Summary: Ms X complained the Council was at fault in pursuing child protection action on a false premise causing distress to her and her son. The complaint has been properly investigated as part of the statutory complaints procedure and there is no evidence of procedural fault in that process. The Council properly considered the findings and recommendations and so the Ombudsman will not consider this matter further.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council was at fault in pursuing child protection action on a false premise.
2. She says this caused distress to her and her son.

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 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, we have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• sought copies of information from the Council in respect of the statutory complaints procedure and considered the documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The statutory children’s complaints process

6. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. This includes decisions by the local authority to initiate care and supervision orders and the process can consider the quality of court reports.
7. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two.
8. At stage two, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
9. 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. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
10. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, 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.

Key facts

11. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
12. Ms X had contact with children’s social care and the police in London in 2022 after reporting her son had been sexually abused. Shortly after, she left London and went to say with her parents who live in the area covered by Bournemouth, Christchurch ad Poole Council.
13. The Council completed an assessment and decided the case should be considered at an ICPC (Initial Child Protection Conference). It was unclear if the allegations made by Ms X’s were the result of his lived experience or as a result of him being exposed to information which led him to experience emotional trauma and translate this as his experience. It was the unanimous decision of the ICPC that Ms X’s son had suffered significant harm regardless of how his current mindset arose. Ms X’s son was made the subject of a child protection plan (CPP) under the category of emotional harm.
14. Social care continued to work with Ms X and her son. This resulted in Ms X’s son being interviewed by police. A child protection conference review took place about eight months after the ICPC, and it took the decision to “step down” the case to a Child in Need plan. Children’s social care closed the case three months later.
15. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council in June 2023. She raised several concerns about the child protection process. The Council upheld three points and partially upheld another. It explained to Ms X that it would not removing the records relating to this child protection incident but that it had recorded her objections and disagreements.
16. Ms X requested the complaint by escalated to stage two of the statutory complaints process. The Council appointed and Investigation Officer (IO) and Independent Person in September 2023. The IO examined files, interviewed involved parties and produced ad 72-page report in March 2024. The report examined 19 separate complaints made by Ms X and partially upheld two. The other 17 complaints were not upheld.
17. Complaint one considered by the IO was that the Council proceeded to a Child Protection Conference on a false premise. The IO did not uphold this complaint saying the decision to seek a child protection plan was based on concerns for Ms X’s son’s wellbeing in light of reports of him self-harming. It went on to say that the Council was not clear about the reasons for his distress when he self-harmed and there were a number of possibilities. It said the intervention of officers who worked with him following the ICPC led him to gaining confidence and so he was eventually able to talk to the police and the source of his distress was then clear.
18. The Independent Person (IP) also produced a report on 8 March 2024. The IP said the investigation resulted in a very thorough and detailed final report and that each of the 19 complaints and 7 desired outcomes were fully addressed. The IP endorsed the findings.
19. The Council considered the report and sent its adjudication letter to Ms X. The Council did not agree with the IO in respect of one partially upheld complaint and explained why. The Council agreed with the recommendations of the IO and in addition offered a payment of £200 to recognise any distress caused by inaccurate information in the conference reports.
20. Ms X escalated the complaint to stage three of the statutory complaints’ procedure. The review panel was held on 25 June and Ms X attended and was invited to address the panel members and put forward her views on the conclusions, any factual inaccuracies and the remedy offered. In respect of the child protection investigation being based on a false premise, the panel considered this point. The review panel minutes show this was discussed, and panel members concluded the outcome should not change. In reaching this view it noted there was no evidence Ms X raised or challenged the issue of the source of the self-harm by her son. The Review Panel recommended that Ms X be invited to provide a written statement of any factual inaccuracies held in the Council’s records as reported in the investigation report and for the Council to consider added this to the case records.

Analysis

21. The Ombudsman’s position is that once a complaint has been through the full statutory complaints’ procedure, that unless we identify fault in how the council carried out the stage two investigation, we should not reinvestigate the substantive matters. We take this view because the stage two investigation is carried out by an IO and the Council also appoints an IP. The IP plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity of the stage two investigation and produces a report setting out their view on the investigation.
22. I am satisfied a robust stage two investigation was carried out in this case. The IP report shows they were satisfied the investigation was robust and fair. As Ms X has not indicated any failings in the stage two procedure, there is no basis for me to reinvestigate and so I accept the conclusions reached.
23. As no meaningful failings are identified, I have considered whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations in the IO and review panel reports. I am satisfied the Council properly did this. The Council included a payment to Ms X as part of its stage two adjudication and invited Ms X to provide in writing evidence of factual inaccuracies which it would add to its records. This is in accordance with the review panel recommendations.
24. I appreciate Ms X still feels aggrieved that a child protection investigation took place. However, I am satisfied this issue has been fully and properly investigated. The fact that these investigations did not conclude the investigation was based on a false premise and so did not agree with Ms X’s view, is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman