Summary: Ms E complained the Council failed to follow child protection procedures when it was involved with her family. We find the Council was at fault for allowing Ms E’s son to visit his grandmother without her knowledge or consent. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms E to reflect her injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms E complained the Council failed to follow child protection procedures when it was involved with her family. She adds the social worker’s attitude towards her was unacceptable, the social worker was difficult to get in contact with and the social worker said she had been emotionally abusing her daughter. She also says the social worker made comments about her mental health. Finally, Ms E says the social worker allowed her son to break COVID-19 rules without her knowledge or consent.
2. Ms E says the Council’s actions have caused immeasurable distress to her and her family.

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 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. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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 considered information from Ms E. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
8. Ms E 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

9. The Children Act 1989 says councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
10. Where a council has reasonable cause to suspect a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to hold a strategy discussion and make further enquiries. These are to decide whether it needs to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. A section 47 enquiry may be triggered if there are allegations about neglect or the abuse of a child.
11. If concerns of significant harm are substantiated following section 47 enquiries, an initial child protection conference (ICPC) should be arranged within 15 working days of the original strategy discussion. This is a multi-disciplinary meeting whose attendees decide what action is needed to safeguard the child. The ICPC may decide to make the child the subject of a child protection plan which details what action is necessary to reduce the risk of harm.
12. After the ICPC, if the decision is to place a child under a child protection plan, there will be core group meetings with the professionals and family to assess progress. There should also be review child protection conferences (RCPC). These consider the progress taken to safeguard the child and whether the child protection plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
13. If the concerns remain after the child protection plan has been put in place, and are sufficiently serious, the council may want to hold a PLO meeting. PLO stands for Public Law Outline and refers to a procedure the council must follow. The council will send a PLO letter – known as a pre-proceedings letter - to the child’s parent or carer outlining its concerns and inviting the parent or carer to the meeting. The point of the meeting is to discuss the concerns and put a new plan in place to stop them escalating further. If the council is not satisfied that sufficient change has occurred after this, the next step is often family court proceedings.

What happened

14. This chronology outlines key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
15. The Council has been involved with Ms E and her family for several years. In May 2020, the Council put two of Ms E’s children (F and G) on child protection plans. The Council was concerned about Ms E’s mental wellbeing and the care of her children. Ms E agreed to get support for her alcohol misuse and her mental health.
16. Ms E sent a text message to the social worker on 21 September and said no one was available when she wanted to talk. The social worker agreed to do a weekly check in by phone on a Thursday morning. She also said she could not always respond immediately to Ms E’s contact as she was dealing with other families.
17. The Council put Ms E’s daughter (H) on a child protection plan. H had previously been living with her grandmother, but she had recently moved back home to live with Ms E, F and G. The professionals in the meeting agreed Ms E needed to address the parental issues so that H could feel secure and calm in her own home.
18. The social worker called Ms E on 15 October and left a voicemail. She also sent a text message. She apologised for not phoning in the morning and said it was because of an emergency. Ms E replied a few days later and said the social worker had not phoned her the past two Thursdays.
19. Ms E had a relapse in November. The social worker visited her after the incident. She also spoke to F in school. Ms E agreed she would contact her GP to get a referral for further counselling.
20. Ms E got a full-time job in December. She told the social worker it would be difficult for her to attend every meeting and she would struggle to engage with support services. The social worker agreed she would re-schedule a meeting that it had planned for the following day.
21. F contacted the social worker on 18 December and said he was upset about Ms E’s behaviour towards him. He said she did not listen to him or take his worries seriously. The social worker arranged for F to get on the train and stay at his grandmother’s house for the weekend.
22. The social worker emailed Ms E and told her F was on the train and she had allowed him to visit his grandmother. Ms E replied and said she was unhappy the social worker arranged the visit without her knowledge or permission. She also said it put F’s health at risk because he has underlying health conditions and he travelled on public transport during a period of increased COVID-19 cases. Finally, she said it should not have happened as she has parental responsibility for F.
23. The social worker responded and said she consulted with her manager. She decided F’s need to see his grandmother on emotional welfare grounds outweighed the COVID-19 restrictions.
24. The RCPC for H took place on 22 December. Ms E did not attend as she was at work. Professionals noted Ms E had a relapse with drinking during the review period which caused the children further anxiety and distress. They agreed H should stay on a child protection plan. The Council also said it would seek legal advice to determine the next steps to ensure the children’s safety.
25. Ms E asked the social worker to limit their contact to emails only because of the recent incident regarding F.
26. The Council considered Ms E’s case in January 2021. It noted her attitude had changed and she had disengaged with support. It also said it needed assurances about her children’s stability. It decided to escalate the case to pre-proceedings.
27. The social worker emailed Ms E on 20 January and confirmed the Council would be instigating pre-proceedings. She said she would invite her to a meeting to discuss the process.
28. The deputy team leader from the alcohol support service emailed the social worker. She said Ms E had discharged herself from its services.
29. The pre-proceedings meeting took place on 4 February. Ms E said she had stopped working full time so she could fully commit to the process. The Council drew up a schedule of expectations. This said Ms E would need to make herself available to undergo regular alcohol testing. She would also need to attend important meetings and engage with a parenting assessment. The Council also said she would need to attend sessions at the alcohol support service.
30. The social worker visited H at school on 19 March. H said the social worker had lied that Ms E had refused to attend meetings. She said no one was listening to her. She also said the social worker had included inaccurate information in the RCPC report. The social worker noted she was concerned Ms E had shown H the full report.
31. Ms E called the social worker later that day. She said she was unhappy about what happened during the social worker’s visit to see H. She did not agree sharing the full report was wrong. She also said the Council had failed to invite her children to any meetings. The social worker said her children’s views were always shared and considered.
32. The social worker told Ms E the report was intended for adults, and it was inappropriate for her to have shared it with H because of her age.
33. Ms E complained to the Council. She said the social worker allowed F to break COVID-19 rules without her knowledge or consent and the social worker stated that she had been emotionally abusing H. She also said the social worker’s attitude and communication with her had been unacceptable. Finally, she said she was unhappy with the social worker’s comments about her mental health.
34. The Council responded to the complaint. It said the social worker felt F staying with his grandmother was a safe contingency plan for him in the short term. It also said professionals believed H was being emotionally harmed by Ms E’s inappropriate sharing of information. That is why she was encouraged not to do it again. It said the social worker engaged with Ms E as best as possible. Finally, it said it was the collective view of multi-agency professionals that Ms E’s mental health needs were an area of worry and concern.
35. Ms E was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. She said she had worked hard to repair her relationship with F, but the social worker had failed to support this.
36. The Council issued its final response to Ms E’s complaint. It said it could find no fault with the social worker’s professional conduct.
37. Ms E was progressing well with the schedule of expectations and goals in the child protection plans. The Council held a RCPC on 1 September. Professionals agreed Ms E and her children had made good progress and so the child protection plans came to an end.

Back to top

Analysis

38. Ms E is unhappy the social worker allowed F to go to his grandmother’s house without her knowledge or consent. The social worker did not tell Ms E about this until F was already on the train and on the way to his grandmother’s house. This is fault. Ms E has parental responsibility for F, and so the social worker should have had a collaborative conversation with her about the issues and how to best deal with them. Ms E ultimately agreed that F should get some respite at his grandmother’s house, but I can understand why she felt undermined as a parent that the social worker had taken this decision away from her. It also caused frustration and upset.
39. The social worker also did not complete a formal risk assessment. The Council says it understood F had regularly travelled to his grandmother’s house alone. Ms E says that F is in the clinically vulnerable category. While it is fortunate F’s health was not adversely affected, I consider because of the rising COVID-19 cases and F’s underlying health conditions, the social worker was at fault for not carrying out a full risk assessment to ensure his safety. I can understand why Ms E was upset about this.
40. Ms E says the social worker was difficult to get in contact with. I have reviewed the social worker’s contact with Ms E. Overall, I find the social worker was in regular communication with Ms E. As the social worker explained, she was dealing with other families, and it was not always possible for her to respond to non-urgent contact immediately.
41. The social worker agreed on 21 September 2020 to phone Ms E weekly on a Thursday. This did not happen every Thursday. Although the social worker was at fault for failing to stick to the agreement, I do not consider this caused Ms E a significant injustice. This is because the social worker was in contact with Ms E on other days. Ms E asked for verbal communication to stop shortly after the issues with F.
42. The Council says professionals believed Ms E was emotionally harming H by sharing inappropriate adult information with her. While I appreciate why Ms E was upset by this comment, the Council was not at fault for explaining to her the potential consequences of sharing such information with H.
43. Ms E is unhappy with the social worker’s opinion on her mental health. Ms E did not dispute she had mental health issues, and she openly sought help for it. The professionals in the child protection meetings saw this as a cause for concern after previous incidents and Ms E agreed to address it. I do not find the Council was at fault.
44. Ms E says the Council stepped the case up to pre-proceedings because she missed one meeting. She says this was unreasonable. I have looked at the meeting notes for when the Council decided to escalate the case to pre-proceedings. It was not only because Ms E missed one meeting. The Council was concerned Ms E was not engaging with the plan and she had disengaged with support. Ms E had told the social worker she would struggle to access support services and attend meetings because of her new job. The alcohol support service told the Council Ms E had discharged herself from its services. The Council also wanted assurances that Ms E’s children would have stability. The decision was made by the social worker, the team manager, the service manager, and the Council’s legal representative. In the absence of administrative fault, there are no grounds for me to criticise this decision which was a matter for their professional judgement.
45. Finally, Ms E says the social worker failed to invite any of her children to the child protection meetings. The Council can invite a child to attend the meetings if they are old enough, it is considered appropriate, and their parent agrees. The social worker may decide it is not appropriate for a child to attend.
46. In this case, the social worker did not invite Ms E’s children to the meetings. The social worker told Ms E the logistics of involving the children was difficult, especially if the meetings took place during the school day. However, the social worker visited Ms E’s children regularly and sought their views. Their views were considered during the meetings. Therefore, I do not consider Ms E’s children were caused an injustice by not being invited to the meetings.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 20 May 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Ms E for the upset and frustration caused by failing to involve her in the decision to allow her son to stay at his grandmother’s house.

Back to top

Final decision

48. There was fault by the Council, which caused Ms E an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman