Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it involved Mr B in his children’s social work assessment and support plan. It took reasonable steps to seek his views and involve him in the development of the plan.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council’s children’s social work team held meetings about his children without his knowledge (and therefore without his input or attendance). He says this caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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

4. I considered information from Mr B and the Council. I also considered the following statutory government guidance:
• ‘Working together to safeguard children 2018’ – which tells councils how to meet their duties to support children and families, and which was in force at the start of the period in question.
• ‘Working together to safeguard children 2023’ – which came into force during the period in question.
• The ‘Children’s social care national framework’ – which sets out the government’s expected social work practice standards.
5. Mr B 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

The Council’s responsibilities

6. Every social care assessment must be informed by the views of a child’s family and should be discussed with the child’s parents when appropriate. Social workers should ensure these things happen. (‘Working together’ 2018)
7. This approach sits within a ‘whole family culture’ in which the needs of all members of the family – and the ways in which those needs affect each other – are explored. (‘Working together’ 2023)
8. Every area of children’s social work should incorporate the views of parents into plans to keep children safe. Social workers should value the insight of family members, seek out their views and respond to any concerns they might have. (The national framework)

What happened

9. In mid-October 2023 – having received a referral about Mr B’s children’s welfare – the Council decided to conduct an assessment. Its social worker emailed Mr B and asked to speak to him about the assessment. He did not live with the children at that point.
10. Mr B did not agree to speak to the social worker. He said he had dealt with the Council’s social work team in the past and had been unhappy. He named two of the social worker’s colleagues and said the social worker was “on rocky ground given your association with [the Council’s social work team]”.
11. The Council completed its assessment shortly afterwards – without Mr B’s views recorded – and decided to put a support plan in place for his children. It held a meeting to discuss the plan but did not invite him.
12. In January 2024, the Council held another meeting. This time, it invited Mr B. However, after he complained that he had not been given the record of the previous meeting, the meeting was postponed.
13. This meeting was held in early February. It was split, with Mr B attending one half and the children’s mother attending the other.
14. During the meeting – although the Council asked Mr B to focus on his children’s support plan – instead he repeatedly raised complaints about how the Council had dealt with him personally. The Council decided to end Mr B’s part of the meeting early.
15. Later in February, after an incident at the family home, the Council told Mr B that it would be conducting a safeguarding investigation. It asked to visit him to discuss this.
16. Mr B refused. Instead, he demanded a series of concessions from the Council, including the removal of a named member of staff from his children’s support planning process. He said that, without the concessions, he would not attend any more meetings.
17. Following this, we accepted Mr B’s complaint for investigation.

My findings

18. There is a clear expectation, across the government’s children’s social work guidance documents, that families should be involved in assessment and support planning. Social workers should proactively seek input from parents and others throughout family networks, including those outside the immediate family home.
19. Consequently – and in the context of Mr B’s complaint – we expect councils to take reasonable steps to engage with, and seek the views of, both parents of a child when those parents are living separately (not just the parent with whom the child lives).
20. Mr B is unhappy with how the Council did this. But I note that:
• The social worker tried to discuss the assessment with him at the outset (a couple of weeks before the first support plan meeting), but he was not prepared to do this.
• He was invited to the second support plan meeting, but the Council had to postpone the meeting because he complained about not having minutes of the previous meeting.
• He attended the rearranged second meeting, but his part of the meeting was ended early because he focused on matters unrelated to his children’s support plan.
• When the Council tried to discuss its safeguarding investigation with him, he refused.
21. With these points in mind, I have decided that the Council was not at fault. It took reasonable steps to seek Mr B’s views and to involve him in its assessment and support planning.
22. The Council could have invited Mr B to the first meeting after he had not initially wanted to talk to the social worker. And it could have sent him the minutes of the meeting afterwards. This would, perhaps, have better demonstrated to him that it valued his insight.
23. However, in the context of Mr B’s apparent unwillingness to engage with the social worker at that time, the Council’s failure to do these things did not amount to maladministration. It was not unreasonable for the Council to proceed with its assessment and planning without Mr B’s input.
24. If, early on in the process, Mr B had wanted to know more about what was going on with his children’s case (or had wanted to be more involved), he could have discussed this with the social worker.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman