Summary: Mr D complained the Council’s child and family assessments of his daughter in 2023 were flawed. There was no fault in the way the assessments were done. There was fault in complaint handling but this did not cause Mr D significant injustice requiring a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council’s child and family assessments of his daughter, M, in 2023 were flawed, it pressured him to accommodate her and failed to help the family. He also complains the Council fails to update him when his daughter goes missing. This has caused significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr D sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children.
7. Mr D 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

Relevant law and guidance

Child in need

8. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of “children in need” in their area and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
9. A child in need is one who “is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority”. This is because their “health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision […] of such services” or if they are disabled.
10. Where a council receives a referral suggesting a child may meet this definition it must carry out an assessment of need. This “child and family” or “section 17” assessment should be completed within 45 working days from the date of the referral. It should determine whether a child is in need; whether the child requires services; and what extra support and services may most help the child and their family. If the council decides to provide services, a child in need plan should be developed.
11. Councils may also offer “early help” services. These are forms of support aimed at improving outcomes for children or preventing escalating need or risk. In Lancashire this is provided by the Family Wellbeing Service.
12. A family group conference is a voluntary, family-led decision making process in which the family and friends network come together to make a plan for a child. The process is supported by an independent coordinator.

Safeguarding

13. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.
14. If a local authority receives a report of concern about a child (a “safeguarding referral”), the council must decide whether:
• the child requires immediate protection, or
• the child is in need and should be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, or
• there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.
15. If the initial assessment suggests the child may be suffering, or be likely to suffer, significant harm, the council should hold a strategy discussion to enable it to decide whether to initiate safeguarding enquiries under section 47 of the Act.
16. If, following that assessment, it decides the child is at risk of significant harm the council must arrange a child protection conference to consider what needs to happen to protect the child.

Looked after children

17. Councils have a duty under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, to provide accommodation to any child in need in their area who requires it, as a result of:
• there being no person who has parental responsibility for the child;
• the child being lost or having been abandoned;
• the person who has been caring for the child being prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing the child with suitable accommodation or care.
18. Where councils consider that a child should be removed from their parents, the council will try to place with family relatives. Under section 20, or a care order, the child becomes known as a ‘looked after’ child and the council has specific duties to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. The provision of accommodation under section 20 does not remove the parent’s parental responsibility and a parent can ask for the child to be returned to their care at any time.

Private or informal family arrangements

19. A private, or informal, family arrangement happens when a close relative has agreed with the parent to take on the care of the child. Under this arrangement there is no right to any financial support from the council although councils have discretion to provide financial assistance if it is considered necessary.

Lancashire Safeguarding Children Board’s Continuum of Need and Risk Identification Tool

20. This guidance helps agencies identify a child’s degree of need and outlines the criteria to determine when a case should be referred for assessment under section 17 or section 47. It identifies four levels of vulnerability, risk and need:
• Level 1 Universal: No additional needs. Needs are met by universal services such as education, GPs, dental.
• Level 2 Some Unmet Needs and Low Risk: These are children whose health and/or development may be adversely affected and would benefit from extra help to make the best of their life chances.
• Level 3 Higher Level of Unmet Needs And Medium Risk: Children who require a statutory needs assessment under section 17. These are children who are experiencing sustained and persistent problems that have not been possible to resolve at the previous levels of support.
• Level 4 Significant Unmet Need and High Risk: These are children who are experiencing significant harm or are at hight risk of significant harm without a multi-agency or coordinated response.

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

21. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage two of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigator and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel.
22. If a council has investigated something under this procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
23. The statutory guidance, Getting the best from complaints, lists who may complain using the statutory procedure. The council does not need consent from the child or young person to investigate a complaint from a person on this list. However, it may need consent from the child or young person to disclose information about them to the person making a complaint.

What happened

24. I have summarised the key events; this is not meant to detail everything that has happened.
25. Mr D’s daughter, M, has social, emotional, behavioural and mental health needs. She has misused substances, often goes missing from home and was considered at risk of exploitation.
26. Mr D is separated from M’s mother; there was a court order that M spent equal time with each parent. Following an incident in March 2023 (when M was 15 years old), Mr D said M could no longer stay with him due to risks to himself and his other child. During the period I have investigated, M moved between her mother’s and grandparents’ homes.
27. Following M going missing from home a number of times, a section 17 child and family assessment started on 31 July 2023 when she was living with her grandparents.
28. The Council arranged for a family group conference meeting to be held on 30 August. The social worker called Mr D about this the day before but he was unable to attend due to the short notice and the meeting was cancelled.
29. The section 17 assessment was completed on 12 September. It noted that M’s grandparents had health issues and that Mr D wanted the Council to accommodate M under section 20. He said his parents could no longer care for M. The assessment concluded that M required Level 3 (early help) support to rebuild her relationship with her parents so she could move home. It did not find that M was a child in need or that the criteria for accommodating her under section 20 had been met.
30. Mr D complained to the Council on 13 September about the assessment. He said M could not live with him due to the risks to his other child and there had been no assessment of his parents to determine if M could live with them. Mr D said that if M could not live with her mother, the Council needed to take her into care. Mr D also complained about insufficient notice of the family group conference.
31. Two further family group conference meetings were cancelled; the Council says this was because the family declined to be involved.
32. The Council responded to Mr D’s complaint on 19 October. It said it was aware of Mr D’s concerns about M returning to his home but M had not been assessed as a child in need. She had stayed with her grandparents temporarily and had since returned to her mother’s care. The Council accepted there had been delays with the family group conferencing service making contact and that appointment making could have been better. The response did not signpost Mr D to stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure.
33. The Council received a safeguarding referral about M and started a section 47 assessment on 2 November. The social worker called Mr D and asked to visit him the next day as part of this. Mr D complained to the Council about the lack of notice. It said on 10 November that it would not investigate the complaint as the case was being dealt with under the safeguarding procedure.
34. The section 47 assessment was completed. It found M was a child in need and required Level 4 services in a child in need plan. A search for accommodation for M had been ended as M’s grandparents had agreed she could stay with them.
35. The assessment was sent to Mr D on 4 December. He complained to the Council the next day about it. He said it was wrong, had information missing, looked one-sided and that issues had been twisted to paint him in the wrong light.
36. Mr D came to the Ombudsman but it was too soon for us to investigate as he had not yet had a response from the Council.
37. The Council responded to Mr D on 12 April 2024. The letter says this was a stage two response to Mr D’s September 2023 complaint under its corporate complaints’ procedure. It also responded in detail to Mr M’s comments on the November 2023 assessment and agreed to incorporate some of them into the assessment. The Council signposted Mr D to the Ombudsman but not the statutory complaints procedure.

My findings

38. It is not the Ombudsman's role to decide what, if any, support a young person needs. That is the council's role. My role is to consider if the council has followed the correct process for assessing a child under the Children Act or in considering whether to accommodate under section 20. If there was no fault in how the council made its decisions, the Ombudsman cannot question the outcome just because a person disagrees with its decision.
39. The Council carried out a section 17 assessment in August 2023 following concerns about M going missing. I have reviewed the assessment document. The social worker obtained M’s wishes and feelings, considered the views of her parents and grandparents, and got information from the police and health professionals. It determined M’s needs and how they could be met. It was completed within 45 working days. This is in line with the statutory guidance.
40. The assessment concluded M was not a child in need and did not meet the criteria for accommodation under section 20. These were decisions the Council was entitled to make. I do not find fault in the way the assessment was carried out. I therefore cannot question it or challenge the professional judgments of officers no matter how much Mr D disagrees with it.
41. The Council was not required to assess M’s grandparents as she was staying with them under private family arrangements. Any complaint about M staying with her grandparents is theirs to make. I cannot investigate it as I do not have their consent for Mr D to complain on their behalf. Further, they would need to first complain to the Council through its formal complaints process.
42. When the Council received the safeguarding referral, it decided to conduct section 47 safeguarding enquiries. This considered the risks to M, gathered information from her and family members, determined M’s needs and what action was required to safeguard her welfare. This is in line with the statutory guidance. I appreciate Mr D says there was information missing and inaccuracies, but there is no evidence of fault in the way the assessment was done.
43. The assessment concluded that M was a child in need and required a child in need plan but did not require accommodation under section 20. These are decisions the Council is entitled to take. As there was no fault in the assessment, I cannot question the Council’s decisions.
44. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that when M went missing it tried to contact Mr D but this was not always possible as Mr D sometimes did not answer or had blocked the social worker’s number. I have not seen any evidence that the Council did not try to contact Mr D.
45. Mr D’s complaints of 13 September and 5 December 2023 should have been considered under the statutory children’s complaint procedure as they were about assessments conducted under part 3 of the Children Act 1989. The Council’s responses should have signposted Mr D to stage two of the statutory process. They did not and this is fault. But this did not cause Mr D significant injustice requiring a remedy as he did not request escalation of his complaints and his complaints have now been considered by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

46. There was fault by the Council but this did not cause significant injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman