The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her daughter, Ms B about the Council’s handling and failure to communicate the outcome of a children’s safeguarding enquiry regarding her granddaughter, Y. Mrs X complains the Council was heavy handed and placed undue stress and anxiety on the family. We have not found any fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mrs X complained on behalf of her daughter, Ms B. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling and failure to communicate the outcome of a section 47 children’s safeguarding enquiry regarding her granddaughter, Y. Mrs X complains the Council was heavy handed and placed undue stress and anxiety on the family.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
How I considered this complaint
I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke with her about it on the phone.
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Background information 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.
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”.
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 might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.
What happened This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in the case.
In mid-September 2021, Ms B noticed a small black mark on the top of Y’s ear. She contacted the GP and sent them a photograph. The GP told Ms B, if Y doesn’t have a temperature, not to worry but booked Y in for her 4-month immunisations the following day and confirmed someone could look at the mark then.
Y’s Dad, Mr C, took Y to the doctors the following day for her immunisations. The nurse told Mr C to go to the hospital for tests on the black mark on Y’s ear. When Mr C arrived at hospital, he was told he could not be alone with Y, so Y’s maternal grandfather, Mr D, went to the hospital to provide support.
A safeguarding referral was made on the following day relating to an injury on a non-mobile baby, and a multi-agency strategy meeting took place. The outcome of the strategy meeting was a unanimous decision that the threshold for a joint section 47 safeguarding enquiries with the police was met.
Mr C was visited by the social worker and the police at the hospital. He was informed of the concerns and the process.
The following day leaflets were emailed to Ms B with advice to discuss the medical tests intended on Y with hospital staff.
Over the following four days Ms B, Mr C, Mr D, Mrs X, and other family members were spoken to regarding the section 47 enquiries.
On 22 September 2021, five days after Y was taken to hospital and after multiple medical examinations, a discharge planning meeting was held. This confirmed Ms B, Mr C, Y, and her sibling would stay with Mrs X and Mr D. Ms B and Mr C would not be allowed to be left alone at any time with their children. It is noted in the discharge planning meeting minutes a child protection conference was to be held. The minutes also confirm Mr C and Y had been observed over the previous 5 days in hospital and no concerns were noted.
The Council completed the safeguarding investigation. The outcome was a decision not to progress to a child protection conference, instead, a single assessment was to be completed. Two visits were undertaken. A further visit was arranged but the social worker who was responsible for the assessment was off work. A different social worker attended the final visit.
The social worker completed the assessment, and it was signed off by the manager in early November 2021. Mrs X complained the family were not informed of the outcome of the assessment.
In late November 2021, Mrs X contacted the social worker to ask what was happening as the timescales had been missed. The duty social worker confirmed the safeguarding was closed. Mrs X asked how she could complain about not being told.
The social worker emailed Mrs X in mid-December confirming the completed single assessment and letter advising the Council was ending its involvement was not sent. The social worker explained this was an oversight on her part and offered her apologies.
Mrs X complained to the Council on behalf of her family and received a response from the Council in January 2022. The response confirmed the Council had a protocol for safeguarding concerns which it followed throughout the enquiries in partnership with other professionals. The Council confirmed it could not comment on decisions made by the health service.
Mrs X requested the complaint was escalated to stage two and the Council responded to the stage two complaint in March 2022. The Council partially upheld one part of the complaint regarding the Council not providing the bruising protocol leaflet when the safeguarding enquiries started. The Council has apologised for this delay. All other aspects of Mrs X’s complaint are not upheld. The Council repeated it cannot comment on the decision and actions of the health service.
Mrs X is not satisfied with the Council’s responses and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mrs X would like the Council to admit fault, apologise and compensate the family for the way it handled this safeguarding enquiry. The family consider Y was kept in hospital for too long and this caused undue stress to the family.
In response to my enquiries the Council stated it followed protocols and the decisions made were in collaboration with other professionals from the health service and police.
My findings
The Council followed its safeguarding procedures. A medical professional made the initial safeguarding referral to the Council as they had concerns about Y. A multi-agency meeting confirmed the threshold was met for section 47 safeguarding enquiries to be commenced. The Council completed the enquiries with information being provided by the family, health service and the police.
The Council referred to Y as being non-mobile. Mrs X considers this is inaccurate as Y was able to roll. I have reviewed the Council’s protocol. This defines non-mobile as “a baby or child who is not crawling, bottom shuffling, pulling to stand, cruising or walking independently.” I am satisfied that Y would be classed as a non-mobile child according to this protocol.
I acknowledge how distressing child protection procedures are for those involved, but the Council has a duty to act when concerns about the safety of a child are raised.
The Council accepted it did not inform the family it’s involvement with them had finished. This was unfortunate but the Council has apologised for this. I cannot add to this response.
I cannot question a decision the Council made if it followed the right procedure and considered relevant evidence. The threshold for enquiries was met as unanimously agreed at the strategy meeting. The Council followed the correct process in conducting and completing its enquiries about potential harm to Y. There is no evidence of fault in the actions taken by the Council.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman