The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council acted with bias in favour of his ex-wife during its involvement with his children. The Council followed the correct process and did not act with bias. It was not at fault.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council acted with bias in favour of his ex-wife during its involvement with his children. As a result, he said he was caused significant distress. Mr X would like an apology, social services to understand Mr X has been treated differently due to his gender and would like compensation.
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. 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) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (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 have considered: all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him; the Council's comments about the complaint and the supporting documents; and the Council's policies, relevant law and guidance.
Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. We considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance Child protection 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.
The council should make early 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 call a strategy meeting.
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 (CPP).
After the ICPC, there will be one or more review child protection conferences (RCPC) to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the CPP should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
Child in need Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
A child is in need if: they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or they are disabled.
When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need (CIN) plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review CIN plans regularly.
What happened Referral to social services In mid-February 2020 the Council received a referral from East Midlands Ambulance Service about an incident involving Mr X and witnessed by one of his three children. Before this the family were not known to social services.
The Council advised Mr X’s contact with the children should be supervised whilst it made enquiries. Mr X said he still wanted to be the children’s main carer.
Council Assessment The Council carried out an assessment to understand the family dynamic and identify future actions needed to ensure the welfare of the children. As part of that assessment, the Council spoke to Mr X, his ex-wife Mrs Y and their children. It also spoke to health and education professionals, including speaking to the family’s doctor about Mr X and Mrs Y’s mental health and wellbeing. Mr X’s contact with the children continued to be supervised until the Council had spoken to those professionals and completed its enquiries.
Council records show Mr X and Mrs Y had an acrimonious relationship. In late February 2020 a social worker spoke to both Mr X and Mrs Y separately about their behaviour and said they should not argue in front of the children. The Council shared a safety plan with Mr X and Mrs Y, which included steps to prevent arguments in front of their children. Both Mr X and Mrs Y said they accepted this advice.
In early March 2020 Mr X and Mrs Y had a disagreement and the police attended. The Council reminded Mr X and Mrs Y not to argue in front of their children.
Child In Need Plan The Council decided all the children should be supported with a child in need (CIN) plan. It told both parents its decision and said the plan would include: discussions with Mr X and Mrs Y about their mental wellbeing and support they may need; work to be completed with both Mr X and Mrs Y about how to manage disputes between themselves, the impact of arguing in front of the children and the impact of their separation and divorce on their children; support to be offered to the children about witnessing arguments and understand their feelings; and working with the children’s schools and health professionals.
In mid-March 2020 police attended a domestic violence incident between Mr X and Mrs Y, the children were present at the house. Mrs Y left the family home. The Council spoke to both Mr X and Mrs Y about the incident.
Strategy discussion and Section 47 enquiry A few days after the violent incident, the Council held a strategy discussion because it was concerned about Mr X and Mrs Y’s deteriorating relationship. The strategy discussion agreed the Council should make Section 47 enquiries and arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The Council advised Mr X and Mrs Y separately about this decision.
Child protection plan The ICPC was held in late March 2020. The Council, Mr X and Mrs Y, police, school and health professionals attended. It was unanimously agreed the need for a child protection plan (CPP) under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 for all Mr X and Mrs Y’s children under risk category ‘emotional harm’. Mr X also raised concerns that Mrs Y was breaching parts of the safety plan. The social worker did say to Mr X that ‘they were trying to have a fresh start and did not want to focus on the history’.
In April 2020, the social worker discussed contact arrangements with the children and their parents and how to facilitate these. Mr X and Mrs Y’s accounts about contact were conflicting. The social worker explored their accounts with each of them separately, asking each of them similar questions.
Also, in April 2020, a family intervention worker started individual sessions with Mr X and Mrs Y about domestic violence and the impact on their children. They explored the same aspects with each of them and continued to meet regularly until the end of 2020.
At the core group meeting in May 2020, professionals said they were concerned the children were still caught in the middle of arguments and disagreements. The professionals agreed: to explore further Mr X and Mrs Y’s mental health needs; to develop a safety plan and safety network, in which Mr X and Mrs Y did not have direct contact; and to restrict contact until the safety plan was implemented.
Also in May 2020, the court considered the contact arrangements and decided they should remain the same. Council records show contact and disagreements between Mr X and Mrs Y reduced in line with the safety plan.
The records of the first review child protection conference (RCPC) held in mid-June 2020, confirmed: the family intervention worker had worked regularly with Mr X and Mrs Y listening to both sides and talking to them about similar issues. Mr X and Mrs Y both agreed the sessions were worthwhile and they could share concerns; the social worker had meetings with the children every two to three weeks; and The CPP would continue.
Throughout May, June and July 2020, Mr X reported various breaches of the safety plan by Mrs Y to the social worker. The social worker confirmed these did not amount to safeguarding issues and therefore they could not get involved. The social worker said they recognised Mr X was ‘doing a brilliant job of looking after the children’.
In mid-July 2020 Mr X was unhappy the social worker appeared to justify Mrs Y’s actions over an incident he reported. He questioned why social services were involved in the first place and the social worker explained she needed to be satisfied the children are no longer exposed to arguments. She confirmed she would continue to challenge him on his behaviour towards Mrs Y, where appropriate, the records show she also challenged Mrs Y when this was needed.
In early August 2020 Mr X reported one of the younger children walked home alone from Mrs Y’s house, which he did not consider was appropriate. Two social workers spoke to Mrs Y about this. The Council was satisfied Mrs Y did not let the child walk home alone.
Also in August 2020 there was an incident involving Mrs Y. Mr X said he did not want the children to see Mrs Y at that time but the social worker decided ‘Mrs Y did not pose a direct risk to the children’. Mr X spoke to the social worker’s manager. She confirmed the Council’s view that it was safe for the children to have contact with Mrs Y.
Court hearing In mid-August 2020 the Council recommended to the court that the children should remain in Mr X’s care and that Mrs Y should have contact with them. Mrs Y challenged this at a hearing in September 2020 and the case was adjourned for a longer hearing in January 2021.
In October 2020 the Council records show there was less contact between Mr X and Mrs Y and the Council’s view was that this benefited the children.
At the RCPC in early December 2020, the professionals decided the children no longer need a CPP. Instead, their needs could be met through a CIN plan. It was agreed Mr X and Mrs Y could continue to contact the family intervention worker for advice.
In January 2021 the court increased the level of contact between Mrs Y and the children. Council records show Mr X and Mrs Y were communicating with each other and the Council decided the CIN plan could end in late February 2021.
Housing In early June 2020 Mr X rang the social worker to ask her to write a supporting letter in relation to his housing application, and the social worker agreed to do this.
Three days later Mr X telephoned the social worker to ask her to add information about his ex-wife into her housing letter. The social worker said she ‘would not add this, as it was an allegation and not a fact’.
In mid-June 2020 the social worker wrote a letter in support of prioritising Mr X’s housing application. The letter mentioned Mr X’s financial position and the emotional harm to the children that becoming homeless would cause.
In mid-August 2020 Mr X asked the social worker in an email to write another letter confirming he needed affordable housing. The housing department spoke to the social worker about Mr X’s housing application.
Argument In early January 2021 Mr X told the Council Mrs Y had ‘slapped’ one of their children, Child Z across the face. The Council advised Mr X to collect the children from Mrs Y. It advised Mr X to check Child Z for marks or injuries and to call it back. Mr X did so. He said ‘there were no clear marks or injuries, but one side of the child’s face was a little red’. Mr X agreed to take a photograph. The next day was the court hearing. Mrs Y gave her account of the incident. She denied slapping Child Z. The social worker looked at the photograph and could not see any visible marks or injuries and did not agree his face looked red.
A few days later Mr X spoke to the social worker again. He said he had spoken to the police about the argument and they said social services should investigate the incident. The social worker advised Mr X ‘no further action would be taken’. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s conclusion and spoke to the police again. The police agreed to look into the incident but confirmed, they would take no further action.
Complaint In late December 2021 Mr X complained to the Council. He said the social care records suggest the social care approach was biased against him. In particular: Mr X and Mrs Y were questioned differently; Mr X and Mrs Y were treated differently in relation to supervised and unsupervised visits; Concerns about Mrs Y’s mental health were ignored and Mr X was defined as being difficult.
Mr X did not give the social worker authority to speak to the housing department; and An incident involving Child Z was not fully investigated.
The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in mid-January 2022, it said: the Council worked collaboratively with Mr X; the primary focus was on the children; concerns raised regarding contact with Mrs Y were heard, considered and recommendations made; the social worker was supportive of the children remaining in Mr X’s care and promoted a positive view of both Mr X and Mrs Y within the child protection process; and Mr X asked the social worker to write a letter to the housing department. The letter asked for the housing application to be prioritised; Mr X responded the following day to the Council response. Mr X said his queries had not been answered and each point should be responded to.
The Council responded with its final response in early February 2022. Each point was responded to and it said: the first response team said Mr X should have supervised contact not the social worker. The social worker spoke to relevant parties involved and formed a view Mrs Y could have unsupervised contact with the children after an incident in August 2020; the social worker was asked by Mr X to write a supporting letter to the housing department in June and August 2020 and the social worker spoke to the housing department. The children’s housing situation was relevant to the social worker; the social worker had many relevant conversations with both Mrs Y and Mr X about safety plan actions and breaches; the social worker spoke to Mr X and Mrs Y about the incident with Child Z. The photo’s of Child Z’s face did not show any visible marks or injuries. The social worker spoke to the police. The police took no further action; there was an action on the CPP for Mrs Y and Mr X to continue to seek support in relation to their mental health; and Mr X would call and text the social worker several times a day which was unmanageable but the social worker was fair and balanced in her approach to Mr X.
Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
The Council followed the correct process following the referral from the Ambulance Service. It focused on the children’s wellbeing and keeping them safe, which was appropriate. When carrying out their assessment, the social worker spoke to Mr X and Mrs Y, their children, and relevant professionals to understand the family situation, in line with government guidance.
Both the social worker and family intervention worker, explored similar issues with both Mr X and Mrs Y.
The social worker did not always question Mrs Y about all safety plan breaches raised by Mr X because they took the view that some of them did not amount to safeguarding issues. The social worker did question Mrs Y about allegedly letting the young child walk home alone and slapping Child Z but decided these allegations were not substantiated. The records show the Council considered the view of health professionals in relation to both Mr X’s and Mrs Y’s mental health and explored these issues with them in a similar way.
Having reviewed extensive records, I have not found evidence of bias, either in relation to the way it considered Mr X’s concerns nor in the way it approached concerns about their mental health.
The Council initially said Mr X’s contact with the children should be supervised whilst it made enquiries. At that stage, the family were not known to the Council. In August 2020 there was an incident with Mrs Y. The records show the Council carefully considered whether the children were at risk if they had unsupervised contact with Mrs Y but concluded they were not. By this stage, the Council had a lot more information about the family. I have not found fault in the way it considered this.
The records show Mr X asked the social worker to write two letters to support his housing application. The social worker also spoke to the housing department. The children’s housing was relevant to the social worker so it was appropriate for the social worker to take this action. There was no fault in the way the Council approached this.
The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints and there were no undue delays in its complaint handling process.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation finding no fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman