Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council responded to a concern he raised in relation to his son, after a childcare arrangement broke down. There was no fault in the Council’s initial decision to take no action. It took a decision it was able to take and there is no obvious flaw in the way it made this decision. Nor was there any fault in how it carried out its duties as part of the child and family assessment process after it received more information. There was fault it delayed completing that assessment, and this delay caused Mr X an injustice. However, I find there is no significant unremedied injustice remaining.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council refused to respond to an initial concern for the welfare of his son (B), when he told it about a care arrangement with his ex-partner breaking down in January 2023.
2. Mr X then made a further complaint to the Council about how it later considered and assessed the risks posed to his son, caused by the ongoing situation, when he subsequently raised concerns in February 2023.
3. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused him significant stress and negatively impacted on his son’s mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

What I have not investigated

7. Mr X was unhappy with how the Council handled his complaints because it did not escalate them to stage two of its complaint procedures. I have not considered this matter further. Our investigations need to be proportionate, and we do not consider matters where any injustice is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
9. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
10. I have considered the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023 and further guidance on the Council’s website relating to its Children and Families hub.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Child in need assessments

12. The Council have a general duty to provide services to support children in need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. To fulfil this duty, practitioners carry out assessments of the needs of the child.
13. The guidance says where such a referral has been made, a manager will review the case and decide on next steps. It also says arrangements should be made to see the child as soon as possible.
14. The guidance says the assessment should include the views of the family and the child. Finally, it says the maximum timeframe for an assessment to be concluded should be no longer than 45 working days from the point of referral.

The Council’s local offer

15. The Council’s website has information and guidance relating to how service users can access local services supporting children, young people and their families. It provides an access point for people to contact them, who can then triage any calls for support.
16. The guidance allows for consideration of concerns and an action the Council can take if it decides it is appropriate, is to take no action and signpost the person raising a concern to other services.
17. As part of its local offer, the Council have a support service known as Family Solutions (FS) that supports families who are facing a lot of challenges. The FS service says it will provide families with a Family Worker who will work with them to try and resolve problems.

What happened

18. Mr X told me, in 2022, the Family Solutions (FS) service at the Council were involved in supporting his family, including his son (B), and after a period had stopped their involvement when there was no longer a need for support. Mr X said the Council’s involvement at that time facilitated an agreed shared care arrangement of B, between he and his ex-partner.
19. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject and the third-party information provided by the Council, which I cannot share with Mr X, I have not included any details beyond those necessary to understand my decision. 

Initial referral – January 2023

20. In mid-January 2023, Mr X contacted the Council’s early help triage service. Mr X told it, he had spoken to his ex-partner recently, who had said she would no longer be able to carry on with the same care arrangement.
21. Mr X told the Council he was concerned the arrangement changing may significantly affect his son’s wellbeing, because of his previous experience. Mr X asked to be referred to the FS service, because he wanted the FS service caseworker to confirm whether the information his ex-partner told him about why the arrangement was being changed, was accurate. Mr X told me in response to my draft decision, he also wanted the Council to provide extra support to his ex-partner.
22. The Council made a note of Mr X’s contact, and it considered the recent history of its contact with Mr X and his family. The Council asked Mr X to get in touch with the school to discuss his concerns.
23. A senior manager agreed with the recommended action and the Council closed the referral saying:
• There was no role for social care;
• Mr X to speak to B’s school, and;
• Mr X to organise a ‘plan’ with B’s mother, after it had earlier asked him to try and negotiate a safety plan with B’s mother.

Second referral

24. Mr X and B’s school made further referrals about a week later, raising further concerns about B. The Council then allocated a social worker to B’s case.
25. In late January, a manager reviewed the case and made a series of recommendations to the social worker and asked them to complete an assessment, including the following:
• To contact and do direct work with the family members;
• review previous involvement with the family, and;
• obtain consent to speak to other agencies about the family.
26. The manager also gave an instruction that if at any point the social worker believed that B was at risk of significant harm, the social worker should escalate any concerns for consideration of a strategy meeting. The manager asked the social worker to aim to complete their assessment by late March.
27. According to the case notes, the social worker carried out a series of actions and contacted Mr X and others in line with the manager’s recommendations. The evidence shows the social worker considered whether there was any risk to B.
28. The case notes also show Mr X periodically asked the Council for clarification or for further information about the ongoing assessment. I have looked at the Council’s responses to Mr X’s requests here and these appear to be a reasonable and proportionate response to the issues Mr X raised. I note the Council also explained it had limitations here, that it was unable to share private information.
29. In early April, the case notes indicate the social worker told Mr X they were going to recommend that B be provided support under a child in need plan (CIN).
30. In early May, the Council completed its assessment. Subsequently, the Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in completing the assessment.

My findings

Initial referral

31. Mr X told me he wanted a specific team at the Council to respond to his concern. He said he believed because it had prior involvement with B, then it could be more effective. He also accepted even if this team had supported him initially, it may not have prevented the issues he was concerned about.
32. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did at this point. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
33. The Council made a note of Mr X’s concerns at that time, considered its previous involvement, and decided to signpost Mr X to B’s school. That is a decision it can take, in line with its guidance and in the absence of any flaw here, I cannot criticise its decision. On the information I have seen, it was not an unreasonable decision for the Council to make.

Second referral

34. There was no fault in how the Council carried out its duties in relation to the second referrals concerning B, in so far as the initial points Mr X made in his second complaint to the Council in late February 2023 (paragraph two). It identified there was a need to carry out an assessment based upon new information, and a manager considered the circumstances. The social worker also visited B and took their views. The evidence shows it spoke to Mr X and took account of his views.
35. However, there was a delay in the Council finalising the assessment. For the Council to have complied with the statutory guidance, then this should have been done no later than early April and it was not complete until around 5 weeks later. That is fault and the Council have apologised directly to Mr X for this delay.
36. This fault caused Mr X an injustice because he will have experienced avoidable uncertainty about when the assessment would be finalised and that caused him distress. However because it is not so significant, and because there is no remaining unremedied injustice, I do not need to make any further comment or recommendations about this. The evidence shows Mr X was told in early April that the outcome was likely to be a CIN plan, the Council was still in contact with him after the expected due date had elapsed, and it has apologised.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing Mr X an injustice, but as there is no significant unremedied injustice remaining, I have not made any further recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman