The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled child protection matters concerning his children. We did not find fault in the Council’s decision-making.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the way the Council handled child protection matters concerning his children over the past six years.
Mr X believes the children’s mother has neglected them, resulting in referrals from him and the children’s school. However, he said their concerns have been closed down by the Council.
Mr X said the children’s mother has a history of violence towards him and has harassed his wife, resulting in a criminal investigation. However, he said the Council has not included this behaviour in its reports and will not recognise the potential impact this behaviour has on the children.
Mr X considers the Council consistently supported the children’s mother and not him. He feels the Council did not listen to him and, at times, excluded him from the process. He also said the Council refused to consider the option of the children living in a more stable environment with him.
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 how the organisation made its decision, 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) 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)
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated the way the Council oversaw child protection matters. I have not investigated any aspect of the child custody court proceedings, including any reports used for those proceedings. I have also not investigated any matters subject to criminal investigation.
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
Mr 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
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.
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.
If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the 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.
What happened I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place. I have kept details brief and non-specific to maintain anonymity of those involved.
Mr X raised concerns with his children’s school in July 2021 about the standard of care when staying with their mother. Specifically, this was about oral and dental health, tiredness, school attendance, and a lack of supervision. The school spoke to the children’s mother, who raised her own concerns about Mr X’s care. The school then made a referral to the Council. The Council decided this did not meet the threshold for further action.
The Council received a referral from the police in January 2023 about domestic incidents involving Mr X and the children’s mother. The Council decided the incidents did not meet the threshold for further action.
The Council held a strategy meeting in March 2023 to discuss recent complaints from Mr X and the children’s mother, about one another’s care of the children. The Council decided there was potential emotional impact on the children, so it started enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
The Council’s enquiries found the children suffered emotionally because of the acrimonious relationship between parents, who made accusations against each other since 2017.
The Council decided to place the children on child protection plans with the aim of improving co-parenting between Mr X and the children’s mother. They agreed to attend meetings in school.
The school contacted the Council in June 2023 after Mr X raised concerns about the children when in their mother’s care. The school said both parents shared concerns about one another, and the impact they had on the children, throughout the children’s time on the child protection plan.
The Council was concerned at the emotional impact the parental conflict had on the children. It felt Mr X and the children’s mother were not making progress on co-parenting.
Mr X disengaged with the process around this time. He was frustrated and felt the Council was not listening to him. He considered the best way to highlight his concerns about the children’s mother was to step away from meetings and stop contact.
Analysis Mr X complained the Council closed referrals from him and the school. It is correct the Council finalised many referrals with no further action. But I have not seen evidence of fault. The Council did consider the circumstances and liaised with the school and both parents. There were many allegations by both parents about one another. The school did not independently raise concerns, it contacted the Council either after a parent got in touch, or at the request of a parent. There were some concerns about attendance and tiredness, but the school raised this with the children’s mother. The Council was less concerned about each parent’s ability to care for the children. It was more concerned about the emotional impact on the children of both parent’s continued allegations about one another.
The Council did investigate after Mr X and the children’s mother continued to make allegations about one another. All professionals involved agreed the children were at risk of emotional harm, and all agreed the Council should place the children on child protection plans. I did not see evidence of fault in the way the Council considered reports it received.
Mr X felt excluded from the investigation process and unsupported. He wanted the Council to consider the children living with him, as he can offer a more stable environment. I did not see evidence of bias or that Mr X was excluded. I saw evidence of engagement with both parents. The Council considered Mr X’s comments about the children’s mother’s mental health. It looked into her support network and assigned a child and family worker to help her emotional wellbeing.
The reports prepared for court for custody proceedings were not part of my investigation, but the Council cannot decide which parent the children live with. That was the court’s decision.
Mr X wanted the Council to recognise he is a victim of domestic violence from the children’s mother. I found the Council made checks with Mr X’s former employer, and the local authority where he previously lived. However, neither had any records to support this. The Council also checked with the police. They had a report of a domestic incident, but Mr X made the report several years later, not at the relevant time, and the police did not investigate.
I did not find the Council omitted or failed to consider the relationship between Mr X and the children’s mother. The Council recorded Mr X’s concerns and allegations as part of the case history.
Mr X wanted the Council to consider the emotional impact the alleged domestic violence had on the children. While the Council may not have considered the emotional impact resulting from any specific event, I found it did consider the general emotional impact. This was in the context of the parent’s relationship and the continued allegations made about each other.
I also found the Council did investigate when it received a police referral about a complaint of harassment made by Mr X. However, as above, the Council did not have concerns about either parent’s ability to care for the children.
The important factor for the Council throughout was to consider the impact on the children, not necessarily whether the parents’ allegations about each other were credible.
Final decision
I completed my investigation. I did not find fault in the way the Council handled child protection matters concerning Mr X’s children.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman