Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided the level of support it provided to Ms X’s children. Its assessments of risk were evidence-based and carried out in consultation with other agencies. It followed published procedures and responded to developments as they occurred. When the risk to Ms X’s children had reduced, it ended its involvement. We have found no fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains decisions the Council took to reduce and then stop the support it provided to her children were wrong, as they did not consider;

• her mental health needs; and
• one of her child’s needs, who Ms X believed was autistic (I will refer to this child as Y).

2. Ms X was also unhappy with the support given to her children while she was in hospital in 2022. She had asked for a change of social worker.

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 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I wrote to Ms X and considered the information she provided.
6. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
7. I considered the Council’s document ‘Thresholds of Needs (Multi-Agency Decision Framework’, which is the Council’s step-up / step-down procedures. I also considered the Council’s procedures for child protection conferences. Both sets of guidance are published online.
8. Ms 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

9. In November 2020, the Council had concerns about Ms X’s mental health, and, consequently, about the welfare of her children. It thought the children were at risk of neglect. It held an initial child protection conference, and the conference agreed that the Council’s concerns justified a child protection (CP) Plan.
10. I have looked at each part of Ms X’s complaint in turn.

The Council reduced support to Ms X’s children from a CP plan to child in need plan (step-down).

What should have happened?

11. The Council’s procedures say it should stop a CP plan when a child is no longer at risk of significant harm.
12. The procedures say a child protection review conference (CPRC) should consider if a child is at risk and decide whether to carry on with the plan or step-down to a child in need (CIN) plan.
13. To help the CPRC decide, the social worker should provide a report which should contain information about the family and children and give a recommendation about the support needed. A manager should also sign the report with their recommendations.

What happened?

14. In December 2021, the Council completed a ‘child and family assessment’ (the report) which set out the information the Council knew about Ms X’s children and her family.
15. The report stated the reasons for the Council’s earlier concerns and set out the involvement different professionals had had with the family.
16. The report stated Ms X continued to live with mental health issues, but her children were no longer witnessing poor episodes her mental health. It had been these concerning episodes which had made the children ‘worried, sad or unsafe’. The report also said Y was waiting for an assessment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
17. The report recommended a step-down to a CIN plan, but to continue to monitor Ms X’s mental health issues. The report was signed by a social work manager.
18. Following this report, the Council held a CPRC. The professionals at the conference, who worked with the family (including school representatives), made a unanimous decision to step-down Ms X’s children from a CP plan to a CIN plan.
19. The CPRC minutes say Ms X continued to deal with mental health issues and professionals were supporting Ms X. The minutes also say the school would continue to watch Y’s development.
20. The case notes relating to the CPRC include a note that Ms X remained worried about being ‘unsettled’, but accepts she was getting help and support.

My findings

21. The Council’s report following the conference recommended a CIN plan. The report said the mental health professionals working with Ms X had given feedback. This feedback, along with the social worker’s observations, said Ms X could provide ‘good enough’ parenting even when she is having a poor mental health episode.
22. The report said there was no reason to believe Ms X’s children were at risk of significant harm. The Council’s conclusions are supported by evidence and the professionals at the CPRC agreed with them.
23. The Council followed its procedures when it decided to step-down from a CP to a CIN plan. The Council was entitled to decide that a CIN plan would be suitable to support the family. This was not fault by the Council.

The Council stepped-down and closed Children’s Services involvement following a CIN plan.

What should have happened?

24. The Council’s procedures say a CIN plan should be put in place for children who need additional support, but do not need a CP plan.
25. They also say the Council should reduce their involvement with families as a child’s needs are met. In these cases, the social worker will hold a final meeting to agree what support is needed and step-down from a CIN plan.

What happened?

26. The Council’s first CIN plan set out the actions the Council would put in place to help support Ms X and her children, including work with mental health professionals.
27. In January 2022, the Council was aware Ms X was no longer receiving support from a mental health nurse and the Council noted it was concerned about this.
28. Following this, the Council’s case notes set out further actions it took to obtain mental health support for Ms X. This included seeking information from the NHS and trying to arrange advocacy for her.
29. In February the Council’s case notes say Ms X was in hospital. The notes contain information about what the Council did to check the welfare of Ms X’s children during her stay. This included contacting the children’s school and visiting them at home.
30. The case notes also contain information about the Council’s plans to make sure support was available for when Ms X came home from hospital.
31. In March, the Council held a final CIN review meeting. Ms X went to this meeting with other professionals, including an advocacy service which supports children who are affected by mental health.
32. The case notes include a comment made by Ms X that she feels stronger. They also include a note that Y is waiting for an ASD assessment, but the professionals working with Y had no concerns based on their observations of Y while they were in school.

My findings

33. The final CIN review document contains analysis by the social worker, and details Ms X’s progress in managing her own mental health. It also notes that Ms X said she no longer needed the same support from the Council.
34. The review meeting notes state Ms X’s children say they are not affected by
    her mental health and are ‘not worried about home life’. A manager signed the plan agreeing to step-down from a CIN plan.
35. The Council followed its procedures, which say it should reduce its involvement when a child’s needs are met. The Council drew up a plan for how Ms X could get extra help if she needed it, and held a final CIN plan meeting to agree the step-down. This was not fault by the Council.

Should the Council have done anything different while Ms X was in hospital?

36. The Council was responsive to the welfare of Ms X’s children. It contacted the children’s father as soon as it was aware Ms X was in hospital, and contacted the school to check on the children’s welfare. It also carried out two home visits, one of which was while Ms X was still in hospital. There was no fault in how it dealt with this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

37. The Council was not at fault in how it decided the level of support it provided to Ms X’s children.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman