The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council responded to concerns for the welfare of children living at the same home as Mr X. It had reasons for these concerns, and it acted to safeguard the children in line with statutory guidelines.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council excluded him and did not take account of his views and concerns relating to his child during child protection (CP) enquiries.
Mr X says this meant he was alienated from his child soon after their birth and the Council did this because it was discriminating against him.
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about his contact with the Council shortly after his child’s birth.
I have considered whether any injustice arose from the Council’s actions at that point.
I have not investigated anything that forms part of the court proceedings that followed, which includes reports that were prepared for court, because the law says those matters are outside our jurisdiction.
Nor have I investigated the contact Mr X had with the Council following court proceedings because the Council has not had the opportunity to consider his complaint about those matters.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5)) 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 to Mr X and considered what he told me and the information he sent to me.
I wrote to the Council and considered the documents they sent to me.
I considered the statutory guidance ‘working together to safeguard children’.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments they made before making a final decision.
What I found
Mr X has a child who was born in October 2020. I will refer to them as B. His partner has another child whom I will refer to as C.
What should have happened 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) If a strategy meeting confirms there are concerns and a child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference.
The Child Protection Conference 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.
The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conference unless there was good reason not to.
What happened In early-October 2021, the Council visited the home of Mr X’s partner. The Council had information Mr X may be living in the same home as his partner with B and C. During the visit they confirmed Mr X was living there and the Council was concerned the children may be affected because there was a history of domestic abuse between Mr X and his partner.
After this visit the Council held a strategy meeting because of the concerns for B and C and the Council decided to make further enquiries (section 47 enquiries).
As part of the enquiries, the meeting agreed a social work manager should visit the family home twice a week. The meeting agreed the manager should ask the children’s mother to ask Mr X to leave the home while the enquiries were being made.
In late-October the Council decided it would hold an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC). It said it was still concerned there was a risk to B and C. It said this was because Mr X’s partner would not ask him to leave the home and Mr X was unwilling to listen to the concerns of the social workers who visited.
In early November, the Council’s case notes have a record made by a social worker who said there was a domestic abuse incident taking place at the family home. The notes say B was present.
After this, still in November, the Council held the ICPC. The conference included Council officers and other professionals who had knowledge of the family. The Council’s minutes of this meeting say Mr X was present at part of the meeting. The Council’s case notes also have a record of Mr X being asked about his views by a social worker before the meeting.
The conference minutes say the Council told Mr X why it was holding the conference. The minutes also contains comments made by Mr X on the issues the Council highlighted.
The conference recommended both B and C should be on a Child Protection (CP) Plan because there was a risk to B and C of emotional abuse. It recommended Mr X attend a domestic abuse perpetrator course and that a social worker should organise separate parenting sessions with both parents.
The Council’s case notes have a record of the contact the Council had with Mr X after the conference.
In January 2021, the Council held another Child Protection Conference (CPC).
The minutes of the CPC say the Council was unable to meet with Mr X to carry out parenting sessions and Mr X had not attended a domestic abuse perpetrator course. The minutes say Mr X and his partner had separated, with B living with their mother and C now living elsewhere. The minutes also say Mr X was bringing private law proceedings to have care of B.
The minutes have a record that Mr X was concerned the recommendation for him to attend a domestic abuse perpetrator course was ‘sexist’ and ‘biased’ against him and did not take account of his views. The notes say the chair told him they were independently appointed and that he did not have to attend any course if he did not feel it was necessary.
The minutes also have a record of what other professionals in the conference said about the family and have a record of the comments Mr X made in response.
The conference unanimously agreed that B should remain on a CP plan because there was still a risk to B of emotional abuse.
In February, the Council made a record on the case notes saying a court had requested it to prepare a report for the private law proceedings under Section 7 of the Childrens Act 1989.
My findings
The Council believed Mr X was living at home with his partner and their newly born child (B) and another child (C). The Council were aware of a previous report of domestic abuse between Mr X and his partner, meaning it had concerns for the welfare of B and C.
The guidance places a duty on the Council to act to safeguard any child where they have concerns for their wellbeing. There was no fault on the Council making initial enquiries including visiting the home, speaking to Mr X’s partner on her own and suggesting for Mr X to leave the home while it was making its enquiries.
The Council then held an ICPC and while this is a multi-agency forum, we generally consider it appropriate for councils to follow a conference’s recommendations. The conference recommended that B and C be placed on a CP plan. The Council asked Mr X about his views before this meeting, and he made comments in the conference.
The Council held a further CPC meeting in January and Mr X was also present at this meeting and had the chance to comment. The recommendation from that meeting was that the CP plan for B should remain in place. This was because despite Mr X no longer living at the home, the Council had asked him to go on a domestic abuse perpetrator course which he had declined.
There was no fault in the Council in working with the family while there was a concern for B and C and then continuing this while B remained on a CP plan. It followed the statutory guidance because it was concerned for their welfare and was actively working with the family including Mr X.
The Council was in regular contact with Mr X throughout this process and was following the recommendations of the child protection conference. This is supported by the evidence I have seen in its case notes.
Mr X may disagree with the decisions the Council made, but there was no fault in how it considered the information and decided it had to act.
Mr X said the Council acted in the way it did because it was discriminating against him. The evidence shows the Council was responding to concerns for the welfare of B and C and acted in line with the guidance.
Final decision
There was no fault in the way the Council responded to concerns about the safety of B and C.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman