say the Council should regularly review this plan.
15. The Council has a policy statement saying it should keep the parents and children updated and assess the risk to children in the CIN plan.
16. The Council’s policy says it has discretion to decide how it will conduct social work visits to children, depending on the type of support it gives.

What happened

17. The FAO directed the Council to ‘advise, assist, and befriend’ Mr X, Ms Y and their children, because of the conflict between Mr X and Ms Y.
18. In September 2020, the Council started a CIN plan about Mr X’s children. The plan set out the support the Council would give to the family, including family therapy and work with the children through visits and observation by education professionals.
19. The Council reviewed the plan seven times before it ended its involvement with the family. Alongside each review, the Council completed recommendations in the form of a report. These reports included comments by Mr X and Ms Y, and other professionals working with the family.
20. When the Council did not consider support was being effective, it put other alternative support services in place. Its case notes reflect conversations the social worker had with the family concerning this.
21. The case notes record CIN visits the Council carried out in between each review, which it carried out either with Mr X, Ms Y or at the children’s school.
22. During the FAO, the Council was told about another child living with Ms Y. The Council assessed the risk relating to this child and identified the options it may need to take if this risk changed. It recorded this analysis on the next CIN review and in the children’s case notes.

My findings

23. The Council followed its procedures in managing the FAO. The order does not require support is given in a particular way and the Council set out a plan, which it regularly reviewed and adjusted when it was needed. The evidence I have seen suggests Mr X was aware of these plans and reviews, and substantially contributed his views to them. When unforeseen events occurred, the Council responded to them and considered the risk. I have found no fault in the way the Council delivered the support under the FAO.

The Council’s decision to close the case

What should have happened

24. The Council’s policy allows for cases to be stepped down and closed where needed. The policy says a child in need case can only be closed after a child in need review meeting to ensure all agencies are fully consulted.
25. The policy says consideration should be given to stepping down a case to ‘Early Help’, where support may continue to be given by other professionals without social work intervention from the Council. It also says the Council should keep parents informed and support them to be involved in decision-making.

What happened

26. The final CIN report says a social worker, a school representative, and Ms Y were at the meeting. The record of the CIN meeting appears to be a duplicate of the record of the previous meeting, which says Mr X was not present (although the Council’s case notes say he was present at the final meeting).
27. There is no evidence that a discussion took place at this meeting relating to stepping down the case or closing it.
28. Following this, the Council completed a case closure report giving the following reasons for closing the case;

• The FAO had expired
• There were no safeguarding concerns
• The family had made significant progress
• The children felt happier
• The parents were co-parenting

29. In that closure report, a social worker has made a note there was no need for further support under ‘Early Help’. A social work manager signed the report. There is no evidence in this report or in the Council’s case notes that the Council consulted either Mr X’s family or other professionals before making this decision.

My findings

30. The Council’s case closure record has reasons for why the case should be closed and this decision is supported by the evidence I have seen. This included case notes and CIN review documents, which show incremental progress was being made.
31. The Council’s policy says the Council should consider stepping a CIN case down to ‘Early Help’, but it does not have to. This means the Council was entitled to close the case, and, as it has explained itself and provided supporting evidence, I have found no fault with the way it made the decision.
32. The Council’s policy also requires it to consult with other agencies in a CIN meeting when a case is to be closed. I have seen no evidence that thisThis discussion took did not take place, which is fault by the Council. However, I do not believe this fault did not caused Mr X any injustice, because I have seen nothing in the Council’s records to suggest its decision would have been any different if it had spoken to other agencies first.
33. The Council has a general duty to keep parents informed. Based on the evidence I have seen, iIt did not update Mr X on its decision to close the case, which was also fault. The Council has apologised to Mr X for this, and I believe this is an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I find tThe Council was not at fault in how it supported Mr X’s family. It was at fault for not consulting with other agencies before it decided to close the case, but this did not cause any injustice. It was also at fault for failing to notify Mr X that it had ended its involvement, but it has already remedied his injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman