Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council was at fault in how it managed its child protection enquiry relating to their children following an incident in June 2023. We found the Council was at fault for delay in completing the Child and Family Assessment as well as the poor communication with Mr and Mrs X. The Council agreed to address the injustice its actions caused to Mr and Mrs X in line with our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council was at fault in how it managed its child protection enquiry relating to their children, S and B, following an incident in June 2023. They believe the Council did not:
• adequately safeguard the children involved in the incident;
• take their opinions into account during the assessment following the incident;
• complete the process and necessary assessments within the legally set timeframes;
• correct the assessments and its reports when Mr and Mrs X highlighted errors; and
• communicate effectively with Mrs X about the concerns she was raising with the lack of safeguarding.
2. Mr and Mrs X say that as a result the family experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty.
3. Mr and Mrs X would like the Council to apologise for its faults and to ensure that its communications with families improves. They would also like the Council to improve its services so that other families do not have the same experience. Lastly, they would like the Council to complete a risk assessment for their children by a trained professional and to share all reports, the assessment and the safety plans with them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr and Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with them.
7. I considered information the Council provided.
8. Both Mr and Mrs X as well as the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Duty to make enquiries

9. Under section 47 (S47) 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.
10. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
11. 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.

Child Protection Conference arrangements

12. 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 (CPP).
13. After the Initial Child Protection Conference, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
14. Review Child Protection Conferences (RCPCs) should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
15. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
16. 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.

Social Work England

17. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.

What happened

18. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every interaction between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded some of these events in the analysis section of this decision statement.
19. On 13 June 2023 the Council started its section 47 enquiry after Mr and Mrs X’s daughter, S, disclosed an incident involving her older brother, B. The Council said that it held a strategy meeting on the same day and S’s social worker saw B on that day before he was taken to the police station.
20. Mrs X told us that three days after this she chased the Council for information about the progress of its investigations.
21. The Council held another strategy meeting three days after this. On this occasion B’s social worker attended. It was also at this time the Council made the decision to assign separate social workers to S and B.
22. The following day S’s social worker visited Mrs X at home. They gave Mr and Mrs X an introductory pack that was a general letter and did not include any of the names of the people involved. Mrs X told us the social worker explained that they would visit S and B before 29 June so that S would not have to keep going over her disclosure after the police had done the interview.
23. B’s social worker visited him at home two days after the second strategy meeting.
24. The following day Mrs X contacted the Council and expressed her concerns around the lack of safety planning.
25. At the end of June 2023 B’s social worker rang Mr X for the first time since the disclosure. Two weeks after, the Council began the section 47 investigation. Mrs X says Mr X raised concerns about a lack of risk assessment and safety planning for S and B. Mr X says the social worker told him this was not necessary as B was “innocent until proven guilty”. The social worker allegedly said they told B to turn around and walk away if he saw S or her family. Mr X considered this moved the responsibility onto B rather than his family members.
26. In late July 2023 Mrs X complained to the Council about its management of the section 47 enquiries.
27. Three days later Mrs X emailed the Council again and added that B’s social worker was not taking Mr X’s view into account and the communication was poor. Mr X and B’s social worker met face to face two days after this.
28. In early August 2023 the Council issued its complaint response and said that:
• it held a number of strategy meetings before the social worker called Mr X at the end of June. During the call the social worker discussed safety planning with him and then the Team sent him a safety plan. Mr X said he got a copy of the plan from B’s school as well;
• it accepted there was a safety plan in place, but when Mr and Mrs X questioned it, S’s social worker should have had another conversation to make sure they were aware of what it was. The Council apologised for this not happening;
• it agreed B’s social worker’s use of the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” was inappropriate in this context and that Mr and Mrs X should have been updated about the case in a better way;
• it accepted that social workers should keep appointments, and this did not always happen for Mr and Mrs X. It apologised for this and said it had addressed it with the team;
• it agreed social workers did not always respond to Mr and Mrs X’s communications and this should have happened. The Council confirmed it discussed with the team that when they are unable to respond quickly they should acknowledge the message and send a substantive response later;
• the Council should not have removed Mr X from the chain of emails about the case, and it apologised for this;
• accepted that B’s social worker’s messages to Mr X were below the expected standard. It apologised and said it gave the social worker information about this.
29. The Council also agreed that it was not acceptable that B’s social worker made a comment about allegations against Mrs X without a proper follow up and more detail. The Council asked the social worker to hold a meeting once they could share all the details with Mr and Mrs X and this could be properly captured and explored.
30. A couple of weeks later Mr and Mrs X responded to the Council and said that they considered it had failed to fully understand the impact the social worker’s inappropriate communication with them had had on the family. Additionally, despite the Council saying B’s social worker would arrange a meeting with them, this has not happened.
31. In early September 2023 the Council issued its final response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. It said:
• it could not compel the social worker to apologise directly to them and this is why it had apologised on his behalf, because he represented the Council;
• the social worker confirmed they met with Mr X in late July 2023, but not since the Council issued the response to the complaint. The Council upheld this part of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint but said this may be irrelevant as the Child and Family Assessment (CAFA) concluded B should remain a Child in Need (CIN) and his case was to transfer into the Family Safeguarding Team. The Council offered to have a meeting with the team’s manager in case Mr and Mrs X wanted to discuss the case transfer;
• accepted that it shared B’s CAFA late (it completed it in early August 2023 and sent to Mr X in early September 2023);
• accepted that it shared S’s assessment late (the Council completed the assessment in mid-August 2023 but posted it to Mr and Mrs X at the end of the month). The Council confirmed that it completed the assessment within the 45-day statutory timescale but failed to share it with Mr and Mrs X promptly;
• agreed that it should have included Mr X in safety planning for B, but it didn’t. The Council considered his views could be added as part of the ongoing CIN process; and
• that a team manager would contact Mr and Mrs X by mid-September to offer a meeting about transferring B’s case to the safeguarding team and reminding teams about the importance of keeping families updated once an assessment is nearing completion and that they should issue the assessments promptly after completion.
32. Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with the Council’s response and in November 2023 they asked the Ombudsman to consider their complaint.

Analysis

The Council’s actions following the safeguarding report

33. After S’s disclosure, the Council promptly started its section 47 enquiries. This is what the law says it should have done.
34. The Council’s records show that when deciding what the safety plan should be it considered the bail conditions that were in place at the time for B. It considered these sufficiently safeguarded S and B. The Council’s decision also took into account S’s age as it thought it was unlikely for her to be alone in the community.
35. We understand that Mr and Mrs X consider the Council should have done more to safeguard both S and B. We are not an appeal body. Our role is to consider whether councils act with fault in reaching their decisions and, if so, whether that fault has caused the complainant injustice. Here, the Council followed the correct procedure and considered it put sufficient measures in place to safeguard S and B. We have found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached this decision and we cannot question the decision itself.

CAFA

36. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider their views during the CAFA. The Council accepted that it did not take account of Mr X’s views during the assessment. This is fault.
37. In the complaint response the Council said that it could take note of Mr X’s views during the ongoing CIN process. We consider this provides partial remedy to the injustice the Council’s actions caused Mr X. He said that he felt the Council was not interested in his views, because he was not part of the process. This caused him avoidable distress and uncertainty that resulted from the Council’s fault.
38. Because of this we recommend the Council should pay Mr X a remedy to recognise its failure to include him in the CAFA process caused him avoidable distress.

Complete the assessments within the legally set timeframes

39. The records show the Council completed its section 47 enquiries in late June 2023. Specifically, thirteen days after the referral. The Council completed the assessment within the statutory timeframe and was not at fault.
40. The Council’s records also show that it completed the CAFA in mid-August 2023, and it should have done so by 1 August 2023. This is fault.
41. This delay, paired with the delay in the Council telling Mr and Mrs X the outcome of the CAFA caused them avoidable distress and frustration. Because of this we consider the Council should pay them a remedy to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty this caused them.

Errors within the assessments and its reports

42. The Council told us that Mrs X did not initially complain to it about this. However, when gathering information to respond to the Ombudsman’s questions the Council agrees that there have been errors in the CAFA, Safety Plan and Child in Need Plan. The Council agreed to correct those errors, and we consider this to be a suitable remedy.

Communication standards

43. The Council accepted was at fault for its communication with Mr and Mrs X falling below the expected standard. This related to:
• keeping them updated about the progress of the assessment;
• including Mr X’s views in the CAFA;
• mentioning allegations against Mrs X without sharing enough details with her; and
• the tone of comments B’s social worker made to Mr and Mrs X.
44. The Council has apologised, and this partially addresses the injustice its actions caused to Mr and Mrs X at an already challenging time.
45. Additionally, we recommend the Council should pay Mr and Mrs X for the avoidable distress and uncertainty its actions caused them.

Social workers behaviour

46. The Council accepted that at times B’s social worker acted inappropriately. It apologised on their behalf and told Mr and Mrs X that it spoke to the social worker about this.
47. We do not consider complaints against single officers of the Council. We welcome the Council’s recognition and the action it took to address Mr and Mrs X’s concerns. If they remain concerned about the social worker’s actions, Social Work England considers complaint about concerns over behaviour of social workers.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. Within one month of the date of the final decision statement, the Council will:
• apologise to Mr and Mrs X for its failure keep them updated on the case progress and outcomes in a timely manner and the distress and frustration this has caused them. The Council should refer to our guidance on making an effective apology;
• pay Mr X £100 to recognise the distress and uncertainty the Council’s failure to include him in CAFA has caused him;
• pay Mr and Mr X £150 each to recognise the distress and uncertainty the Council’s delay in completing the CAFA and the failure to communicate with them effectively about the progress of the enquiries has caused them; and
• remind its staff of the importance of ensuring that all relevant parties are included in the CAFA process.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

50. The Council was at faut for the delay in completing the CAFA and the poor communication standards. This caused Mr and Mrs X avoidable distress and frustration. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice its actions caused Mr and Mrs X and our investigation is now complete.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman