The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained about the actions of the Council when it placed her children on child protection plans. The Council has already accepted it was at fault for poor communication with Ms X at times. It has apologised and told her what it will do to help prevent a reoccurrence. These were appropriate actions to remedy Ms X’s injustice and prevent the fault occurring again.
The complaint
Ms X complains about the actions of the Council when it placed her children on child protection (CP) plans. Specifically, she complains: the Council failed to notify her that her children were on CP plans and did not invite her to the initial child protection conference or other subsequent meetings or let her know when they were being held; the Council failed to send her copies of minutes from CP meetings; the Council’s minutes of a meeting were inaccurate and did not reflect what was said or intended; social workers involved other members of the family in events without her permission; a social worker visited her younger children at school without her knowledge or permission; she wanted her new social worker changing because when they met, she had not read Ms X’s file. This meant she had to repeat herself and explain past events which she found mentally exhausting; the social worker team manager failed to call her back despite promising she would do so; and she was told her children had been removed from their child protection plans but this did not happen which meant when she presented at Accident and Emergency with one child with a fracture she was treated badly and her children were taken into police custody.
Ms X says that as a result of the Council’s actions she has been caused unnecessary distress and she has still not been provided with an explanation of why her children were placed on child protection plans.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Ms X and considered her view of her complaint.
I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included the case records for the period covered by the events Ms X has complained about.
I wrote to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family. 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 may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a child protection plan.
After the ICPC, there will be one or more review conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
What happened In April 2021, Ms X received a call from a staff member at her younger children’s school who informed her that an initial child protection conference was shortly to be held. Ms X said this was the first time she knew of the meeting. Ms X said she told the staff member she could not attend because she was unprepared and asked the staff member to relay this to the chair. Ms X said she expected the meeting to be postponed.
Ms X subsequently received a letter from the Council which informed her that her children had been made subject to child protection plans.
Ms X complained to the Council at stage 1 of its complaint procedures. Officer A responded on 12 July. Ms X’s substantive complaints and Officer A’s responses are outlined below: the Council failed to notify her that her children were on CP plans and did not invite her to the initial child protection conference or other subsequent meetings - upheld. The chair of the ICPC tried to call Ms X before the meeting but was unable to get through to her. Therefore, the meeting went ahead without Ms X’s attendance. Officer A apologised for not inviting Ms X; the Council failed to send her copies of minutes from child protection meetings or send her the reports presented at the meetings - partially upheld. The Council failed to provide Ms X with the minutes of the ICPC and the subsequent meetings. It also failed to send her copies of reports before making the decision to place the children on child protection plans; lack of professionalism by her social worker – not upheld – Officer A said the social worker had found it hard to engage with Ms X at times but there was no evidence of a lack of professionalism. However, the Council would appoint a new social worker to Ms X’s case; the social worker refused to draw up a contract with Ms X’s mother about her involvement with her oldest child – not upheld. Officer A supported the social worker’s view which was the Council had no authority over Ms X’s mother; and the social worker spoke to the youngest children at school without Ms X’s knowledge – upheld. Officer A apologised and said social workers would not attend the school without Ms X’s knowledge unless it was in their best interest to do so.
Ms X remained unhappy and complained at stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedures. She felt the Council had failed to take any responsibility for its actions or provide proper explanations. She was also unhappy because she had still not received some of the minutes from child protection meetings. Ms X raised some new complaints and said she wished to discuss these with a senior member of the children’s social care team.
Officer B replied to Ms X at the beginning of September. They explained they had reviewed those parts of the stage 1 response Ms X was unhappy with.
Officer B said that at stage 1, the investigating officer had upheld, or partially upheld, most of her complaints. Where errors or oversights had occurred, Officer A had apologised. Officer B stated the social worker had acted with fault at times in their management of Ms X’s case. His manager had addressed these areas with the social worker and was satisfied the mistakes would not be repeated. However, the Council had assigned Ms X a new social worker because the relationship with the current social worker had broken down. Officer B was, therefore, satisfied the Council had been fully accountable and responsible for its actions. They agreed however that Officer A had not provided sufficient explanations to Ms X that the errors identified would not happen again. For this reason, Officer B partially upheld Ms X’s complaint.
Officer B also found Ms X had still not received all the minutes from child protection meetings. Officer B upheld this complaint, apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused and attached a copy of the missing minutes.
Officer B arranged for a senior member of the children’s social care team, Officer C, to contact Ms X to discuss her new complaints. This took place at the beginning of October. Ms X’s complaints and the notes taken by the Council are outlined below: changes in social workers - Officer C explained the Council was proactively working to retain social workers but there was a national shortage; new social worker failed to read Ms X’s file before meeting with her – Officer C accepted this and said they would ensure staff were given time to read case files before meetings; history was constantly referred to when it was time to move on – Officer C acknowledged the distress this could cause and explained procedures had changed so history was only discussed at the first meeting; Ms X felt penalised for seeking support from the Council – Ms X had acknowledged there were times when her responses had not been helpful and why her social workers may have misunderstood her motives. However, this had led to mistrust on Ms X’s part. Officer C said she would speak to her teams about how to communicate with parents; lack of understanding over how to work with parents with mental health issues - Officer C thanked Ms X for providing insights into this; minutes were inaccurate and did not reflect what was said at meetings. One set said Ms X had a cocaine habit and was in rehabilitation – Officer C said if X was unhappy with the content of any minutes she could contact the chair directly to ask for her views to be recorded in relation to any inaccuracies. Officer C said the police had made reference to historic cocaine usage, and so if was inaccurate, Ms X should raise this with them; and involvement by social workers with Ms X’s extended family – Officer C acknowledged the Council should have asked Ms X’s permission before involving family members without parental responsibility and apologised.
Officer C apologised for the times Ms X had not found the Council’s interventions useful. She said she would put the notes of their meeting on file. Officer C also outlined the actions she would carry out around communication and the accuracy of minute taking at meetings and recording of parents’ views.
Ms X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
In considering the matters under investigation, I have spoken to Ms X and considered the Council’s responses during the complaints process and the agreed actions. I have also considered the documentation relating to the children’s protection plans including the minutes of meetings held.
The Council’s investigations at all stages of the complaints process were fair, balanced and robust. It has accepted it was at fault in some areas, mainly in its communication with Ms X. Where the Council acted with fault, it apologised and explained the steps it would take to put the matters right. When Ms X had further complaints, including the failure of the Council to fully carry out one of the previous actions, it met with her, discussed her concerns and provided her with a written notes from the meeting. These actions were appropriate to remedy Ms X’s injustice and prevent the fault occurring again. I can add nothing further, or meaningful, to these investigations.
Final decision
The Council has already admitted it was at fault and has taken appropriate actions to prevent a reoccurrence of the fault and to remedy the injustice. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman