Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s child safeguarding investigation caused her distress. She says the Council failed to consider her concerns properly, dismissing evidence of child abuse and domestic violence from the children’s father as historical. We find fault with the Council for failing to take satisfactory notes of the children’s views for the investigation, and for a late complaint response. We have agreed an apology to Ms X and service improvements for the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council’s child safeguarding enquiry which investigated her, caused her distress.
2. She said the investigation failed to reflect her concerns about the children’s father, and did not fully reflect her children’s opinions.
3. Ms X would like the assessment reviewed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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 that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. 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

11. Background and legislative framework

The Children Act 1989

12. The Children Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) says the child’s needs and welfare are paramount and the needs and wishes of the child should be put first. This is so the child receives the support they need before a problem escalates. Section 17 of the 1989 Act imposes a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of “children in need” in their area.
13. Sections 17(10) and (11) of the 1989 Act defines a ‘child in need’ (CIN) is defined as a child who is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable level of health or development, or whose health and development is likely to be significantly or further impaired, without the provision of services; or a child who is disabled. Should a local authority consider a child is in need, it can implement a CIN Plan.

Statutory guidance

14. ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ July 2018. This is statutory guidance for local authorities and other agencies on how they should work together to assess children’s needs and make arrangements for promoting and safeguarding their welfare. It sets out the principles, processes and timescales for carrying out child protection investigations.

Referrals and Section 47 requirements

15. 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.
16. 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.

17. 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”.

Child Protection conference arrangements

18. 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.
19. 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, or making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.
20. After the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC), 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.
21. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

Core group arrangements

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

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

Child in need

24. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are ‘in need’. The Council undertakes an assessment of the needs of the child to determine what services to provide and what action to take.

SIG Marker

25. Street interest Gazetteer is a marker attached to a specific location in police records alerting police officers and staff to particular information of relevance, such as domestic abuse being known at an address. It is a critical risk marker.

Council’s complaints procedure

26. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure:

• Stage one – a response from an appropriate officer within 20 working days.
• Stage two – a response from an independent council officer within 25 working days.

What happened

27. Ms X has two son’s Y and Z who live with her and go to secondary school. There is a court order preventing Ms X’s former partner (Y and Z’s father) from contacting them.

Lead up to S47 enquiry

28. In June 2023 the Council received a referral from an NHS Trust about Ms X, Y and Z. Children’s Advice and Support Services (CASS) considered it and recommended an assessment under S17 of the Children’s Act.
29. The Council carried out a children and family assessment The assessment noted:
• Ms X’s request for a criminal investigation and a full child safeguarding enquiry as she felt her ex-partner had not been punished and her children had not had justice.
• The social worker’s view the children may be suffering emotional abuse from their mother and at risk of significant harm due to their exposure to their mother’s strong feelings.
30. There were also two referrals from Y and Z’s GP to the Council in July 2023, for issues the boys had about their previous experiences with their father.
31. After the assessment and strategy meetings the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) agreed with the police that this needed to be progressed to S47 enquiries for an ICPC, due to emotional harm because of past trauma from parental domestic abuse.
32. In preparation of this the Council got a GP report for the children. In response to our enquiries we received the GP report for Y but the Council could not recover the report for Z.
33. The report for Y says he had counselling in June 2022 but he felt it was not helpful and trust had broken down. The GP saw Y in July 2023 and he reported Y to have symptoms of two mental health conditions due to witnessing domestic abuse from his father. The GP said Y wants to give a statement about what he has witnessed.
34. In August 2023 the ICPC agreed that:

• Ms X should not expose the children to any conversations of adult issues about their father;
• The police to place a SIG marker on the children’s home address;
• The Council to carry out monthly visits to the children;
• Z will have a CiN Plan and Y will have a Child Protection Plan;
• The father to engage in a DA perpetrators program.

35. In October 2023 the core group meeting agreed the same.
36. In November 2023 a review agreed Y would come off the Child Protection Plan and have a CiN Plan instead.

Complaint

37. In January 2024 Ms X complained to the Council. She said she went to the Council for support, and instead it carried out S47 investigation into her behaviour.
38. Ms X also complained about the conduct of the police, but this is not something the Council can look into. The Council can make a request for a SIG marker but ultimately these are conducted by the local police.
39. The Council responded in February 2024 and said speaking to Ms X, Y and Z was necessary to make a decision about whether to continue to a child protection case conference. The involvement was focused on supporting Ms X and her children. However, the information detailed in the children’s section of the report for the ICPC is sparse. The Council apologised the report did not contain the fuller views of the children and upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint.
40. Ms X was not happy with the response so she made a stage two complaint in February 2024. The complaints relevant to this investigation were:
• The Council did not properly consider her concerns with her ex-partner;
• She felt the Chief Executive did not believe her account; and
• Y’s full account was not included in the report.
41. The Council’s stage two response in May 2024 said:
• The assessment does refer to the history of harassment and domestic abuse by her ex partner, and documents the continuing concern and emotional impact on Ms X, Y and Z. However both Y and Z had not seen their father since early 2020, and he cannot contact them. The Council do not agree there was a failure to reflect concerns about her ex-partner.
• Ms X said Z did not have behavioural issues at home, although the school reported he did have behavioural issues at school. Ms X said the Council had not believed her. The Chief Executive also commented it was “difficult to believe” there was collusion with her ex-partner and the police, and “hard to believe” Ms X spent the day in a police cell after an allegation of stalking by him. The Chief Executive said the forms completed by policy supported her views. The Council said “while it understands it may be upsetting not to be believed, it was legitimate for the Chief Executive to exercise her professional curiosity about your allegation.” The Chief Executive also said she has “concerns about your mental health and parenting as she considers you have an unhealthy obsession with historical events between you and your ex-partner.”
• The Council’s response also apologised again for the lack of detail in the children’s views, and said if Z would like to provide his own account the Council would add it alongside the report.
42. Ms X thanked the Council for its apology but said the accounts given in the report were not truthful, and the Chief Executive questioning her mental health is insulting. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
43. In response to our enquiries the Council advised the police had confirmed to it that a SIG marker was in place, and provided evidence of this. As part of the Council’s enquiry into this complaint, it contacted the police and asked to confirm when it was place. The police advised the Council there was no marker in place and could not confirm whether a marker had been placed previously. This is something Ms X will have to take up with the police.
44. The Council apologised for the distress caused to Ms X by the S47 Investigation.

Analysis

45. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the process the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the Council made.
46. The Council carried out the S17 assessment, made enquiries and decided to do a S47 investigation as it considered the children were at risk of significant harm, as it is entitled to do. I cannot find fault with the Council for carrying out the S47 investigation.
47. The Council have agreed the children’s views were sparse in the investigation and apologised for this. It is important the Council gives weight to the children’s views. However the injustice is limited to Ms X as this S47 investigation was not about the previous domestic abuse. I recommend an apology from the Council and a service improvement so children’s responses are fully noted in the future.
48. Ms X may not agree with the Council that a S47 investigation was warranted, or that she was emotionally abusing her children. The Council followed the correct policies and procedures so I cannot find fault with the Council.
49. In response to our enquiries the Council could not recover a copy of the GP report for Z (see paragraphs 32). This is fault as the Council should save all relevant records.
50. Ms X made a stage two complaint in February but the Council did not respond until May. This is a delay of two months (see paragraph 41) and is fault. However the injustice to Ms X is limited so an apology is sufficient (see our guidance on remedies).

Back to top

Agreed Action

51. Within a month of the final decision, the Council should send a written apology to Miss X and for the injustice caused to her by the faults identified. We have published 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;
52. Within three months the Council should remind staff:

• to note children’s responses fully or keep a record about why it was not appropriate to seek further information;
• to ensure all documents on an investigation are kept together so they can be retrieved if needed;
• to send complaint responses as set out in the Council’s policy, or if investigation takes longer, to let the complainant know.

53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

I find fault with the Council for not keeping full notes of the children’s responses for the child safeguarding investigation and for a delay in complaint response. I have recommended an apology to Ms X and service improvements to the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman