Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s child protection investigation into his children’s welfare. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s investigation or decision-making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s child protection investigation into his children’s welfare. He said the Council:
• Failed to act on his reports that his wife was abusing their children.
• Failed to safeguard his children.
• Prevented him from having contact with his children.
• Showed prejudice against him.
2. Mr X said the Council’s decisions caused him to suffer from depression and he was unable to work because of it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council.
• The Children Act 1989.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.
8. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family. For example, the health visitor, GP, schools, and nurseries. The information gathered 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.
• A decision to convene a strategy meeting.
9. If, after holding strategy discussions, a council still has concerns about significant harm, it may decide to undertake further enquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
10. A section 47 enquiry is carried out by undertaking or continuing an assessment. Local authority social workers have a statutory duty to lead assessments under section 47of the Children Act 1989.
11. The social worker should:
• See the child to ascertain their wishes and feelings, assess their understanding of the situation and their relationships and circumstances.
• Interview parents/care/givers and determine the wider social and environmental factors which impact on the family.
• Gather information about the child and family’s history.
• With other professionals, analyse the findings of the assessment and evidence about what interventions are likely to be effective.  This is to determine the child’s needs, the level of risk faced, to inform what help should be provided and act to provide that help.
12. If the information gathered under section 47 substantiates concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange a child protection conference within 15 working days of the strategy meeting.
13. The purpose of a child protection conference is to:
• share information between all the professionals who are working with your family
• decide how to keep your child safe
• decide if a child protection plan should be drawn up for your child
14. Where a child is in need of immediate protection the council, or the police, must act as soon as possible after the referral if removal is required. The council can apply for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO), or the police can issue a Police Protection Order (PPO) which means a police officer can remove the child immediately.

What happened

15. I have summarised below some of the key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. In April 2017 the police were alerted that Mr X’s children were left alone in the house. The children were heard shouting and screaming. The Council offered Mr X’s family ongoing support.
17. In August 2017 Mr X reported to the Council that his children were afraid of his wife. The Council discussed this with the police and assigned a new support worker to Mr X’s family.
18. Mr X decided to withdraw from Council support in December. The Council decided the case did not meet the threshold for its continued involvement against Mr X’s will at that time.
19. The Council received a referral from Mr X on 7 July 2020, expressing concerns about his wife caring for their children. He alleged his wife assaulted one of the children.
20. The Council held a strategy meeting with the police, the children’s school, housing support, and mental health services to consider Mr X’s allegations. The Council decided the concerns met the threshold for section 47 enquiries and agreed to carry out a joint investigation with the police.
21. The police then attended a report about a domestic assault on 12 July. They arrested both Mr X and his wife. The police got a PPO, and the children were placed in foster care while their parents were under investigation.
22. The Council made Mr X’s children the subject of child protection planning because it was concerned about neglect.
23. Mr X’s wife was released into a refuge centre because of concerns about domestic abuse.
24. Mr X was released on bail by the police and was not allowed to see his family unsupervised.
25. A social worker interviewed Mr X and his wife, and the children, to find out their views and wishes. The Council then returned the children to Mr X’s wife’s care on 15 July. Mr X wanted to see his children, but the Council refused.
26. The Council held a child protection conference on 22 July with contributions from Mr X, his wife, social workers, the school, the police, housing support, the family GP, and a safeguarding nurse. All professionals involved in the meeting agreed the circumstances met the threshold for a child protection plan based on neglect.
27. The Council produced a child protection plan, which included behaviour management, emotional support, domestic abuse support, dental check-ups, and speech therapy for one of the children.
28. On 23 July, the Council moved Mr X’s wife to a different refuge centre after reports Mr X threatened to kill her.
29. The Court granted an interim non-molestation order against Mr X in August. Mr X was not allowed to contact his wife.
30. Mr X contacted the Council on 3 August. He said social services was putting his children at risk. He accused them of corruption and neglect. He referred to old reports he made about abuse from their mother in July 2019, as well as repeating the incidents which took place in summer 2020. He said the Council refused to speak to the witnesses he gave, ignored his video and audio evidence, and did not look into the background of his allegations.
31. Mr X was not happy with the reply he received from the Council, so he complained to the Ombudsman on 20 August 2020. The Ombudsman sent the complaint back to the Council to complete its complaint process.
32. The Council sent its stage one complaint response on 5 October.
33. Mr X remained unhappy. He said the Council did not answer his specific complaints and did not explain why social services failed to protect his children in the past. He accused the Council of discriminating against him and said it did not consider his evidence.
34. The Council sent its final complaint response on 27 November. It said:
• It shared all the evidence Mr X sent with the police and considered it as part of the decision-making process.
• A social worker reviewed Mr X’s video evidence and responded to him about it, but there was no specific timeframe or context at that time.
• Children’s services put a working agreement in place following Mr X’s initial reports, but Mr X did not follow it.
• When Mr X made a referral in July 2020, the Council started a child protection investigation and visited the family.
• It then opened a section 47 investigation. Mr X signed an agreement with the Council about supervised visits, but that agreement was breached, and the police had to attend due to allegations of assault. The police arrested Mr X and his wife and made the children subject to police protection. After investigating, the Council placed the children with their mother in a refuge while investigations with the police continued.
• Decisions were not made due to Mr X’s culture or ethnicity. All decisions were guided by the child protection procedures.
• The children had medicals (to assess any injuries) and support was put in place.
• It would continue to support Mr X’s children through the child protection plan, which it would review periodically.
• At the time of its first complaint response, Mr X was still on police bail and the children were not in his care, so it was entitled to restrict his contact with them. He should seek legal advice about getting his children back.
35. The Council was satisfied it followed the appropriate processes and did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
36. Mr X brought his complaint back to the Ombudsman on 15 February 2021.

Response to my enquiries

37. The Council told me Mr X and his wife reconciled their relationship in January 2021, with Mr X’s wife and children returning to the family home.
38. The Council still considered the children at risk and recommended ongoing child protection planning.
39. In February, Mr X’s wife applied to the Court for approval to discharge the non-molestation order against Mr X. The Court asked the Council for a report into the children’s welfare.
40. The Council completed its welfare report on 26 May. It recommended continued child protection planning. It agreed it no longer needed to share parental responsibility for Mr X’s children, if Mr X and his wife agreed to engage with the Council going forwards.
41. The non-molestation order expired in July and was not extended by the Court.

Back to top

Analysis

42. Mr X is unhappy with the actions of the Council’s children’s services department. He considers it did not act on his initial reports about his children being abused by his wife. When the Council did act, Mr is unhappy the Council placed his children with his wife. He said they were not safe with her. He is also unhappy the Council would not let him see his children.
43. I have considered the evidence Mr X gave to the Ombudsman and to the Council. I have also considered the Council’s case file from children’s services. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedures and took suitable steps to safeguard Mr X’s children.
44. The evidence I have seen shows the Council did consider Mr X’s initial allegations. However, when it tried to offer support Mr X withdrew from the process. The Council considered the case did not meet the threshold for further involvement against Mr X’s wishes at that time.
45. When the Council received Mr X’s referral in July 2020, it held a meeting with relevant professionals and the police the same day. It planned to investigate under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989, jointly with the police.
46. The Council did review Mr X’s evidence but did not consider it provided enough proof of his allegations. The Council also considered the relevant background. This included Mr X’s previous allegations, details from the children’s school and healthcare professionals, and records from the police.
47. The police then arrested Mr X and his wife after further allegations of assault. The police got a PPO for the children as there was no family they could stay with. The Council had no choice but to place the children in foster care.
48. The Council held a further strategy meeting and formed a child protection plan, with support outlined for the children and for the parents. That was suitable action in the circumstances.
49. Based on the information it gathered as part of its enquiries, the Council decided to return the children to their mother. Mr X may disagree, but that was a decision the Council was entitled to make. It was the professional judgement of officers, taken after reviewing the available evidence.
50. When Mr X was released on police bail, he was not allowed to see or contact his wife. He wanted to see his children, but the Council refused. I have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s decision. At that time, its enquiries were ongoing, and it still had concerns for the children’s welfare. It produced a child protection plan, which it wanted Mr X to engage with before he could see his children.
51. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to say what safeguarding action the Council should have taken, what measures or support it should have put in place, or which parent it should have placed the children with. It is our role to consider whether the Council followed the correct process, took account of relevant information, and consulted relevant professionals involved in the children’s care when it made its decisions. That is what the Council did, and I have not seen evidence of fault.
52. It is also not for the Ombudsman to decide whether there has been discrimination or racial bias by the Council or its officers. Only the Courts can decide whether unlawful discrimination has taken place.
53. However, there is no evidence the Council failed to take Mr X’s version of events into account before making its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. I found no fault in the Council’s child protection investigation or decision-making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman