Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to tell him it put his daughter on a child in need plan. He also says there was an unacceptable turnover of social workers, and the Council gave him inconsistent information about the complaints process. We find the Council was at fault for failing to tell Mr D it put his daughter on a child in need plan. It was also at fault for how it dealt with the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council failed to tell him it put his daughter, E, on a child in need plan. He also says there was an unacceptable turnover of social workers, and the Council gave him inconsistent information about the complaints process.
2. Mr D adds the Council failed to meet deadlines during court proceedings, it changed its position during the proceedings without informing anyone, it failed to follow the public law outline procedure and it delayed initiating public law proceedings.
3. Mr D says the matter has caused distress, worry, and upset.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated the complaints listed in paragraph one above. I have not investigated the complaints listed in paragraph two because they are too closely linked to what happened in court. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate such complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
8. 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.
9. 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

10. I considered information from Mr D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
11. Mr D 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

Child in need

12. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. A child is in need if:

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

13. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare.

Child protection

14. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation to determine whether protective action is required (Section 47 of the Children Act 1989). Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
15. An assessor may decide that no further action is necessary, that the child is in need, or the child needs protection. Where the outcome is continued involvement, an initial child protection conference is held to decide what action is needed to safeguard the child.

What happened

16. This chronology provides an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
17. The Council put Mr D’s daughter, E, on a child in need plan at the beginning of 2018 as it was concerned about her emotional wellbeing. E was living with Mr D’s ex-partner (Ms F).
18. Several meetings took place to monitor whether E was receiving appropriate support. The Council reviewed the matter several months later and was satisfied with the progress that had been made. It closed the case.
19. Mr D initiated private court proceedings a few months later to seek consistent contact with E. The judge granted a Child Arrangements Order which set out Mr D’s contact with E.
20. Ms F alleged Mr D harmed E and her other children. The Council considered the matter and agreed to conduct joint section 47 enquiries with the police.
21. The Council completed its enquiries with the police and decided there was not enough evidence to proceed to an initial child protection conference. However, it decided to conduct a further assessment under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
22. The Council completed the assessment in February 2019. It decided to put E on another child in need plan to see whether she was at risk of emotional harm.
23. The Council spoke to Mr D about the issues. Mr D said it did not tell him E was on a child in need plan in 2018. The Council said Mr D had the right to make a formal complaint as it should have sought his agreement during the child in need planning period.
24. E went to live with Mr D the following month after Ms F had a serious mental health incident.
25. Mr D applied to court to seek full custody of E.
26. Mr D complained to the Council in July 2019. He said it failed to tell him it put E on a child in need plan and there was an unacceptable turnover of social workers. He said he was facing significant financial strain to fight the private proceedings.
27. The Council wrote to Mr D and said it could not investigate his complaint because of the private law proceedings. However, it said he could attend a meeting to informally resolve his concerns.
28. Mr D attended a meeting with a manager at the Council to discuss his complaint. There are no notes of this meeting.
29. The Council removed E from the child in need plan in October 2020 and noted there were no safeguarding concerns for her in Mr D’s care.
30. The judge decided during a hearing in 2021 the Council should share parental responsibility for E as she had suffered significant harm under Ms F’s care. The case moved towards public law proceedings.
31. Mr D emailed the Council in November. He asked how to proceed with his complaint as the matter was now out of private proceedings. The Council did not respond.
32. The court proceedings ended in August 2022. The final order was for E to remain in Mr D’s care and the Council would continue to support the family.
33. Mr D complained to the Council again in January 2023 about its handling of the matter. The Council responded and said it could not investigate his complaints as the matter had been subject to court proceedings. It said it was reasonable for him to have raised any issues during the proceedings.
34. Mr D responded and said it previously told him to wait until the proceedings ended before raising his complaint. He said the issues in his complaint were separable from the court proceedings. The Council responded and refused to investigate the matter further. It said it was sorry if it previously gave him assurances it would accept his complaint.

Back to top

Analysis

35. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. Mr D refers to matters from 2018, but he did not refer his complaint to us until February 2023. I have exercised discretion to look at Mr D’s complaint from 2018. Mr D tried to complain to the Council sooner, but it told him it could not accept a complaint from him until the proceedings ended. Mr D then complained to the Council after the proceedings ended, and he referred his complaint promptly to us after it responded.
36. The Council failed to tell Mr D it put E on a child in need plan in 2018. This is fault. Mr D has parental responsibility for E and he was actively involved in her life. The Council should have made Mr D aware of the issues so he could take part in any child in need meetings and support E. Its failure to do so caused Mr D shock, upset, and worry about E’s welfare.
37. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it confirmed it had assigned 16 social workers to work with E since 2018. It accepts this may seem high but says there have been many referrals during this time. It also says there was a large turnover of staff because of periods of sickness.
38. I accept that a certain degree of social worker change is to be expected due to turnover of staff and referrals to more appropriate teams. I also accept it is out of the Council’s control if a social worker becomes unwell. However, the number of social workers that have worked with E is high which means it has been difficult for her to gain a trusting relationship with them and have stability. This has caused Mr D some worry. The Council assigned eight social workers to the case over a time span of 16 months. Mr D asked the Council for consistency during this time, but the Council assigned agency social workers to the case. There is a higher chance an agency social worker will leave over a permanent member of staff. As Mr D had raised concerns, the Council should have made every effort to ensure stability.
39. Mr D says when the Council assigned a new social worker, he had to spend time explaining the history of the case. While I have not seen any evidence of this, I accept it is more likely than not Mr D would have had to repeat information each time the Council assigned a new social worker. This caused him some frustration.
40. Mr D says the Council gave him inconsistent information about the complaints process. The Council accepts its communication in 2019 may not have been as clear as it should have been. It says it has since altered its process and it now advises complainants to approach it once proceedings have ended so it can assess the complaint. However, it now makes it clear it still may be unable to investigate the complaint.
41. There are no notes of the meeting in 2019 and so it is not clear what the officer told Mr D. However, from the tone of Mr D’s correspondence in 2021 and 2023, it appears the Council failed to provide him with enough clarity on whether it could investigate his complaint when the proceedings ended. I consider this has unreasonably raised Mr D’s expectations. I welcome the Council has recognised this and has implemented service improvements.
42. The Council failed to reply to Mr D’s email from November 2021. The Council says the officer left in July 2021. However, the Council should have a system in place to deal with emails from officers that leave. The officer was a senior manager, and therefore her emails should have been forwarded on to someone else or an appropriate out of office should have been set up with alternative contact details. The Council’s failure to do so means there was a lost opportunity for it to clarify with Mr D its position on the complaints process.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 18 September 2023 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr D. In doing so it should have regard to our new guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay Mr D £250 for his worry, frustration and upset.

44. By 16 October 2023 the Council will:

• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they involve all individuals with parental responsibility for a child/young person in the child in need planning process.

45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr D an injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman