Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to take appropriate action to safeguard and promote the welfare of her children. We find there were delays in care planning which likely delayed Mrs B from having unsupervised contact with her children. The Council also failed to respond to correspondence sent on behalf of Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X, a professional advocate, is complaining on behalf of Mrs B. She complains that the Council is not safeguarding and promoting Mrs B’s children’s welfare. She says that the Council has delayed reaching decisions about where the children should live and how much contact Mrs B should have with them, and has ignored Mrs B’s views and those of her children. Ms X also complains that the Council has failed to take appropriate action when it has been told the children have suffered harm while in their father’s care. She says the Council insists that Mrs B communicates with the children’s father, which she feels unable to do. Ms X also complains that the Council does not properly communicate with Mrs B and fails to respond to her correspondence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
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 and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Ms X’s complaints about events which took place between January 2023 and January 2024.
8. I have not investigated earlier events due to the restrictions detailed in paragraph two. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mrs B to complain about these matters sooner.
9. This complaint was made to us in January 2024 and therefore does not relate to events since then. As I understand it, Ms X intends to make another complaint to us about more recent actions taken by the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Ms X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, policy and guidance

12. A Looked after Child (LAC) is any child who is subject to a care order.
13. All looked after children must have a care plan. A care plan is a document that provides a clear and accessible record of the child’s needs and the support that is required to meet those needs. The care plan must be kept under regular review.
14. Children in care have an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) who is responsible for ensuring councils adhere to children’s care plans. They also chair the child’s statutory review, which normally takes place every six months.
15. 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)

Background and key events

16. Mrs B and her ex-husband, Mr B, separated in 2017. They have three children together.
17. In March 2019, a full care order was granted. The court directed that the children live with their father and have supervised contact with their mother.
18. The eldest child, who was 14 years old at the time, chose to live with Mrs B and has remained with her since the care order was granted.
19. After initially living with their father, the plan for the two younger children changed and a 50:50 shared care arrangement was put in place. This continued until August 2022, when Mr B was arrested following a domestic incident with his then partner. The Council decided the children should stay with their mother full-time on a temporary basis while the incident was investigated.
20. The police investigation ended and no charges were brought against Mr B. The Council arranged for contact to be re-introduced between the children and Mr B.
21. In December 2022, Mr B expressed concerns about Mrs B’s behaviour and alleged that she was obstructing his contact with the children. He then decided to resume full-time care of the children and to restrict Mrs B’s contact to supervised visits. The Council stated it could not intervene because this was consistent with the original care order and there were no safeguarding concerns about Mr B.
22. A few days later, one of the children alleged that they had been physically harmed by Mrs B when they were in her care. A strategy discussion was held and a section 47 enquiry was carried out, which concluded that the child was not at continuing risk of significant harm.
23. A Child and Family assessment was also completed, which stated what needed to happen for the children to be safe from harm. It included both parents engaging in support with co-parenting.
24. From December 2022 to March 2023, Mrs B had supervised contact with the children at a contact centre, followed by supervised visits in her home until June 2023.
25. A looked after review scheduled for April 2023 was postponed because a care planning meeting needed to take place first.
26. In June 2023, Mrs B provided evidence that she had taken it upon herself to start engaging in therapeutic work. The Council carried out a risk assessment and decided that Mrs B should have unsupervised contact with the children.
27. The care plans were updated in June 2023 and the looked after review was completed shortly thereafter. In July 2023, the 50:50 shared care arrangement was reinstated.
28. The Council considered applying to discharge the care order, but decided against doing so in December 2023 after further concerns were raised about the children.

Analysis

Delays

29. There has been significant delay and drift in the management of this case. These delays are, at least in part, attributable to the lack of continuity in social work support. Between January 2023 and January 2024, the children had four different social workers. Each new worker required time to become familiar with the case and establish relationships with the children and their parents, which inevitably slowed progress.
30. Despite significant changes to the children’s circumstances in December 2022, and concerns about their wellbeing, the care plan was not updated until June 2023, eight months after it was last updated.
31. The section 47 enquiries were completed in February 2023 but there is no evidence in the Council’s records to show there was a clear plan to discuss the outcome of the enquiries with Mrs B, nor to address the wider concerns relating to both parents. This potentially left the children at risk of harm. If the Council had put in place a clear plan to recommend support and monitor its effectiveness, it is likely that unsupervised contact and a return to a shared care arrangement would have happened sooner.
32. The Council’s failure to progress the case in a timely manner amounts to fault and caused avoidable frustration and distress to Mrs B. It is positive to note, however, that the children have had the same social worker since December 2023, which should support greater consistency moving forward.

Allegations against Mr B

33. Between January 2023 and January 2024, the Council received reports raising concerns about the children’s welfare while in Mr B’s care. These included reports that the children were being left unsupervised, were sleeping on the floor, and that Mr B had physically harmed one of the children.
34. Having reviewed the Council’s records, I find no fault in how these allegations were handled. On each occasion, the children were spoken to privately and the matter was discussed with Mr B. The Council also carried out home visits to assess whether it remained a suitable and safe place for the children. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered the reports and find no fault in the way it decided that the threshold for a strategy discussion had not been met.

Ignored the views of the children

35. The Children Act 1989 and associated guidance stress the importance of involving children and their families in decisions about their care. The children’s wishes and feelings should be taken into account in care planning.
36. I am satisfied that the Council has made reasonable efforts to ascertain and consider the children’s wishes and feelings. This has been challenging because the Council has not always agreed that the views expressed by the children are their own. The Council has appropriately questioned the children to try to establish their true feelings and it has taken these into consideration when making decisions. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Communication between Mr and Mrs B

37. Mrs B feels the Council has unreasonably expected her to communicate directly with Mr B, which she feels unable to do. While the Council considers some level of communication between parents is generally necessary for the discharge of a care order, it has not insisted on direct contact. Instead, it has proposed various alternatives, such as using co-parenting apps or trusted intermediaries. I do not consider the Council has acted unreasonably here.

Communication between the Council and Mrs B

38. Generally, the Council appears to have responded in a reasonable timeframe to Mrs B’s communications. However, there was a notable exception in March 2023, when solicitors acting on Mrs B’s behalf wrote to the Council to raise concerns about limited supervised contact and the absence of a plan to restore shared care. There is no reference to this correspondence in the case records and the Council did not respond to it. This failure to engage was fault and caused additional avoidable frustration for Mrs B.

Bias

39. Ms X considers the Council has shown bias against Mrs B, such as agreeing to changes in handover locations at Mr B’s request, regardless of the problems this caused Mrs B, and providing Mr B with a letter that enabled him to claim Mrs B’s universal credit and child benefit.
40. The Council’s records show that it has agreed to changes in handover arrangements where it considered the changes to be in the children’s best interests. Regarding the letter provided to Mr B, while I have not seen the letter itself, records suggest it was issued during a period when the children were in Mr B’s sole care, and it confirmed the care arrangements at that time. The Council also provided a similar letter to Mrs B when the shared care agreement resumed.
41. I do not consider there is evidence in the Council’s records to support the allegation of bias against Mrs B.

Back to top

Action

42. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs B for the failings identified in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a payment of £300 to Mrs B. This is a symbolic payment to recognise the distress she suffered due to the failings identified.
43. The Council has also agreed to take the following action within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Amend its working procedures to ensure care plans are properly updated in accordance with the statutory process, and that section 47 outcomes are properly followed up with families.
• Consider how it can minimise changes in social workers for looked after children.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of including all contact and correspondence in the case records, and of responding within a reasonable timeframe.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs B’s complaint. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman