Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to act on her complaint, under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, into its handling of child protection proceedings involving her children. The Council is at fault for its consideration of parts of Miss X’s complaint and has failed to properly remedy the impact of its failings on Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and develop a specific action plan for its approach to victims of domestic abuse.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to act on her complaint, under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, into its handling of child protection proceedings involving her children. She says this caused her distress and resulted in her children not being able to live together. She wants the Council to compensate her and change its approach to victims of domestic abuse.

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. 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. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, 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)
6. 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

7. I have discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the information she provided. I have also considered information provided by the council.
8. Miss X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Children’s statutory complaint procedure

9. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
12. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
13. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
14. 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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
15. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
16. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened

17. The following is not intended to be a full account of everything that happened in this period, nor does it refer to all the records I have considered. It is a summary of the key events and facts relevant to this complaint.
18. Miss X has four children. She is separated from each of her children’s fathers. Miss X suffered domestic abuse over several years from Mr Y, who is the father of one of her children. The Council placed the children under a child protection plan from 2021. Following an incident in early 2022 the Council said Miss X must not have unsupervised contact with her children. It asked Mr Y to supervise Miss X’s contact with their child. At the same time the Council started court proceedings for interim supervision orders for all four children.
19. Miss X complained to the Council. When Miss X complained, some court proceedings were ongoing. Miss X’s complaint was wide ranging. In summary she complained the Council:
• Failed to properly assess the children’s care arrangements before encouraging their fathers to pursue parental responsibility in court.
• Had no legal basis for insisting she have supervised contact with her children.
• Asked Mr Y to supervise her contact with their child, knowing he had perpetrated domestic abuse against her.
• Failed to consider her children’s wishes when deciding on a plan for their care following the incident in early 2022.
• Contacted the father of her unborn child without her consent and revealed the father’s identity to the other children’s fathers.
20. The Council considered Miss X’s complaint under the statutory children’s procedure. The Council’s stage one response said there was learning from Miss X’s complaint but did not make any specific findings. In April 2023 Miss X asked for a stage two investigation. An investigation officer and independent person met with Miss X and issued their report in September 2023. The investigating officer found:
• The children’s care arrangements from early 2022 were mostly suitable. However, while the Council was under no legal duty to assess Mr Y before he applied to court, the Council should have carried out an assessment.
• The Council failed to properly assess whether Miss X’s contact with her children should be supervised and allowed the supervision to go on too long.
• The Council should not have asked Mr Y to supervise Miss X’s contact with their child.
• The Council failed to consider the children’s wishes in its early 2022 care planning but had later done so.
• While there was no evidence the Council contacted the father of Miss X’s unborn child, on balance, it probably had.
21. The independent person said the investigating officer had investigated Miss X’s complaint properly and agreed with the findings.
22. The Council delayed issuing its adjudication because of court proceedings. It issued its stage two adjudication on 9 January 2024. It agreed with the investigating officer that the children’s care arrangements had been suitable. However, it disagreed it should have assessed Mr Y before he applied to the court. It said the investigating officer had accepted the Council was under no legal duty to carry out an assessment and any decision on Mr Y’s suitability would have been for the court.
23. The Council agreed it should not have insisted Miss X’s contact with her children was supervised for as long as it did, and that it should not have asked Mr Y to supervise Miss X’s contact with their child. It also agreed it had failed to consider the children’s wishes in its care planning in early 2022, but had since done so. It strongly disagreed that it had contacted the father of Miss X’s unborn child, and said there was no evidence to support the finding.
24. Following its adjudication the Council developed an action plan based on the stage two recommendations. This included:
• An apology to Miss X.
• Ensuring its service learnt from the upheld complaints, in particular its approach to victims of domestic abuse.
• Placing the complaint findings on the children’s records.
• Regular meetings with Miss X to address any new concerns. Including inviting Miss X to the next looked after child review.
• Amending its assessments of the children to consider the upheld parts of the complaint and informing the court of the complaint outcome.
25. Miss X remained unhappy and asked the Council to consider her complaint at a stage three panel. She said she did not think the Council had learnt from the complaint. Miss X refused to attend the next looked after child review as the Council said it was meeting with Mr Y in the same place at the same time.
26. The stage three panel met in July 2024. Before the meeting the panel asked Miss X to review her desired outcomes from the complaint. Miss X did so and they included:
• Ensuring this did not happen to anyone else. Miss X wanted more support for women who have experienced domestic abuse, with social workers qualified in handling domestic abuse cases.
• A record of the complaint findings placed on the children’s records.
• Putting things back to how they were.
• Disciplinary action against council staff.
• Increased scrutiny of decisions to start court proceedings.
• Financial compensation.
27. The panel expressed its concern about the lack of evidence to support the investigating officer’s findings in their stage two report. The panel offered Miss X a new stage two investigation, but she refused. In summary, the panel:
• Found the stage two investigation had focused on events around April 2022, rather than look at the Council’s overall approach to the children’s care.
• Agreed the Council should not have insisted Miss X’s contact with her children was supervised for as long as it did, and that it should not have asked Mr Y to supervise Miss X’s contact with their child.
• Agreed with the Council’s adjudication the complaints about assessments were for the court.
• Agreed the Council had not considered the children’s wishes in early 2022 but had now done so.
• Found there was no evidence to support Miss X’s complaint about the Council contacting the father of her unborn child.

The panel explained to Miss X that it could not take disciplinary action against staff, and it was for the court to decide on the children’s care arrangements.

28. The Council told the panel it had now prioritised developing its response to families experiencing domestic abuse. It said it had adopted a working model which encouraged building the Council’s relationship with families in care proceedings. The panel recommended the Council use Miss X’s complaint to support that work and keep Miss X informed about its progress. It added the Council should place a copy of the stage three panel findings on the children’s records and pay Miss X £2000 to recognise the impact of the Council’s failings and another £250 for Miss X’s time and trouble in complaining.
29. Miss X refused the payment and complained to the Ombudsman. Miss X told the Ombudsman the Council’s disagreement with the stage two findings caused her distress. She wanted:
• A proper apology from the Council.
• A copy of the complaint findings placed on the children’s records.
• To ensure what happened to her could not happen to someone else.

My findings

30. The Council investigated Miss X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaint process. I have not re-investigated the Complaint. I have looked at whether there were any significant flaws in the complaint process and whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel

The Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaint

31. The statutory children’s complaint process has three stages. The Council’s stage two investigation and stage three panel both took longer than the statutory timescales, with the whole complaint process taking 18 months. The Council has explained the delay was because it paused its adjudication and stage three panel for court proceedings and at Miss X’s request due to her pregnancy. While there was delay, I am satisfied there was good reason for this. The Council was not at fault.
32. The accompanying statutory guidance to children’s complaints, Getting the Best from Complaints, says councils should resolve most complaints at stage one of the statutory process. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at stage one and said there was learning it would take from the complaint. However, it failed to make findings on the individual parts of Miss X’s complaint or set out any specific actions it would take. This is fault and caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty over whether her complaint was upheld or not.
33. Getting the Best from Complaints also explains the stage two adjudication is for the Council to respond to the investigating officer’s report, decide on each point of complaint and detail any action it will take. In its stage two adjudication the Council explained why it disagreed with parts of the stage two report. It also met with Miss X to discuss the findings. It explained which parts of the complaint were for a court to decide and set out a detailed action plan of its response to the upheld parts of her complaint. While it is understandable Miss X was upset the adjudication disagreed with the investigating officer, it is something the Council was entitled to do. The Council is not at fault. There is no fault in how the Council carried out the stage two adjudication and I therefore cannot question whether that adjudication was right or wrong.
34. Miss X disagreed with the stage two adjudication and asked for a stage three panel. The role of the panel was not to reinvestigate the complaint, but consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation and try and achieve a resolution for Miss X. The records show the panel considered information from Miss X, the investigating officer, independent person and the Council when making its decision. It took all the information into account and set out whether it agreed or disagreed with the investigating officer and Council on each of Miss X’s complaints. While Miss X may disagree with the panel’s findings, the panel performed its role as set out in the statutory guidance. It then made further recommendations which the Council adopted into its action plan. The Council is not at fault. There is no fault in how the Council conducted the stage three panel and I therefore cannot question whether the panel’s decisions were right or wrong.

Recommendations from Miss X’s complaint

35. Following the stage two adjudication the Council created an action plan setting out how it would carry out the recommendations from the report. This included apologising to Miss X and placing a copy of the investigation on the children’s records. This is in line with Miss X’s desired outcomes. The Council added to its action plan following the stage three panel and added a copy of the panel’s findings to the children's records. I am satisfied the Council completed these recommendations without delay. The Council is not at fault.
36. The stage two investigator, Council adjudication and stage three panel all agree the Council should not have asked Mr Y to supervise Miss X’s contact with their child. Mr Y repeatedly carried out domestic abuse against Miss X. The Council accepts it was at fault and recognises it needs to improve. It apologised and offered Miss X £2250 to recognise the impact of its failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and I am satisfied with the Council’s proposed remedy for the distress and harm its fault caused Miss X.
37. Throughout her complaint Miss X has said she wants to ensure no other victim of domestic abuse is placed back in a room with the perpetrator so they can see their children. In its stage one response the Council said it had learned lessons from the complaint. At stage two it said it would ensure its staff would learn from the complaint. Despite this the Council invited Miss X to a looked after child review in the same location as Mr Y shortly after the stage two adjudication. At stage three the Council said it had now prioritised revising its approach with victims of domestic abuse and adopted a new model.
38. The Council’s inconsistent approach to meaningful service improvements, and its failure to change its approach between Miss X and Mr Y following the complaint mean that, on balance, I consider the Council failed to properly consider the seriousness of Miss X’s complaint in its proposed service improvements. The proposed improvements have failed to result in meaningful change.
39. In response to our enquiries the Council shared details of its further learning activity on its domestic abuse practice. The Council should go further to act on the complaint findings and ensure there is no repeat of the failings in this case.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the fault identified in this complaint. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Miss X £2250 to recognise the impact of its failings.
41. Within three months of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Use the findings from this case to develop a specific action plan for its approach to members of families it is working with who are victims of domestic abuse. The Council should share a copy of the plan with the Ombudsman.
2. Share this decision and its action plan with the relevant committee of elected members to reflect on the lessons learned.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman