Summary: Mr X complains that the Council was biased against him following a false allegation made by his ex-partner, which led to the Council implementing a child in need plan for his son. We do not find the Council to be at fault in this matter. We have found fault with the Council’s complaint handling and have recommended an apology and financial payment to address the injustice caused to Mr X. The Council has agreed to carry out these recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council was biased against him following a false allegation made by his ex-partner, which led to the Council implementing a child in need plan for his son. He also complains that a family meeting was held without him, and the Council has failed to provide him with counselling support (but has provided support to his ex-partner).
2. Mr X says this has caused him significant distress and uncertainty.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’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

7. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
8. Mr X and the Council were given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. The Children Act 1989 and statutory guidance ‘Working together to safeguard children 2018’ set out councils’ responsibilities to safeguard children. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and determine whether protective action is required (Section 47 of the Children Act 1989). Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect.
10. The Council’s primary responsibility is to safeguard the welfare of the child.
11. Referrals may come from the child, or agencies involved with children such as health and schools, concerned family members, friends, neighbours or members of the public. When a council accepts a referral, the social worker has the lead professional role and should clarify with the referrer, where possible, what the concerns are and how and why they have arisen.
12. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family; for example, a health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables councils to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing.
13. An assessor may decide that no further action is necessary; that the child is in need; or the child is in need of protection. Where the outcome is continued involvement, the council agrees a plan of action with other agencies and discusses this with the child and family. The child and family should be informed of the decision.
14. A section 7 report is often referred to as a welfare report. The court can order these when it considers it needs more. information about a child's welfare. and what action is in their best interests. These are produced in private law child arrangement proceedings. As a Court has ordered the section 7 report, their preparation and content are outside our jurisdiction.

Background

15. Mr X has shared parental responsibility with his ex-partner (Ms Z) for their son, whom I shall refer to as Y.
16. The Council’s records note its involvement with Y and his parents from 2016 and more recently with regards to contact arrangements. The Council produced a section 7 report for the court with regards to this matter.
17. A non-molestation order is in place to prevent Mr X from accessing Ms Z’s property.

What happened

18. In late April 2020 the Council received a referral raising concerns regarding parental conflicts and domestic abuse mostly occurring around child contact. The referrer also said there had been a breach of the non-molestation order by Mr X on 10 April 2020. The referrer raised concerns about the impact of the acrimonious relationship on the emotional wellbeing of Y, who was reported to have witness most of the arguments between his parents.
19. On 5 May 2020 the Council received notification from the police stating it had received a report of breach of a non-molestation order. The police said that in April 2020 Ms X had reported that Mr X had come to her address and breached the order.
20. The Council decided it needed to carry out an assessment due to the risks to Y’s wellbeing and the possibility “he could be hurt in the crossfire between his parents…” The records show the Council spoke to Mr X on the 14 May 2020 and 18 May 2020 about the incident. Mr X told the Council that he had made a statement to the police and presented evidence. He said the allegations made against him breaching the non-molestation order were being dropped.
21. On 20 May 2020 the Council carried out a home visit with Y, Mr X and Mr X’s girlfriend. The records stated that Mr X was not willing to talk about the incident and told the social worker to contact the police about it. The Council and Mr X discussed Y’s education and accessing work online. The Council explained the need for solicitors and family court involvement around difficulties in contact arrangements for Y. The Council informed Mr Y that Ms Z had also been advised to seek legal advice about issues relating to contact. The records show that following the visit the Council spoke to Mr X twice again that month.
22. On 3 June 2020 the Council contacted Mr X to speak about Y’s health issues. Three days later Mr X was contacted about a child in meeting scheduled for 15 June 2020. Mr X asked why the Council was involved when he was advised to seek legal advice. The Council explained that the legal advice was in relation to contact arrangements and social care involvement was for the emotional harm to Y from the acrimonious relationship between parents. The Council confirmed that Ms Z had been informed of the meeting.
23. On 4 June 2020 the Council completed a single assessment about the concerns. The assessment noted:

• the family had been known to social care since 2017 due to concerns around domestic abuse between Mr X and Ms Z. Mr X and Ms Z were separated and Y spent time with both parents;
• Y’s school said there were no known concerns about his behaviour and presentation, and he was always clean and well-presented when attending. The school said their main concerns were about Y’s emotional wellbeing;
• health checks had been completed;
• Y had witnessed several incidents of arguments between his parents which had impacted his emotional well-being;
• Y was seen on two occasions at each parent’s home and appeared to be guarded on what to say when at each home;
• Y spoke about his relationship with his paternal and maternal grandparents and that he got to spend his birthday with both parents;
• comments from Y including, what he was worried about and what would make him happy;
• the section on ‘Parent or carers story’ noted that both parents evidenced positive capacity to provide appropriate home and facilities required for Y to thrive. Y spoke positively about each parent;
• allegations that Mr X had breach the non-molestation order had had been dropped by the police;
• the assessment concluded the concerns raised in the referral were substantiated and recommended the family be supported through a child in need plan.

24. The Council sent a copy of the assessment to Mr X and Ms Z on 12 June 2020.
25. The Council held a child in need meeting in June 2020. Mr X and Ms Z attended this meeting.
26. A family meeting took place with Ms Z and her family in July 2020.
27. A review meeting took place in September 2020 and Mr X asked the social worker to clarify the information with the police about the non-molestation order.
28. A further review meeting took place in November 2020 and recorded that the social worker had spoken to the police and confirmed that Mr X was not in breach of the order and had not been charged. It was agreed that a family meeting would be arranged for 19 November 2020. It was noted that both parents had not provided names and contact details of family members that they wished to attend the meeting.
29. It was also noted that Ms X was receiving support around healthy relationships and that Mr X also said he wanted support for this. It was agreed that the social worker would explore support for Mr X. It was also agreed that the social worker would explore counselling support if Mr X and Ms Z were willing to engage. Mr X said he had not been given any support regarding this despite requesting this from the previous social worker. It was agreed that the social worker would explore with Mr X the support he required.

Mr X’s complaint

30. On 12 October 2020 Mr X complained to the Council about the handling of the child in need case by the social workers involved. He said the child in need plan had made very little progress and social workers showed bias in favour of Ms Z. Mr X said he had to get evidence to defend himself.
31. On 9 November 2020 the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and said, “it would not get involved in a complaint from a person who was party to private law proceedings as the matter would need to be settled in court”. Mr X was advised to contact his legal representative. Mr X responded on the same day and asked the Council to explain why it had refused to investigate his complaint. He said, “my case is going through the family courts for child arrangements order and do not see how this affects your decision”.
32. On 26 November 2021 the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its corporate complaints process. Relevant to this investigation, the Council said that the issues in this case were an on-going court matter and if Mr X felt the social worker had not taken his views into account, then this was a matter, he needed to raise through the court process. The Council explained:

• if Mr X felt he had been treated unfairly he should seek legal advice so he could be represented in court;
• the social worker and team manager felt they had listened to both parents and did not feel they had been biased;
• it was focussed on addressing the impact of the conflict between Mr X and Ms Z on Y;
• Mr X should contact the police about the allegation he had breached the non-molestation order and his claim that Ms Z had lied in her police statement;
• it acknowledged that the child in need plan had been slow to progress in some areas;
• Mr X and Ms Z had both declined mediation;
• Ms X was undertaking domestic violence work which Mr X had declined;
• Mr X had requested support as a victim in his own right;
• if Mr X required counselling the Council could signpost him to an appropriate service but suggested he speak to his GP first;
• family meetings scheduled for 9 July 2020 and 19 July 2020 did not go ahead as Mr X did not provide any family members details/contacts. The Council asked Mr X to provide these contact details so that a meeting could be arranged;

33. Mr X responded and said the whole case had been biased towards the support of Ms Z, particularly with regards to the allegation of breaking the non-molestation order. Mr X said he asked the social worker to remove the allegation from the child in need plan. Mr X said the issue had caused him significant distress and had been a discussion point in meetings. Mr X said he requested counselling on 22 June 2020. Mr X asked the Council to provide further details around his refusal to provide contact details for family meetings.
34. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s email and confirmed that a review of Council’s stage one response would be completed by 15 January 2021.
35. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 3 February 2021. It apologised for the delay responding to Mr X. It said this was due to a busy period and another national lockdown in response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Relevant to this investigation, the Council:

• reviewed the evidence Mr X had sent in September 2020 regarding the alleged breach of the non-molestation order and said the social worker contacted the police on the same day;
• confirmed that a copy of Mr X’s email and police response would be placed on Y’s file with the single assessment and child in need plan;
• explained the issue of the alleged breach of the order had been addressed in the Council’s report to Court on 18 February 2021;
• apologised for the delay in organising counselling support for Mr X and confirmed that the social worker had signposted him to several support services via an email on 11 November 2020. The Council also explained that Mr X had been advised to contact his GP to access counselling support;
• apologised for the delay in progressing a family meeting and confirmed that meeting took place with Ms Z and her family, but Mr X did not attend;
• confirmed that Mr X did supply the names family members whom he wished to attend a family meeting but did not supply their contact details and has since declined to do so; and
• Mr X should contact his social worker to arrange a family meeting with his own family;

Analysis

The single assessment and child in need plan

36. I have reviewed the Council’s single assessment. This provides a record of the actions taken by the Council in response to the referral it received in April 2020 and alleged breach of a molestation order it received in May 2020. The assessment also sought Y’s views and feelings. The assessment also shows the Council considered other factors such as historic issues, Y’s background health, education and social, emotional and behavioural development. I have not found evidence of fault in how the Council assessed the risk of harm to Y.
37. Mr X was included in the Council’s assessment, and he was asked to contribute, and his feelings and views have been recorded in the assessment, child in need plan and reviews. The assessment says both Mr X and Ms Z provide appropriate home and facilities required for Y to thrive. Having reviewed the Council’s records, I do not find that the Council was contacting one parent and not the other.
38. The purpose of the assessment was not to compare Mr X’s and Ms Z’s parenting. Rather it was to keep Y safe. The Council came to a professional judgement and conclusion that the concerns raised in the referral were substantiated and recommended the family and Y be supported through a child in need plan. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and I have found no fault in the way it reached this decision.

The Council’s complaint handling

39. With regards to the court case related to child contact arrangements, the Council was involved in providing section 7 reports for production in court. Within these it also addressed the issue of the non-molestation order and alleged breach.
40. When Mr X complained in October 2020 the Council told Mr X it could not accept his complaint because of the ongoing court case. The Council did not at the time explain why it considered Mr X’s complaint may interfere with the court case.
41. Although the Council can decide not to investigate a complaint if it would prejudice a concurrent investigation, if it does, it should decide, if possible, to investigate some of the complaint without prejudicing the other investigation.
42. I acknowledge Mr X referred to the non-molestation order in his complaint, but this was not the sole aspect of his complaint. Mr X said he was unhappy about bias shown by staff involved in the case and the lack of support available to him, and these are the same issues that were eventually investigated up to stage two.
43. The Council is therefore at fault for the delay in not progressing Mr X’s complaint in October 2020.

Mr X’s complaint about bias

44. In his stage one complaint, Mr X complained the Council has been bias towards him and in favour of Ms Z. The Council’s response gave an assurance the Council had not been biased and explained how both parents had been contacted as part of the assessment.
45. The Council’s stage two response reaffirmed that Mr X failed to supply contact details of family members whom he wished to attend the family meetings scheduled in July 2020. There is no evidence of any communication with Mr X about this in the Council’s records, prior to July 2020. However, in November 2020 the Council noted in the child in need review that Mr X had yet to provide these contact details and asked him to do so. Therefore, I do not find that the Council was acting with biased towards him with regards to arranging a family meeting.
46. In its stage one response the Council said that Mr X had declined undertaking domestic violence work. In November 2020 the Council recorded that Ms Z was receiving support around healthy relationships and that Mr X also said he wanted support for this. The social worker took prompt action and sent Mr X with details of support services. I find no fault by the Council.
47. However, the Council acknowledged there had been a delay in responding to Mr X’s request for counselling when he requested this in June 2020. This is fault. The Council signposted Mr X to several support services in November 2020 and advised him to contact his GP.

Injustice to Mr X

48. Having identified fault, I must consider whether this has caused Mr X a significant injustice. Mr X says he feels the Council has treated him unfairly compared to Ms Z. He also says the Council’s actions have caused him significant distress and uncertainty.
49. I acknowledge Mr X’s comments, however, I cannot attribute this distress and uncertainty solely to the actions of the Council, as Mr X was involved with the police and the child arrangements order hearing at this time. I consider the alleged breach of the non-molestation order and pending court case regarding Mr X’s contact arrangements with Y would have contributed to his feelings of stress. I also acknowledge that Mr X told the Council he was not in employment, and this would have added to his distress and uncertainty. Mr X could have approached his GP about counselling support and not relied solely on the Council to signpost him.
50. However, I consider Mr X was caused avoidable distress and uncertainty by the delay in responding to his complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. The Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise to Mr X for the faults identified in this statement; and
2. make a payment to Mr X of £100 in recognition of the delay in the complaint handling process.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

53. I have not investigated parts of Mr X’s complaint that relate to breach of the non-molestation order. This was addressed by the Council in the report it produced for court proceedings and is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This has been explained to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman