The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr N complains about the Council’s decision to make his children subject to child protection plans and its administration of the plans. He also complains the Council gave his ex-partner wrong information about what contact he could have with his daughter. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint, as we have found several faults. But we do not agree with Mr N that the faults have led to his estrangement with his daughter – the key injustice he claims.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr N, complains: the Council has not provided justification for its view he was a risk to his children, to such an extent, that they needed child protection plans; a Council officer gave his ex-partner (whom I shall refer to as Ms P) wrong advice about what a court order said about his contact with his daughter; the Council delayed, by five months, in sending him the minutes of the initial Child Protection Conference; he agreed a social worker could speak to his counsellor, to confirm he was receiving counselling. But the social worker asked questions beyond what he had given permission for; after the child protection plans had ended, a social worker, for no good reason, referred his case to the Council’s officer that liaises with employers; the Council did not deal with his first request for a ‘right to rectification’; the Council did not supply its full complaints procedure until after it had decided his complaint; in a review meeting, the Chair gave him advice that was inconsistent with the outcome and minutes of the Conference.
Mr N says the wrong advice to Ms P about what contact he was allowed with his daughter caused him the most significant injustice. Without that wrong advice, he could have met his daughter and, so, they might not now be estranged.
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) 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
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
Legal and administrative background Initial enquiries and strategy meetings When a council’s children’s social care services has ‘reasonable cause’ for concerns about a child, the law requires it to take action to find out more. (Children Act 1989, Section 47) The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family. 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 a decision to convene a strategy meeting and investigation.
Child Protection Conference If the information from an investigation 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 the child should be supported by a ‘child protection plan’. Another option available is to offer a service to a ‘child in need’.
The child protection conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. It plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a child protection plan or to end a plan, is the responsibility of the council.
Core group arrangements The statutory guidance on child safeguarding, ‘Working together to safeguard children’, says after the ICPC, the council should convene a core group meeting within 10 working days. The purpose of the core group is to: further develop the child protection plan; facilitate the in-depth assessment to inform decisions about the child’s welfare; and implement the child protection plan.
The core group is made up of key family members and professionals involved with the child and/or family.
Local Authority Designated Officer Every council has a statutory responsibility to have a Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). The LADO co-ordinates a response to concerns that an adult who works with children may have caused them, or could cause them, harm.
Right to rectification Data protection law gives individuals the right to ask public bodies to rectify inaccurate personal data about them. The request can be made orally or in writing. The organisation has one month to reply.
The Information Commissioner says that it can be difficult to say that information is inaccurate if it is an opinion.
Complaints The Children Act sets out a statutory procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. But child protection investigations and plans do not fall within the statutory procedure. Councils consider such complaints through their corporate complaints procedures.
What happened
Background
Mr N lived with Ms P and their son (Q) and daughter (R). Mr N works in a profession that involves contact with children. The family had not been known to the Council’s children’s services before the events this complaint is about.
The Council’s justification for the child protection plans In January 2021 the police contacted the Council, as Mr N was in their custody. Ms P had alleged domestic violence from Mr N. The Council held a strategy meeting. It decided the threshold had been met for opening a child protection investigation.
The Council’s social worker completed a report for the ICPC. This noted that both Q and R were “…displaying evidence of the emotional harm they have lived through”. Of particular concern was R’s “…emotional presentation”. The report raised concerns about Q and R’s contact with Mr N.
The ICPC recommended child protection plans for both Q and R under the category of neglect. The detail explained this was psychological neglect, causing emotional harm.
The Council officer’s advice about contact After the ICPC, Ms P applied to the court for a non-molestation order (an order used to protect the applicant from the actions of a person ‘associated’ with them). The order the court granted included general instructions to Mr N to not “…intimidate, harass or pester” Ms P or the children. It also had specific instructions about Mr N’s contact with Ms P and Q.
The minutes of the first core group meeting after the ICPC, note that Ms P asked the Council about supervising video calls between R and Mr N. A social worker manager advised Ms P that: “Skype is okay but direct contact would be breaking the molestation order”. Later, the minutes say: “[R] has not seen her dad or spoken to him since the ICPC as states she is not allowed to. She said she doesn't mind.”
The Council’s records have multiple other entries of giving Ms P advice about R’s contact with Mr N – both before and after the core group meeting. They also have records of Mr N’s, Ms P and R’s views, thoughts and opinions about contact. I cannot disclose many of these entries in this statement, for data protection reasons.
A few days after the core group meeting, Mr N spoke to a social worker and advised he was keen to meet R. The social worker’s note said she had spoken the day before to R “…and she has stated she doesn't feel ready to see [Mr N] yet. I explained [to Mr N] the process of offering emotional support to the children and then moving forward at a pace that prioritises their needs…”.
A core group meeting minute from March noted Mr N’s view was the child protection plan was ‘invalid’. And the non-molestation order allowed him to contact R. The Chair noted that R’s wishes were being respected.
In May a social worker had a discussion with Mr N about planning a possible meeting with R. Discussions between the social worker, Mr N, Ms P and R, about a meeting, continued for the next few months, although a meeting was not arranged.
The delay in sending the minutes of the initial Child Protection Conference The Council says it completed its minutes for the ICPC within 10 working days of the meeting. In response to my enquiries, it said its delay in sending them to Mr N was because he would not give it a postal address. So the minutes were given to the social worker, who hand delivered them to Mr N. Mr N says this is factually incorrect – he received copies of all minutes via the Council’s secure email system.
In June a Council manager sent Mr N, by email, a copy of the ICPC minutes.
The social worker’s contact with Mr N’s counsellor As part of the child protection plan, the Council recommended Mr N seek counselling from a domestic violence counsellor. Mr N had a first conversation with a counsellor. But he refused further contact, due to his concerns about both the organisation the counsellor was from and whether it would benefit him.
Mr N noted he had been receiving counselling from a counsellor approved by the relevant professional organisation. He says he agreed for the social worker to contact his counsellor to confirm this. But the social worker then asked the counsellor about issues he had not consented to.
Mr N complained to the Council about this. Its response set out the limited information the social worker had sought. But it also accepted the social worker should have checked with Mr N about the questions she was going to ask. It apologised that had not happened. It would raise this with the social worker in supervision discussions. And it would share the learning more widely with the team.
The social worker’s second contact with the LADO At the beginning of the child protection proceedings, the ICPC Chair asked the Council to make a referral to the Council’s LADO, which the Council did. The LADO contacted Mr N's employer.
In the early autumn of 2021, the Council’s social worker contacted the LADO asking for an update on the actions they had taken and conclusions made. The social worker also said Mr N’s behaviour during the child protection process had raised significant concerns (these were unspecified in the email), which needed looking at and might need a fresh referral.
The LADO responded to advise they had contacted Mr N’s employer after the earlier referral. The employer had advised it had a risk assessment in place. The LADO said, without any significant new information, it would not re-open the referral.
The first request for a right to rectification In February 2021, Mr N complained about the child protection proceedings, the conduct of the ICPC and wrong information in the report the social worker had written for the Conference. The Council accepted the complaint, but advised Mr N he should contact its information governance team about his concerns about the wrong information in the social worker’s report.
In mid-March Mr N sent the Council further information about what he thought was wrong with the social worker’s report. An officer acknowledged the email. Mr N sent the Council further information at the end of the month.
In October Mr N chased a response to his requests. There followed some confusion by the Council about whether Mr N was making a complaint. In November the Council provided a complaint response. It accepted fault in not processing Mr N’s March request and apologised.
The Child Protection Conference Chair proceeded in November to incorporate Mr N’s comments into documents under the right to rectification process. It signposted him to the Information Commissioner's Office if he wanted to challenge the outcome of those changes.
The Chair’s advice about the status of the Council’s involvement Mr N says that, at a review meeting of R’s child protection plan, the Chair of the meeting gave him conflicting advice about the status of the Council’s involvement with R. She said the Council had ‘stepped down’ its involvement to child in need. But also advised the Council’s involvement remained at its Level 4. This refers to Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership’s levels of need for working with children and families. This ranges from level 1 – universal services, to Level 4 – specialist services. Its guidance says Level 4 often includes intervention under statutory processes.
Supplying a copy of the complaints procedure Mr N first complained about the child protection process in February 2021. In March he asked the Council for a copy of its complaints procedure.
Mr N carried on speaking to the Council about his complaints during 2021, including a meeting in July. In October the Council started a new complaint investigation, after Mr N contacted it about a response to his request for changes to documents.
The Council responded in November. After some further communications, in mid-December Mr N asked the Council for a copy of its complaints procedure. The Council sent him some information about its corporate complaints process.
Mr N notes it was not until the Council’s response at the second stage of its corporate complaints procedure, that the Council explained to him under what procedure it was investigating his complaint and why it was not considering it under the Children Act procedure.
Was there fault by the Council?
The assessment and child protection decisions The Council’s view was the contact from the police met the threshold for it to start a child protection investigation. A strategy meeting decided the Council needed to carry out a full investigation. During my investigation, I have seen information in the Council’s records that Mr N will not have. And I am satisfied the records do provide some basis for the Council’s concerns. These concerns did not rest or fall on whether the police took further action against Mr N.
The Council’s social worker spoke to Mr N, Ms P, Q, R and other professionals. She produced a report. The opinions in that report were ones open to her on the facts set out in the case records. The Ombudsman does not generally find fault with such opinions unless they clearly fly in the face of the facts, which is not the case here.
The (multi-agency) ICPC’s view was the concerns were significant enough to warrant child protection plans. We consider it correct for a council to follow the recommendations of the child protection conference, unless there was good reason not to. I do not see that here, so do not uphold this part of the complaint.
The Council officer’s advice about what the order said about contact The Council officer’s advice that it would be a breach of the non-molestation order if Mr N and R met, is not supported by what the order actually says. So I find that this advice was fault.
The delay in sending the minutes of the initial Child Protection Conference The Council says the cause of the delay was Mr N not supplying his address. I find that response inadequate for the following reasons: I can see no record of an officer advising Mr N it needed a postal address in order for it to send the minutes; and the Council later sent Mr N the minutes via email.
So I find this delay was fault.
The social worker’s contact with Mr N’s counsellor The Council accepted its social worker should have checked with Mr N about the questions she was going to ask his counsellor. My view is that amounts to fault.
The social worker’s second contact with the LADO The social worker’s email asked the LADO for an update. I do not see necessarily see fault in wanting this information. Anyway, there is not a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation of this part of Mr N’s complaint, as the LADO took no further action.
The first request for right to rectification The Council did not act on Mr N’s first request to add to the records of the child protection procedure. That was fault.
Following the CPC Chair’s advice about the status of the involvement The advice from the CPC’s Chair is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. But in any case, the advice was correct – the local procedures say that its Level 4 intervention could be under a statutory procedure. That would include both child in need and child protection plans. The wider records of the CPC’s decision make it clear its recommendation was to step down the Council’s involvement to child in need.
Supplying a copy of the complaints procedure Mr N asked for a copy of the complaints procedure in March 2021. The Council did not send it to him. That was fault.
From what I can see, he asked again in December 2021. The Council did then send him a copy of its corporate complaints procedure.
Did the fault cause an injustice?
To re-cap, I have found the following faults by the Council: the wrong advice about what the non-molestation order said; a delay in supplying Mr N with the ICPC minutes; not checking what questions to ask the counsellor; a delay in responding to Mr N’s right to rectification request; not responding to Mr N’s first request for a copy of its complaints procedure.
The combined effect of these faults will have caused Mr N some frustration and unnecessary time and trouble. But, beyond that, none will, more likely than not, have had any significant impact on the child protection decisions.
Mr N is particularly concerned about the advice about the non-molestation order. He claims a significant injustice, as it led to an estrangement from his daughter, R.
I cannot agree with Mr N’s analysis of the injustice to him. My statement shows that shortly after the Council gave Ms P the advice, the social worker was speaking to R about her contact with Mr N. That does not suggest the advice led to Ms P or the Council stopping R meeting Mr N. And for several months after, the Council was seeking to arrange a visit. There are other records I have seen, which I cannot disclose. So, on the balance of probabilities, my view is the advice did not have a significant effect on Mr N’s contact with R.
Recommended action I recommended that, within a month of my decision, the Council write to Mr N apologising for the faults I have identified. As a symbolic recognition of the unnecessary distress and time and trouble the faults have led to, the Council should also make him a token payment of £100.
The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
Final decision
I uphold the complaint. I have made recommendations. As the Council has agreed to these, I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman