The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide support for his mental health during a child protection investigation. This meant he could not fully engage with the process, which caused distress and confusion. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to use the mechanisms in place to identify Mr X’s needs and assess whether he needed reasonable adjustments. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and has implemented service improvements.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council did not provide suitable support for his mental health during a child protection investigation.
Mr X complains the Council failed to suitably communicate with him about the process and failed to provide reasonable adjustments.
Mr X complains that because he did not have the right support, he could not fully engage with the process, which caused significant distress and confusion to him and his children.
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 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) 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) 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.
How I considered this complaint
I considered Mr X’s complaint and information provided by his representative, Mr A. I also considered information from the Council.
I considered comments from Mr X, Mr A and the Council on a draft of my decision.
Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
What I found
Legislation and guidance Children Act 1989 The Children Act 1989 (the Act) requires local authorities to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect a child in their area is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. They must decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47) 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 the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
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 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 (which the Council calls ‘a child and family assessment’); or a decision to convene a strategy meeting.
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”.
“Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018)" is government guidance. It says the assessment should be child-centered, focusing on the action and outcomes for children and hearing their voice, where appropriate. It should involve the family and identify strengths and protective factors as well as risks to the safety and welfare of the children.
“Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018)" goes on to say: social workers should lead assessments and carry out enquiries in a way which minimises distress for the child and family. The social worker may interview the child’s parents and gather information about the child and their family history to determine the level of risk the child is likely to face if they remain in their environment.
The Equality Act 2010 The Equality Act 2020 makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts.
What happened Mr X has ADHD and mental health needs for which he receives support.
In November 2020, the Council started a child protection investigation into Mr X’s daughter, after she presented at A&E with an injury to her leg.
Mr X’s daughter was taken for a child protection medical, and her mother was spoken to by the Council. The Council also visited Mr X’s other child and his mother where his other child was being cared for.
Health professionals at the hospital advised Mr X he was not to have contact with his child. Mr X rang the investigating social worker who confirmed he was not to have contact with his children until it had assessed whether there was any risk. Mr X was also spoken to Police about the continuing investigation.
The investigation ended after four days. It found the injury to Mr X’s daughter was likely accidental, and therefore the Council would take no further action. The Council completed a single assessment with this information and closed the case.
Mr X complained to the Council about how it had handled the investigation, and that it had failed to consider his health needs when completing the single assessment. This meant he found the investigation incredibly stressful and hard to engage with, and the Council kept him from his children.
In its complaint response, the Council said that it needed to ensure it prioritised a child’s safety. For this reason, it advised Mr X not to have contact with his child while social workers carried out the initial assessment.
The Council accepted that it had not done enough to explore Mr X’s needs in the assessment. It apologised to him for this and said it had spoke to social workers about including parental health needs in the assessments. It also said it had developed a leaflet to be given to parents to help them better understand the process.
Mr X and his representative remained unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.
Analysis The Ombudsman cannot question decisions where the Council has been able to evidence proper decision making. A council is entitled to make its decisions based on the evidence available at the time.
Although Mr X is unhappy the social workers prevented contact with his children during the investigation, this was a decision the social worker was entitled to make based on the evidence at the time. I find no fault with how the Council made this decision.
However, the Council has recognised there was fault in not exploring Mr X’s health needs as part of the assessment and whether he needed reasonable adjustments to be able to engage.
Councils have a proactive duty to have mechanisms in place to ensure that people with disabilities are not disadvantaged when engaging with Council services.
There is a section in the social workers single assessment that is there to explore parental health needs and any reasonable adjustments that may be needed. In this case, the social worker said in the assessment there was none. However, this is not the case. The Council did not discuss this with Mr X and it ignored the mechanisms in place to identify needs.
Mr X’s needs meant he found it hard to engage with the multiple people speaking to him about the situation. He received confusing communication from about what was going on and the next steps. This led to Mr X feeling distressed and left out of the investigation.
The Council has apologised for not exploring Mr X’s needs and said it has spoken to staff about ensuring this is done in future.
However, the Council has failed to recognise the impact that this has had on Mr X. It may also not have had due regard to its duty under the Equality Act to ensure that Mr X was not disadvantaged when engaging with the assessment.
This was fault by the Council, causing Mr X significant distress and meant that he could not fully engage or understand the process.
In response to my draft decision, the Council provided evidence that it has updated its training packages for staff. This includes a compulsory diversity and inclusion training, and further assessment training for social workers. It has also developed flyers to help ensure fathers are included in the assessment process. I am satisfied the service improvements carried out by the Council are reasonable to ensure maladministration is avoided in future.
Agreed action
Within 4 weeks the Council has agreed to Write to Mr X and apologise for the fault identified above.
Pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the distress caused to him.
Final decision
I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for failing to properly include Mr X and his needs in the section 47 investigation. This meant the Council failed to give reasonable regard to its duty under the Equality Act.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman