Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council when it pursued a child protection investigation following concerns about his son’s behaviour. We did not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Slough Borough Council (the Council) failed to properly consider their complaint about the actions of the Council in pursuing a section 47 investigation and Child in Need plan, following concerns raised by their son’s school about his behaviour. He maintains that the investigation was not warranted, was not carried out properly and they were treated negatively throughout. This has caused the family significant and ongoing 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the organisation 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

Child protection

5. Everyone who works with children has a responsibility for keeping them safe. If children and families are to receive the right help at the right time, everyone who encounters them has a role to play in identifying concerns, sharing information, and taking prompt action. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 
6. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
7. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (the Act), 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.
8. 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.
9. 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”.

Child in need

10. Section 17 of the Act says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
11. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.

What happened

12. Mr B’s son, C, attended School X. In the autumn of 2020 School X made a referral to the Council as it was concerned about reports of inappropriate language from a number of other students against C. School X had also noted a previous concern from C’s primary school.
13. The Council arranged a strategy meeting. Representatives from C’s current and previous schools attended, along with health, the police and children’s services. The meeting unanimously agreed the case met the threshold for investigation and agreed to make enquiries to establish where C was learning such language and behaviour.
14. A social worker (SW1) spoke to C and his sibling, Mr and Mrs B, School X and the sibling’s school. SW1 had concerns that C was not taking ownership of his behaviour and that Mr and Mrs B felt he must be picking up the language and behaviour from school. SW1 was concerned that C could have been exposed to sexual abuse or watched inappropriate content online. They also had additional concerns about the impact on C’s sibling if no intervention took place. SW1 concluded that the concerns were substantiated but C was not at continuing risk of significant harm. SW1 recommended carrying out a child and family assessment so appropriate support for C and his family could be put in place. A manager approved the recommendation.
15. SW1 visited the family, discussed the situation with Mr and Mrs B and carried out direct work with the children. SW1 was worried that if no intervention took place now, C’s behaviour could escalate as he got older. SW1 concluded the case should progress to a child in need plan to put services in place to support C and Mr and Mrs B. SW1 would visit the children every three weeks. SW1 also made a referral to the Youth Offending Team to carry out some positive relationship work to help C understand the consequences of his behaviour and School X agreed to provide some counselling and a mentor when school reopened (after the COVID lockdown). Mr and Mrs B should also receive some parenting support to understand the concerns about C’s behaviour. SW1 completed the assessment at the end of January 2021 and it was approved by a manager. Mr and Mrs B did not see the assessment before it was completed.
16. At the first statutory visit in February 2021 SW1 noted that Mr and Mrs B had engaged a private therapist who had done four sessions with C. A new social worker took over the case after this. Positive progress was noted at the subsequent visits and the Council agreed to close the case in April 2021 because Mr and Mrs B had engaged in the process, there were interventions in place and no further concerns had been raised.
17. Mr B raised a concerns and queries about the assessment. SW1 responded to these.

Formal complaint

18. Mr B complained to the Council in June 2021 about:
• The poor conduct of SW1 during the investigation and subsequent child in need plan. He said they made a few telephone calls and two door-step visits, had no contact with School X to interrogate the allegations, and made discriminatory remarks about their religion.
• They were only given the assessment two weeks after it was completed and just before the first statutory visit.
• The Council had not responded to their queries and there were inaccuracies in the assessment.
• Before the second statutory visit a new social worker contacted them to say SW1 had left, and a child-in-need plan was not necessary.
19. The Council responded to the complaint at the end of June 2021
20. It partially upheld the complaints that Mr and Mrs B felt unsupported during the process and agreed the assessment should have been provided more quickly, although it did not consider there had been excessive delay. It said SW1 should have apologised for the inaccuracies in the assessment. It explained that C’s sibling had also been included in the assessment to ensure they were appropriately supported, and any risks assessed.
21. The Council also apologised for SW1 not informing Mr and Mrs B they were leaving and a new social worker would be taking over.
22. The Council was satisfied that the child in need process had been started appropriately due to concerns about C’s inappropriate language and behaviour.
23. The Council did not uphold the complaint that SW1 had painted a negative picture of C and the family. It considered SW1 had done appropriate work with C and it was not a question of C being guilty or innocent. The assessment was not contradictory, and it did not conclude C had been a victim of sexual abuse, rather it was a possibility. Mr and Mrs B had not been investigated for this.
24. The Council had a duty to act on the information provided by the school and it was not the Council’s role to interrogate the allegations further. School X had statements from several students.
25. The Council was satisfied that the correct process was followed: the children were seen and spoken to, the views of the parents obtained, a support plan was identified and multi-agency information gathering took place. There was evidence of sexualised language at school and a child in need plan was warranted to ensure C could engage with the right services and support.
26. In July 2021 Mr B escalated his complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. He felt the allegations were unfairly raised against his son, he wanted more than an apology for the delay in sharing the assessment and the lack of an apology for the inaccuracies in the assessment. He didn’t accept a child in need plan was needed, nor that SW1 did adequate or appropriate work with the children. They had to engage a private therapist as a direct result of the section 47 investigation and not because of his behaviour. The negative record will remain against him on file. He wanted the assessment corrected or at least their comments and complaints added to the file.
27. The Council responded at the end of August 2021. It explained that serious allegations had come from School X which warranted investigation. The decision to proceed with an investigation and child in need plan was a unanimous multi-agency decision and was reasonable give the nature of the allegations.
28. The Council agreed SW1 should have shared the assessment and talked it through with Mr and Mrs B. But SW1 responded to the queries and copies were on the case record. They also offered a virtual meeting to discuss the issues, but Mr and Mrs B declined. It explained that it could not amend the assessment, but a copy of the corrections was now on record.
29. It partially upheld the poor communication over with transfer process but it did not agree with Mr B’s view that the second social worker considered the investigation had been unnecessary. The Council had a duty to investigate the allegations raised by the school and it was reasonable to take into account any relevant history such as the recorded incident in primary school. The Council was not accusing the family of sexual abuse or criminality but the potential for these things was something the Council had to consider. The section 47 investigation looks at the whole family including parenting but is not a criminal investigation. The Council considered it had followed an appropriate process in a reasonable way.
30. The Council said it would consider not finalising assessments on the system until parents had been given the chance to comment on them and it would remind social workers about the importance of good communication with families.
31. Mr B escalated the complaint to stage three and the Council responded in September 2021, upholding the previous responses. Mr B complained to us.

Analysis

32. I understand the process of a section 47 investigation and subsequent interventions must have been upsetting and stressful for Mr B and his family. But I have not found fault in the way the Council initiated or conducted the process.
33. The Council had a duty to consider the referral from the school: the reports of C’s behaviour were serious and justified further consideration. The school had reports of several comments and incidents from different students and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it was not for the Council to question the allegations further. The Council fully explained to Mr and Mrs B the reasons for proceeding with the investigation which had been agreed unanimously at a multi-agency meeting.
34. The Council acted promptly holding a strategy discussion straightaway, completing enquiries within a month and an assessment within a further month. After three statutory visits the Council reviewed the case and closed it. SW1 worked with the children, the parents and the schools during the enquiries and the assessment process.
35. There is no evidence to support Mr B’s view that the second social worker believed there was no need for a child in need plan at all. They were satisfied following the visits and interventions that the situation had improved sufficiently to close the case.
36. The Council offered counselling and mentoring from School X and a referral to the youth offending service to work with C on exploring healthy relationships. But Mr and Mrs B chose to engage a private therapist to work with C. The sessions had a positive impact on C and contributed to the closure of the case. But I am not able to conclude on the evidence provided that they were necessary solely because of the child protection process, and rather than to address the concerns raised about C’s behaviour.
37. I have not identified any fault with the Council’s complaints process. The Council responded promptly and thoroughly at each stage, explaining why and how the process had taken place. It recognised two areas where practice could have been better and suggested improvements for the future. It has also placed on file a record of Mr B’s comments and corrections to ensure his views are included.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman