The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of a social worker during a child in need assessment, regarding her son, G. We have not found fault with the Council.
The complaint
Miss B complained that the Council’ social worker failed to treat Miss B in a professional and competent manner: she included inaccurate information in assessments, made untrue allegations about Miss B’s mental health, was difficult to contact, missed pre-arranged visits, believed Miss B’s ex-partner without question and painted Miss B in a negative light. This caused Miss B significant distress and frustration, exacerbated by the fact false information has been passed to other organisations.
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) When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Miss B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Child protection Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47) 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.
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.
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.
Statutory complaints process The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
We have produced some guidance for Councils on using the complaints process. This says that generally assessments and services for children in need should be considered under the procedure. If some of the complaint comes under the statutory complaint procedure and some does not, we advise councils to use their discretion to consider all parts of a complaint in a single investigation and response. Councils should consider which procedure is likely to produce the best result for the complainant and the child. Councils should keep a written record of decisions they make about which procedure to use and explain their reasons.
What happened Miss B has a son, G. Following a court order in March 2021 he lives with her and spends every other weekend with his father (Miss B’s ex-partner, Mr F).
G’s GP made a referral to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) in March 2021 following concerns about harm to G while with his father. After considering the situation and liaising with the police and G’s school, the Council decided not to take any further action. It said that if there were any further concerns it would carry out an assessment to assess the parents’ behaviour and its impact on G.
Miss B contacted the Council in May 2021 as she was concerned about her son while he was with Mr F. She wished to discuss these issues in further detail with a social worker. MASH considered the referral. It made enquiries of the child’s school and noted that concerns had been raised in the past about possible emotional harm to G caused by the ongoing acrimony between Miss B and Mr F.
MASH noted that Miss B had contacted the 111 service over concerns about G being unwell while with his father. The records say that Mr F was verbally abusive to the clinician over the telephone. Miss B sent an ambulance to Mr F’s house. Miss B also contacted the Council’s out of hours service asking the Council to carry out a welfare check the Council declined to do this as it was not an emergency situation.
MASH advised Miss B to exercise her parental responsibility and stop contact with Mr F if she was worried he was being harmed. She should then go back to court to resolve the contact. MASH noted in its summary that it was hard to determine the facts.
MASH decided to progress the case to an assessment to consider the views of all parties, parenting ability and the emotional impact on G.
A social worker (SW) was allocated to the case in May 2019. She visited Miss B and G at home on 27 May 2021. The records show that SW spent some time alone with G during this visit and talked about his feelings and experiences. The SW also spoke to Mr F and the school.
In the assessment the SW said it was a worry that G was caught up in an acrimonious separation following a long court case and that Miss B continued to say that G was at risk when with Mr F. It was concerning that he said negative things about his dad when he was with Miss B but did not express these views at school and was excited about seeing his dad on a Friday afternoon and Monday morning. SW noted that Miss B was reluctant to accept this view from G’s school and may require support to work through her anxieties around G spending time with Mr F. SW noted that communication between Miss B and Mr F was non-existent and this may affect G adversely. SW suggested that the court action and separation may have had a significant impact on Miss B and she may need mental health support. SW recorded many positive things about G and his relationship with Miss B.
The Council concluded that the case met the threshold for ongoing support and monitoring under a child in need plan for a short period followed by a step down to early help services when support has been put in place for Miss B.
The assessment records that Miss B was unhappy that the Council had not stopped contact between Mr F and G but was happy for the Council to remain involved.
The child in need plan that the Council would refer Miss B to a mental health support service, direct work would be completed with G in school and Miss B and Mr F needed to complete healthy relationships work.
In June 2021 Miss B made a formal complaint about SW. She said SW kept saying she had mental health condition, which was not true. She was dismissive of Miss B’s views, talked over her and did not listen. Miss B said Mr F makes malicious claims against her (particularly about her mental health) which aren’t true and no-one believes her. She complained that SW believes G is safe with Mr F even though G says he is not happy. She alleged SW had not visited Mr F or assessed his home and said that there was no bed for G.
The Council says that at the child in need meeting in June 2021 Miss B had got upset about the information provided by the school which indicated that G was happy about spending time with his dad. She also rejected support with her mental health or with healthy relationships.
SW attended Miss B’s house for a pre-arranged visit but there was no one at home. During a telephone call on 20 July 2021 SW alleged that Miss B became angry and so they terminated the call. Miss B alleged that the SW was rude and talked over her. SW rearranged the meeting as Miss B had requested but Miss B did not accept the invite. SW complete the assessment on 30 July 2021 and sent a copy to both parents.
The Council responded to the complaint at stage one of its corporate complaints procedure. It disagreed with Miss B’s view of SW’s actions. Based on information from the case records, it supported the actions taken. It confirmed that SW had visited Mr F’s house and was satisfied with the sleeping arrangements for G. It said contact was determined by the court not the Council and it was not appropriate to allocate a new social worker.
Miss B declined to engage any more with SW. In August 2021 the Council referred Miss B to the early help service.
In November 2021 the Council re-opened the case following further safeguarding concerns. The court stopped G having contact with Mr F and a new social worker was allocated to the case.
In December 2021 Miss B escalated her original complaint to stage two of the process. She disputed the content of the stage one response. The Council put a child protection plan in place in February 2022.
In April 2022 the Council responded to her complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding and gave details form the case records to support its view that SW’s actions were reasonable. It noted that a new social worker was now working with the family.
Miss B complained to us.
In response to my enquiries the Council said it did not consider Miss B’s complaint through the statutory complaints process because it was primarily about the impact of SW on Miss B rather than G and because of the ongoing court action. It considered, in line with our guidance, that the corporate complaints process was more appropriate.
Analysis It is clear Miss B disagrees with the views SW expressed in the child and family assessment carried out in May and June 2021. It is not my role to comment on the professional view of a social worker properly formed taking into account relevant information from all parties. It is my role to look at the process that was followed in making the assessment.
I have not identified fault in the actions SW took. They spoke to Miss B, Mr F, G and G’s school. They visited Miss B and G. They consulted the history to the case and information on the records from other agencies including the ambulance service and the 111 service. They did not conclude that Miss B had a mental health condition but said the stressful events of the separation and the long court case might have had a significant on her well-being and she may need mental health support. This was not an unreasonable conclusion to reach from the available evidence and Miss B declined the support as she felt it was unnecessary.
I have not seen evidence that SW missed visits that were not rearranged. I am unable to reach a view on the allegation that SW was rude during telephone calls and visits as I was not present and the records do not reflect that behaviour. I note that SW made similar allegations about Miss B’s conduct during the telephone call.
It is inevitable when trying to include all sides in an acrimonious situation that a social worker may express views that a person disagrees with. That does not mean it is fabricated information or that the social worker is acting in a one-sided manner. From the records and the assessments it appears that SW considered conflicting information and reached a balanced view that G should be subject to a child in need plan. I have not found fault here.
The Council delayed in responding to Miss B’s stage two complaint. It has apologised for this which I consider is a sufficient remedy.
I understand the reasons why the Council considered the complaint through the corporate procedure. But I consider this met the criteria for the statutory complaints procedure: it was from a parent about social worker conduct and decisions in respect of a child in need assessment. However, I do not think it is likely the outcome would have been different if it had been considered through the statutory procedure. But I would remind the Council to make clear notes of its reasons for departing from the guidance and to communicate these to the complainant at the start of the process.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Miss B.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman