Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in dealing with a child protection investigation about her daughter. We have found fault with how the Council conducted aspects of the investigation. The resulting delays and uncertainty would have caused Ms X avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, pay her £500 and review some of its procedures.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
• opened a Section 47 enquiry investigation without telling her;
• failed to use relevant information in its Child and Family Assessment (CAFA);
• failed to amend the CAFA as agreed; and
• failed to investigate the possibility referrals made by health professionals were malicious.
2. Ms X complains she has suffered stress and anxiety, that her physical and mental health have suffered and she now distrusts the professionals involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police or NHS. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered all the information Ms X provided and discussed some of this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
9. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child in need

10. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
11. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; or
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support.

Duty to make enquiries

12. 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.
13. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.

Acting on a referral and Section 47 requirements

14. 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.
15. 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.

16. 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”.
17. 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.

Allegations against people who work with children

18. Government guidance says councils should designate a particular officer, or team of officers, “to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people who work with children.” (Working together to safeguard children, Department for Education 2018, Chapter 2, paragraphs 5 & 6). The Officer is known as the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).
19. The LADO is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.

Back to top

What happened

20. Ms X has a school-aged daughter, D, who was under the care of a local hospital for ongoing medical treatment due to a pre-existing condition.
21. Early in June 2021, the Council received a safeguarding referral from the care team at the hospital reporting concerns it had about D and the effect Ms X’s actions were having on her in dealing with the medical condition.
22. Social workers held internal discussions over the next few days, including advising the hospital by email that Ms X would need to be informed.
23. Social workers decided to pass the matter onto their area team. The team arranged a strategy meeting between health staff and social care to discuss the best way forward and met later on in June.
24. The strategy meeting decided a CAFA under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (S17) needed to be completed. It also concluded that if Ms X did not agree to the CAFA under S17, then an investigation under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (S47) might need to be considered.
25. The Council told the police of the outcome of the strategy meeting but it did not attend. The police asked to be kept informed of any relevant updates but did not feel they needed to become involved at that stage.
26. The LADO decided she would assess the situation after more information was received as Ms X is in a profession where she may have contact with children.
27. At the beginning of July, social care called Ms X to discuss the referral. Ms X denied any knowledge of the referral being made.
28. Social care agreed to wait for the family to be registered with a new GP and to then find a mutually convenient date to meet in person and discuss the process in more detail.
29. The lead social worker (Officer P) and Ms X communicated in early July with social care sharing more detail of the referral made and suggesting dates for a face-to-face meeting.
30. As Officer P was going to be on leave, proposed dates for late July and early August were emailed to Ms X. Ms X responded the same day to accept a meeting in early August. At this time, Ms X withheld consent for a CAFA to be made.
31. In July, during Officer P’s leave but before the suggested appointment date with Ms X, a second strategy meeting was held. The meeting agreed to open a S47 enquiry as consent had been withheld for a CAFA.
32. Officer P did not confirm the August appointment until several weeks later and a full seven days after returning from her leave, apologising for her slow response. By this time, Ms X was no longer available on the previously suggested date.
33. Officer P was at this point unaware that a S47 had been opened as she had been on leave during the second strategy meeting and therefore not attended. As a result, Ms X was not informed the S47 had been opened.
34. Ms X and Officer P then agreed to meet on a date in late August. During this meeting, Ms X challenged the information and the reasoning health professionals had given for making the original referral. Officer P agreed to ask health for more information and clarity regarding this.
35. 17 days after this meeting, social workers emailed the health professionals involved asking for clarification. A further 14 days later, social workers emailed again to chase a response.
36. Health professionals responded three days after the chase but gave no further clarification. Social workers sent no further emails to encourage a more concrete response.
37. A little over a week later, in early October, social care made the decision to close the case.
38. At the beginning of November, the case was formally closed and notification sent to Ms X. The Council listed the closure as “concerns not substantiated.” Ms X was unhappy with the stated reason for closure.
39. Shortly after the CAFA was completed, Ms X told the Council that some parts were incorrect and the Council agreed to amend it. It sent Ms X a copy of the updated version in mid-June 2022.
40. Police had no further involvement other than the initial discussions.
41. The Council told the LADO of the closure. The LADO concluded there were no transferrable risks in Ms X’s professional capacity and therefore no role for them.

The council’s response to complaints

42. In its stage one complaint response the Council admitted the partial non consented CAFA was not completed in the 45-day time frame.
43. In its stage two complaint response the Council:
• re-confirmed the CAFA 45-day limit was not achieved;
• admitted and apologised the CAFA should not have included certain information which was present;
• agreed to amend the CAFA: and
• admitted and apologised that the police were not involved in the second strategy meeting.

Back to top

Analysis

The Council opening a Section 47 enquiry investigation without telling Ms X

44. The Council has a duty under S17 to safeguard children from potential harm. It is within its rights to use these powers to investigate any concerns that may be referred to it, regardless of where they originate. I find no fault in the Council opening a S17 enquiry.
45. When the Council emailed health professionals to advise that Ms X would need to be informed of the referral, it was unclear from the wording who was expected to do this and if/when the doctor might have accessed the email. It is my opinion the Council could have been clearer in its wording to avoid confusion or miscommunication.
46. It does not appear that Ms X was then told by anybody for around a month and until after the first strategy meeting. This delay had the potential to cause distress and uncertainty for Ms X when she did eventually find out. I find fault with the Council’s actions in not advising Ms X of the referral in a timely manner.
47. Once made aware of the referral, Ms X withheld consent for the CAFA to be completed and wanted to meet in person to discuss the process. Children’s services agreed to meet but due to Officer P being on leave the suggested dates for this were not until late July and early August 2021.
48. During the period of leave and before the meeting Officer P had agreed to, a second strategy meeting was held which concluded that a S47 should be opened as Ms X had not given consent. The Council was within its rights to open a S47 enquiry and I find no fault in its actions.
49. Officer P was not aware of the outcome of the second strategy meeting when she initially communicated with Ms X in early August. I find fault with the Council that officers were unaware of a significant development in the case regardless of the fact Officer P had been on leave. This led to miscommunication and confusion for Ms X.
50. The Council therefore failed to tell Ms X they had opened the S47. The Council admitted fault and has apologised to Ms X. I do not consider this is adequate to remedy the injustice caused and I have made a recommendation below to acknowledge this.
51. After the face-to face meeting, it took the Council 17 days to email health professionals to seek clarity. I find this an unacceptable delay.
52. Children’s services could have exercised their powers under the S47 enquiry and contacted any other services if they saw fit but chose to email health professionals before going any further. They emailed twice and received no concrete response before closing the enquiry altogether. Evidence shows the detail for closure as “hospital not able/unwilling to check records.”
53. If the Council is going to agree to seek such further clarification, it should take a much firmer stance before choosing to close the enquiry if suitable responses are not received.
54. Ms X was unhappy with the reason given for closure on the S47 enquiry as it stated “concerns not substantiated”, rather than “unfounded” as she wished. This meant that no further action would be taken. The Council has explained its reasons behind this and is entitled to close the case on this basis. I find no fault with the Council for closing the enquiry in this way, given the options it has available on the assessment.

Failure to use relevant information in its CAFA

55. The Council admitted that some information was in the CAFA which should not have been, agreed to amend it and apologised for this.
56. Ms X presented information to the Council which she felt gave evidence of her standpoint. She complained this was not included in the CAFA.
57. In response to this, the Council said that Ms X disputed there was a safeguarding concern and in the absence of any further information being provided by health professionals it accepted this stance and made the decision not to override parental consent. I find no fault with the Council’s actions in this as it is a reasonable explanation.

The Council failed to amend the CAFA as agreed

58. The completed CAFA was substantially over the 45 working day period for assessments to be completed, which the Council has recognised was fault and apologised for.
59. In their stage two complaint response to Ms X, the Council blamed delays on:
• the complex nature of the referral and the lack of a suitable response from health professionals;
• the lead social worker being on leave; and
• other work pressures which delayed the document being completed.
60. The Council has not provided any evidence to suggest that Ms X was informed of further delay after the face-to-face meeting. I find fault with it for this lack of communication.
61. Children’s services agreed to amend incorrect parts of the CAFA that Ms X highlighted to them shortly after it was finalised in early November 2021.
62. As part of my enquiries to the Council, it has advised that after discussion with Ms X it began to amend inaccuracies in April 2022 and finalised them in May. The Council then sent Ms X a new version of the CAFA in mid-June.
63. While the Council provided stage one and two complaint responses to Ms X in December 2021 and March 2022, no evidence has been provided to explain the extended delay in amending the CAFA. I find fault with the Council for this delay and the uncertainty and distress it would have caused to Ms X.
64. I understand Ms X does not agree with the contents of the amended CAFA and has contacted the Council to discuss amendments to it and the case notes held on file. This does not fall within the scope of my investigation as the complaint was made to us in April 2022. Should Ms X wish to challenge the current and amended contents of the CAFA, it is open to her to register a separate complaint with the Council.

The Council failed to investigate the possibility referrals made by health professionals were malicious.

65. Throughout the process, Ms X felt the referral from health professionals had been malicious and that she had presented evidence to counteract their statements but that this was not considered.
66. The Council has explained to Ms X that it would not be appropriate for it to investigate concerns that need medical expertise to come to a conclusion. The Council confirmed it was aware Ms X was following the correct procedure within health services to have these concerns investigated. I find no fault with the actions of the Council in taking the initial concerns on face value.
67. The Council has admitted that not receiving the required further information to complete its investigation is concerning from a partnership perspective and that it will raise these concerns with health care colleagues. The Council should go further and review their practice on what to do in such circumstances.

Back to top

Agreed action

68. When responding to my enquiries, the Council offered a payment of £150 to Ms X for the inconvenience and stress caused to her and her family. Given the issues involved, I did not feel this offer adequately reflected the distress caused to Ms X.
69. As a remedy, the Council has agreed to pay Ms X £500 in total:
• £150 as a payment in recognition of the time and trouble she has gone to in making her complaints; and
• £350 to recognise the distress, uncertainty and anxiety caused by the Council’s actions throughout the process; and
• it will also apologise to Ms X for the distress she has suffered.
70. We would expect it to do this within one month of the date of this decision.
71. The Council has agreed to review its procedures for when the referring body does not provide further evidence when requested. We would expect it to do this within three months of the date of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

72. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

73. I did not investigate the actions of health care professionals in making safeguarding referrals to the Council. Any complaints about medical professionals are not within our jurisdiction and should be referred to the relevant professional body.
74. I did not investigate what the police recorded on file as part of the assessment as the actions of the police are not within our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman