Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to support her during the child protection process. She said this significantly impacted her mental and physical health. We found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider Ms X’s requests for respite care, and for failing to properly consider alternative contact arrangements with the children’s father.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to support her during the child protection process.
2. Ms X said, with suitable support from the Council, including respite care, she could have cared for her children herself.
3. Ms X considers the Council made an unnecessary Prevent referral for one of her children, Y. She also considers the Council did not need to place her children on child protection or child in need plans. Ms X said the Council inappropriately involved her ex-husband in visits to her home, despite a history of domestic violence.
4. Ms X also complained about delays and inaccuracies in the Council’s records.
5. Ms X said the Council’s actions significantly impacted her mental and physical health, and the support for her eldest child was inadequate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. 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)
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I investigated matters relating to child protection support and the Prevent referral.
10. I did not investigate Y being out of school and without alternative education provision. This has been considered in a separate complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
12. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
13. 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

Child in need

14. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
15. 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.
16. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 
17. 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.

Child protection

18. 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. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
19. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing.
20. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
21. If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference.
22. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
23. After the Initial Child Protection Conference, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
24. The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conference unless there was good reason not to.

Guidance on Prevent referrals

25. The Prevent referral process is part of the Government's wider counter-terrorism strategy. It aims to safeguard people, address personal needs and vulnerabilities, and help people be more resilient to violent extremism.
26. The Government expects local authorities to assess the risk of individuals being drawn into terrorism. This should be informed by engagement with partners such as Prevent co-ordinators, schools, colleges, and health services.
27. If someone is concerned a person may be vulnerable to the risk or radicalisation, they can make a referral to the police who will make an assessment.
28. There is no statutory requirement to obtain the individual’s consent before making a referral.
29. The police may conclude no further action is needed. Or they may refer the individual on for a partner agency to provide support.
30. Prevent referrals are confidential and do not result in a criminal record or other sanction.

Respite care

31. Respite care means having a break from caring, while the person you care for is looked after by someone else. It helps to stop carers becoming exhausted and run down.
32. Councils can fund respite care for people they assess as needing it. It may also be possible to get paid respite care from a charity. Councils can provide information about local support.

What happened

33. I have summarised below some key events leading to Ms X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
34. Ms X’s eldest child, Y, was not attending school following behaviour issues and struggles linked to their autism.
35. The Council’s children’s services assessed Y for an EHC plan. This involved input from an Educational Psychologist (EP).
36. The EP made a Prevent referral in June 2022 due to concerns about thoughts and opinions Y expressed, on genocide and harming others.
37. The police attended Ms X’s home in late June 2022 due to Y’s behaviour. The police took no action, but referred the incidents to the Council, as they considered children’s services were best placed to support the family.
38. A mental health crisis practitioner met with Y to discuss his thoughts and feelings before discussions with other professionals.
39. There was a further incident in early July 2022 which Ms X reported this to the Council. The Council recorded Mrs X said she and her second child, Z, are not safe around Y. She asked the Council for help. Ms X said she told the Council she was not coping and calling the police made things worse, not that she did not feel safe.
40. A Council manager considered taking the matter forward as a section 47 investigation and holding a strategy meeting. However, they considered this would create barriers to working with the family, so decided not to and instead agree actions with the parents. The manager recorded the Council will review this if the situation changes.
41. The Council placed Ms X’s children on a child in need (CIN) plan on 13 July 2022. This process involved the police, the children’s school, Y’s mental health support worker, and adult social care.
42. The Council’s plan was for the mental health service to complete an extended assessment of Y’s risks and needs. This was likely to be over six sessions. Y was also to have support from Prevent and an EP report. The Council also planned to signpost Ms X to mental health support services, and for a social worker to form a plan between Y’s parents about the father’s role, so Ms X has a break. The social worker was also to carry out safety planning with Z, who was to also receive support from the school.
43. Ms X expressed concerns and dissatisfaction at her ex-husband’s involvement, given the domestic abuse she suffered.
44. Ms X telephoned the Council in early August 2022. She asked for a support package as she could not cope. She felt the Council was not providing support. The only support it suggested was for her ex-husband to look after the children in her home, despite the history of domestic abuse. Ms X was uncomfortable with this. A Council officer felt Ms X was in crisis and needed support.
45. A child psychiatrist met Y on 16 August 2022. They reported Y engaged well and was keen for the situation to change, but was overwhelmed. They considered Y’s behaviour was linked to autism, and distress at school. Y did not have strategies to deal with this.
46. A social worker recorded further behavioural issues from Y on 21 August 2022. This was followed by a productive visit with Y, where they agreed to engage with mental health services.
47. The Council held a multi-agency panel meeting in October 2022 due to concerns about online content Y was accessing. Y was also violent towards Ms X and was not fully engaging with mental health services. The professionals present decided matters were at child protection level, so an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) was scheduled. Meanwhile, the Council looked into alternative school provision for Y, and assigned support workers for Y and Ms X.
48. The Council records Ms X was resistant to a support worker for herself and did not want to be offered courses. She wanted support for Y and respite for herself. She said her ex-husband’s home is not suitable, so a previous social worker told her to let him into her home on Saturdays to look after the children. Ms X said this was inappropriate due to the history of domestic violence.
49. A youth support worker met with Y and noted they expressed concerning views about religion, capital punishment, genocide, and eugenics.
50. Ms X emailed the Council on 21 October 2022, just before the ICPC. She had only received the ICPC report the day before, and it contained inaccuracies.
51. At the ICPC, Ms X said she can look after her children, but she needed help to deal with Y’s behaviours and get them back into education. The Council cited the following concerns:
• The emotional impact Y’s behaviours had on Z, and that it could compromise their safety and safety of others in the community.
• The impact on Z’s ability to socialise and express themself.
• The impact on Ms X’s emotional and physical health.
• Ms X’s lack of support.
52. All professionals involved considered Ms X’s children should be on a child protection (CP) plan due to potential emotional harm.
53. A youth support worker visited Y again on 27 October 2022, after Y had been looked after by their father. Ms X said she found it difficult to come home when her ex-husband had been there. It felt contaminated, but she had no choice.
54. Children’s services agreed to write a letter supporting the ex-husband’s housing application so he could get a property with room for the children to stay over.
55. An email from Ms X to the Council in early November 2022 confirmed Y started taking medication. They were speaking to Prevent, having cognitive behavioural therapy, and seeing a psychiatrist. They were also engaging with a youth worker and social worker. However, Ms X suggested this was overwhelming for Y.
56. Y’s mental health practitioner met Y on 10 November 2022. They considered the risk Y posed was significantly reduced. Y seemed brighter and less anxious.
57. Ms X had a virtual meeting with her support worker on 16 November 2022. Ms X questioned the benefit of her support. The support worker considered Ms X did not want to engage and the support offered may not be suitable or appropriate at that time.
58. Ms X emailed the Council on 22 November 2022, raising concerns about inaccuracies in meeting minutes. She said her children were never subject to physical abuse, but records suggest they need to live in a home free of this.
59. The Council said the physical abuse referenced was from Y towards Ms X. It offered to discuss meeting minutes with Ms X at the next review so there is a record of this.
60. At the end of November 2022, the Council recorded the risks from Y had reduced. Y engaged well and there was warm interaction between Y and Ms X. The Council considered it needed to further explore the role of Y’s father and how visits are working.
61. In early December 2022, two schools agreed they could meet Y’s needs. Ms X’s support worker offered to help with placement visits. Ms X did not want this type of support. She wanted physical support so she could have respite. The support worker agreed their support was no longer helpful for Ms X.
62. Ms X emailed the Council asking for respite care on 12 December 2022. While Y improved, Ms X said Z was demanding, and she needs some time out. She was stressed by the process and desperately needed respite as she was at breaking point. A social worker offered to visit Ms X to discuss what she felt she needed, and make enquiries about respite.
63. At a multi-agency meeting on 13 December 2022, the Council said a social worker would explore options for Ms X’s ex-husband to have the children to give Ms X respite, once he has suitable housing. A social worker was also to meet Ms X to discuss how she meets her own needs.
64. The Council reviewed the case on 22 December 2022. It noted there were no further behaviour incidents from Y. Y received support from mental health services and this was positive. Z attended school regularly, had input from a support worker, and did not express further worries about Y.
65. A social worker accompanied Ms X to view two possible schools for Y on 20 January 2023. Ms X decided both schools were unsuitable for Y’s needs.
66. The Council held a multi-agency review meeting on 25 January 2023. A social worker gave Ms X a copy of their report a day beforehand.
67. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council. She said the Council:
• Did not give advanced notice about the review meeting and only provided its report the day before.
• The report is negative about her contribution to the children, is heartless, blames her despite the Council failing to provide support, and contains inaccuracies.
• Support from her ex-husband is harmful to the family, as it takes place in her home. She asked the Council if this could take place elsewhere, but the Council did nothing.
• She asked for help when her father was dying. The Council said it would find respite but did nothing.
68. In the Council’s stage one complaint response it apologised for not sending its report in a timely manner. It said a manager should have reviewed the report before it was sent, and it will ensure it does not send reports with unprofessional remarks in future. It also said it should have sent Ms X an invite for the meeting in advance. The Council said it would discuss alternative contact locations with Ms X’s ex-husband, including at other family members’ homes or in the community.
69. Ms X was not satisfied the Council had addressed her complaint. She asked for it be considered at stage two of the process.
70. In the Council’s final complaint response, it recognised it could have taken more care about data inaccuracies. However, it said Ms X addressed her views and opinions about the content and accuracy of reports within a review meeting. The Council also sent her email to all those who attended.
71. The Council also recognised it could have been more thorough in its response about support from Ms X’s ex-husband. Its procedure is to involve both parents and it should have explained this at the outset, so Ms X could raise any concerns.
72. The Council said its children’s services did not say contact from Ms X’s ex-husband had to be in her home, and a social worker confirmed to Ms X the Council did not enforce this.
73. The Council recognised it could have done more in its response about respite care. It accepted the support it offered was not in the format Ms X wanted. However, it said minutes from a meeting confirm the Council told Ms X its children’s services cannot offer respite care.

My Investigation

74. Ms X told me the Council raised safeguarding concerns because she was overwhelmed and needed support. She said a social worker then stepped in and made things worse. Their reports were inaccurate, such as about her sister’s circumstances.
75. Ms X said the Council’s solution was support from her ex-husband, despite knowing she suffered domestic violence. His home was not fit for the children to stay at, so he had to visit them at Ms X’s home instead. This affected Ms X’s mental health.
76. Ms X considers professionals misinterpreted things Y said, and escalated matters, including making a Prevent referral. Ms X considers this was unnecessary. She said Y is vulnerable but would not speak to others online.
77. Ms X considers Y’s behaviour escalated because of the process and the pressure it placed them under. Ms X also said the counselling she had to have caused more harm than good. She needed respite care.
78. The Council told me the decision to place Ms X’s children on child protection plans was a multi-agency decision made by several services who agreed the threshold was met.
79. The Council said it assigned Y a support worker to help with struggles at home.
80. It cannot offer respite support to every parent who feels overwhelmed. It said Ms X was aware of support in the community but chose not to access this. It also said there were times Ms X refused visits or refused to engage with support. Before offering respite, the Council looks for evidence parents have engaged in all work and support on offer to reduce family stress first. The Council said Ms X turned down help and support several times.

Analysis

81. The decision to make a Prevent referral was a professional judgement made by an EP. Professionals are expected to make referrals in circumstances where they consider someone is at risk of radicalisation. Given the thoughts Y expressed, and given the concerns about his isolation and vulnerability, I do not consider there is evidence of fault in this decision.
82. Likewise, the decisions to place Ms X’s children on child in need and child protection plans are also ones of professional judgement. The Council did not take these decisions alone. It was in partnership with professionals from the police, children’s social care, the children’s school, the children’s support worker, and a psychiatrist. The decisions were made after assessing the concerns and risks, and with input from professionals who worked with the family and were familiar with the relevant history. I have not seen evidence of fault in this decision-making process.
83. Ms X considers the involvement of different professionals made the situation worse, due to the distress the process caused Y. I can appreciate Ms X’s concerns, and the evidence I have seen does show Y felt overwhelmed, and there were more incidents after the Council became involved. However, I do not say the process caused an escalation in Y’s behaviour, nor do I find the Council at fault for intervening. Given Y’s behaviours, the Council had a duty to act in the way it did. That was not only to safeguard and support Y, but Ms X, Z, and the wider community as well.
84. Ms X complained about the content of Council reports and minutes. I can appreciate some wording and officer opinions must have been upsetting. However, I found these were the professional opinions of those working with the family. And while officers should be mindful of the impact of their views and how they are expressed, they cannot shy away from stating a genuine belief or concern for fear of causing offence. I found the professional opinions expressed are consistent with the recorded history of events, and with the contemporaneous notes taken by professionals working with the family. I have therefore not seen evidence of fault.
85. Ms X did highlight some inaccuracies about the circumstances of her extended family members and support network. However, I do not know the full family details. In any event, I do not consider any such minor errors would amount to significant fault or injustice.
86. Ms X asked for respite care several times. The Council sought to help Ms X by offering support workers for her and for Y. On the evidence seen, this did eventually lead to improvement in Y’s behaviours and a fall in incidents once he started to fully engage. However, this was not the type of support Ms X wanted for herself. On one occasion, an officer said they would look into respite care, raising Ms X’s expectations. If the Council was unwilling or unable to offer respite care, it should have clearly communicated this to Ms X at the outset.
87. The Council told me it looks for evidence parents have engaged in all work and support before offering respite. However, I have not seen evidence it communicated this to Ms X. As above, an officer raised her expectations. Also, there is evidence a support worker acknowledged the support offered to Ms X was not suitable at the time. The Council did not consider this further and did not appear to take it into account when Ms X continued to ask for respite care.
88. The Council considered Ms X could have some respite through her ex-husband looking after the children. The Council was not at fault for involving the children’s father, and, under ordinary circumstances we would not criticise its approach.
89. However, the children’s father did not have a suitable home for the children to stay at, so an arrangement was made for him to care for the children at Ms X’s house. Ms X, understandably, expressed unhappiness with this, given the history. She told the Council about the impact on her wellbeing and asked for a different solution. The records show the Council was aware and mindful of this. However, no other arrangements materialised. The Council’s complaint response states it did not force Ms X to agree this arrangement. I found this failed to recognise Ms X’s situation, or the Council’s responsibility in the wider proceedings. Ms X was trying to comply with the CP plan and do what the Council asked of her in order to support her children. And the Council was fully aware of the strain Ms X was under.
90. I found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider Ms X’s requests for respite care. It also failed to look at alternative arrangements for her ex-husband’s support, and failed to follow up on solutions after officers agreed to help. The Council was also at fault for failing to effectively communicate things to Ms X. This caused Ms X further avoidable distress on top of what was already a stressful situation.

Back to top

Agreed action

91. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Ms X for failing to properly consider her requests for respite care, and for failing to properly consider alternative contact arrangements with the children’s father.
• Pay Ms X £300 to recognise the avoidable distress its failings caused.
92. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

93. I completed my investigation. I found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider Ms X’s requests for respite care, and for failing to properly consider alternative contact arrangements with the children’s father.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman