Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council relating to child protection matters concerning his children. Mr X said this distressed and frustrated him and caused him uncertainty. There was fault in the way the Council did not invite Mr X to meetings and communication was poor. This frustrated Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the actions of the Council relating to child protection matters concerning his children. Mr X said this distressed and frustrated him and caused him uncertainty.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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.
7. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint since January 2024. I reference events prior to this for context in this matter.
9. I have not investigated earlier events as Mr X could have complained about them earlier. This is a late complaint and there is not enough reason to accept those parts of it for investigation now.
10. I have not investigated concerns regarding the Council’s actions regarding data protection. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) is best placed to consider this matter, and it is reasonable for Mr X to approach the ICO.
11. I have not investigated any contact arrangements. This was a private matter decided in court, so outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
12. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about the Council lying in court documents. It was reasonable for Mr X to challenge this in court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
14. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
15. Mr 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

Background information

16. 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)
17. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
18. 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. The assessment may result in:

• no further action;
• a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• a decision to convene a strategy meeting.

19. 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”.
20. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.
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. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
24. The statutory guidance on child safeguarding, ‘Working together to safeguard children’, says after the ICPC, the council should convene a core group meeting within 10 working days. The purpose of core group is to:

• further develop the child protection plan;
• facilitate in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and
• implement the child protection plan.

25. The core group is made up of key family members and professionals involved with the child and/or family.

What happened

26. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
27. Mr X has two children with his previous partner, Ms Y. They separated in early 2023. Throughout 2023, Mr X and Ms Y raised concerns about the others parenting of the children.
28. Mr X approached the courts, who issued a non-molestation order to restrict Ms Y’s contact with him in September 2023.
29. Following a reported concern in September 2023, the Council held a strategy meeting, then an ICPC. The conference decided the Council should place the children on a child protection plan. The Council started completing statutory child protection visits and holding core group meetings.
30. Mr X attended meetings until December 2023. Mr X, and others, did not attend meetings in early 2024. The Council recorded this was unusual.
31. Mr X and Ms Y continued to raise concerns about each other with the Council, the police and health care professionals.
32. The family court issued its decision in March 2024, detailing contact arrangements.
33. Mr X started attending meetings again in April 2024. He said he was not invited to meetings and did not receive minutes.
34. Mr X and Ms Y continued to raise concerns about each other with the Council, the police and health care professionals.
35. Mr X complained to the Council in October 2024. He complained the Council had not sent details of core group meetings and not sent minutes. He also complained the Council had not completed home visits or considered concerns he raised.
36. The Council issued its complaint response in November 2024. The response accepted times where it did not respond to concerns and apologised for the shortfall in contact. The Council apologised it was behind on recording of meetings and confirmed it reminded staff to send minutes. The Council confirmed it had considered all the concerns raised and Mr X should challenge this in court if he disagreed.
37. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to improve its service.
38. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it completed visits, but they were occasionally delayed. It confirmed it was behind on recording core group minutes and accepted a delay in sending invites, but said meeting dates were arranged in previous meetings. The Council confirmed it considered the concerns and acted appropriately.

My findings

39. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or failed to properly explain a decision it has made. We call this ‘fault’, and where we find it, we can consider the consequences of the fault and ask the council to address these.
40. However, we do not provide a right of appeal against council decisions, and we cannot make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf. If we do not find fault in how a council has made a decision, then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is the wrong decision. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.
41. This case is complicated by continuing disagreements between Mr X and Ms Y and multiple reports to different agencies.
42. The focus of the Council should always be the wellbeing of the child. The Ombudsman recognises safeguarding procedures can be stressful, but the Council has a duty to the children. The children were subject to child protection plans because of concerns about their emotional wellbeing because of the parental conflict. The Council has acted to safeguard the children.

Safeguarding concerns

43. The Council has received multiple concerns from both Mr X and Ms Y. The Council considered each of them, as have other professionals in the case, and decided on the most suitable actions. The Council was not at fault.
44. However, the Council accepted it did not respond to all Mr X’s concerns. This is fault. We do not expect a council to give detailed responses to concerns when involving others, but we expect it to communicate appropriately. The Council accepted this in its complaint response, apologised and reminded its staff of the need to communicate effectively. This is a suitable remedy for any injustice this fault caused.

Core group meetings

45. The Council confirmed it did not send meeting minutes out within a reasonable timescale, but said the meeting dates were agreed at the previous meeting. The meeting in December 2023 confirmed the next meeting in January 2024. The Council delayed the meeting by three weeks. There is no evidence of communications to Mr X or others about this change. The Council did not send invites to the meetings and delayed sending minutes. It was at this point Mr X stopped attending meetings. It is not reasonable for the Council to say it agreed the dates at the previous meeting, when the issues started when it changed a meeting date and did not tell others. The Council then did not send minutes within a reasonable timescale, so Mr X did not know the dates of future meetings. The Council started to invite Mr X again in April 2024 but for the three previous meetings, the Council did not invite Mr X. The Council also did not send meeting minutes within a reasonable timescale. This is fault, frustrating Mr X.

Back to top

Action

46. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X by the fault I have identified, the Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for not ensuring he had the correct information and invites for core group meetings. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman