The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council used historical and inaccurate information when it placed her children under child protection measures. We found there was no fault by the Council.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council used historical, inaccurate information from 2014 to justify placing her children on child protection plans in 2020. Mrs X complains this caused her and her family distress.
What I have investigated We have investigated the way in which the Council made decisions in 2020, but we have not investigated the events of 2014. The reasons for this are set out in the last section of this statement.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Miss X and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
The Council received a referral about Miss X from Victim Support in November 2020. The Council noted there were historic records that Miss X had been the victim of domestic abuse, harassment and stalking in 2012 and 2014.
The Council’s records set out the concerns raised in 2020. The case notes stated Miss X’s ex-partner saw her and assaulted her. She was concerned that he had found out where she lived and he was making threats.
A social worker was assigned and met Miss X in early December. Notes of the meeting indicated that the historic issue of Domestic Violence was discussed and in the past this had been significant. The notes stated Miss X told the social worker that two men had knocked on the door recently. They told her that her ex-partner knew where she lived. Miss X wanted to move, but only locally and only to permanent accommodation. She did not wish to move far or go to a refuge because of her child’s health and she would also find it difficult to move due to rent arrears. Miss X explained that other options such as staying with friends or relatives were limited. The notes state that the SW told Miss X if she was in danger of harm, the expectation would be that she called the police and prioritised the safety of the children. Miss X explained she was reluctant to involve the police and gave her reasons.
The social worker’s notes reflected that Miss X was meeting her children’s needs and the only concern was only whether Miss X was keeping them safe from harm and how a disability impacted her parental role.
On 3 December and 8 December Miss X told the Council that two men had attended her home again. A safety plan was agreed. Subsequent case notes show that Miss X had arranged for a relative to stay, she had CCTV and the police had agreed special prioritisation for reports from her address. I note that Housing were separately considering evidence required for a move.
Because of the social worker’s concerns, the Council considered the issues should be considered at a Strategy Meeting. There is evidence that the social worker was receiving supervision and the decision to take the matter to a Strategy Meeting was agreed by the supervising social worker.
In January Miss X told the social worker she thought that using information from 2014 was not fair, because she had not been sent a copy of the assessment back in 2014.
At a strategy meeting the attendees decided the threshold was met for Section 47 enquiries. This led to a Child Protection Conference (CPC) being held in early February.
Miss X provided comments explaining she disagreed with the decision to escalate the matter to a CPC. She commented that there were errors in the entries relating to what happened in 2014. She also stated she told the advocate that the men at her door could have been related to her ex-partner, not that she had recognised them as such. She also provided information about her children’s health had schools. She said she understood the need to ensure her children were protected and would work with professional to establish if there was actual risk of harm. However, she disagreed with the decision to move to child protection, and she outlined her view about why this was the case. She sought further explanation.
The minutes of the CPC in early February considered the key issue was the risk of Miss X and her children staying at the current property at that time. The attendees noted that Miss X had been reluctant to move unless the property provided was permanent. Miss X attended the meeting and set out her concerns about the council pursuing Child Protection measures. She stated issues from 2014 were being raised unreasonably and she explained she was not clear who was calling her and knocking on her door. The notes show that information was provided by the police about the initial reports they received, which prompted victim support involvement. The notes also show Miss X’s comments (where she clarified what she thought was happening) were considered. Some professionals at the meeting considered Child Protection was appropriate, others felt the outcome should be a Child in Need plan. The outcome was not unanimous, but the chair decided Child Protection measures were appropriate.
Child Protection visits occurred during March and April.
At the end of April, the Council decided to step down from a Child Protection plan to a Child in Need plan. The case notes explained that the children’s feelings had been sought and they were expressing no concerns about safety and wellbeing. Miss X was engaging well with professionals, and no more incidents had been reported. The records also noted Miss X was receiving support and a thorough safety plan was in place. The Council noted that it could be considered oppressive to continue under child protection as a result.
Miss X told us the social worker was relatively new in post, and her work needed to be checked by another officer. She stated a more experienced social worker should have been allocated to her case. She also stated the social worker had given her the impression verbally that Child Protection was not likely to be the outcome. Miss X stated when the social worker wrote to her, she said something different.
Was there fault by the Council 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 processes an organisation 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 someone disagrees with it.
I have considered the steps the Council took when it became aware of safety concerns for Miss X and her children. I understand that Miss X felt strongly that the Council should not engage Child Protection measures. However, I found no fault in the way the council reached this decision. The records show that at the meeting where this was decided, Miss X had an opportunity to express her concerns and explain some context about the situation she was in. This was considered alongside all the other information available. While the past reports from 2014 were part of the background to this decision, it seems clear that the key issue was what had been reported in 2020 and how safe Miss X and her children were now. The minutes of the Child Protection Conference shows that the decision was finely balanced. However, the Council was entitled to reach the view that Child Protection rather than Child in Need actions should be taken. I note this was kept under review and downgraded at a later date. There is no fault in how it took the decision. Therefore, I cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
When dealing with Miss X’s case, the social worker spoke with Miss X and took advice from other officers. Although Miss X’s social worker was not fully qualified, there is evidence of appropriate supervision. The evidence on the Council’s records also noted the social worker contacted and updated Miss X appropriately. I cannot reach a view about whether verbal discussions between the social worker and the written contact with Miss X differed.
As I have not found there was fault by the Council, I intend to complete my investigation and close my file.
Final decision
There was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed my file.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate The Ombudsman expects matters to be brought as a complaint within 12 months of someone knowing about an issue of concern. The events of 2014 themselves are too old for the Ombudsman to investigate as a result.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman