The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in contacting him about a family support assessment it carried out on his son, despite sharing custody with his son's mother. We find the Council was at fault for delay in contacting him and in their complaint handling. This caused him significant stress. We make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s delay in contacting him about a family support assessment it carried out on his son, despite sharing custody with his son’s mother. He also complained about the integrity of an officer who told him different versions of what prompted the Council’s involvement. Mr X said the Council’s actions have caused him significant stress. The Council failed to engage with him when he had serious concerns about the care of his son.
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) 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.
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 spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.
What I found
The Councils Family Support process policy The Council’s family support process (FSP) is a shared assessment tool that helps practitioners develop a shared understanding of a child’s needs, so they can be planned for effectively, using the delivery plan and delivery plan review process. The multi-agency assessment and plan avoids children and families having to tell and re-tell their story.
The FSP is important for early intervention. It has been designed specifically to help practitioners assess needs at an earlier stage and then work with families, alongside other practitioners, and agencies, to meet them. The FSP is not for when there is concern that a child may have been harmed or may be at risk of harm.
When the Council receive a request for family support, family practitioners are advised upon case allocation to contact both parents if they are separated. Initially, contact would be made with the parent who is requesting support. Contact with the remaining parent should take place thereafter, if their contact details are known, ideally within three working days of the discussion with the parent requesting support.
What did happen?
This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
Mr X shares joint custody with his son B’s mother Mrs Y.
Mrs Y contacted the Council on 11 August 2021 for support managing B’s behavior. A family support assessment was requested.
An officer met with B and Mrs Y on 20 August 2021. She then called Mr X on 13 September 2021.
Mr X complained to the Council in the same month. He said the officer told him the reason for the call was because of a police report regarding an incident between Mrs Y and B. She said she would be meeting with them to discuss B’s feelings and only one parent need consent to this. Mr X questioned this, as he then found out the call was due to Mrs Y requesting help and that the officer had already met with B and Mrs Y. Mr X raised concerns for B and asked that he be included in future work involving B. He asked for a new officer to be allocated to the case.
The Council responded to Mr X in October 2021. It said a new officer would be working with B. It said its policy is to see children within 10 working days of a family coming to its attention. It apologised for not contacting Mr X sooner and said it had been taken forward as learning, particularly around including both parents in a timely manner.
Mr X was unhappy with the Councils response and asked for it to be escalated. He said the response avoided the issues raised of the officer’s integrity.
The Council completed the family support assessment in November 2021. It included the views of both parents and agreed to support Mrs Y and B.
The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 13 December 2021. It apologised and said the officer appreciated contact should have been made sooner. It said there was some miscommunication during the phone call. It apologised that the matter of consent was not accurately described. It said it would soon share the family support assessment with him. It said it could not share any details in relation to any actions taken about the staff member concerned.
The Council said a learning workshop was delivered to staff around engaging with parents, which also included best practice about understanding consent from both parents and ensuring that contact is made with both parents at a similar time. It also updated guidance to staff.
The family support ended in December 2021.
In the same month, Mr X called the Council three times requesting a call back. He said he was told the case was being looked at and possibly re-opened.
Analysis The Council has already accepted some fault in this case, delivered a learning workshop to staff, and updated guidance.
The Council took three weeks to contact Mr X after meeting with Mrs Y and B. This is fault. This delay meant that Mr X was caused uncertainty about not being included regarding issues concerning his son.
The Council’s complaints policy says, for a complaint at stage 1, the service standard for responding is to send an acknowledgement within five working days and a full response within a further 15 working days from the date the complaint was acknowledged. Mr X’s initial complaint was sent 20 September 2021 and he told the Council in October 2021, it was not acknowledged. The Council responded 29 October 2021. There is no evidence to suggest the Council kept Mr X updated. This is fault.
The Council also failed to explain to Mr X in its response, why he was initially told a police report prompted the family support assessment. He was told conflicting information by the officer involved. This caused further uncertainty to Mr X at a time when he had concerns for his son. The Council told us the officer did not confirm during the call that the police report was what triggered the support. But we cannot now prove this.
Agreed actions
To address the injustice caused by fault, within one month of the date of my final decision the Council has agreed to: Apologise to Mr X for the delays and provide him with an explanation as to why he was initially told a police report prompted the family support.
Pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge his avoidable distress, frustration, and uncertainty.
The Council should also provide evidence that it has followed the recommendations.
Final decision
There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman