Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed in its duty to tell the child and adolescent mental health service her three children were subject to child protection plans. She says if the Council had done so, her children would have been assessed for autism spectrum disorder sooner. She complained the Council’s failure significantly delayed her children getting the support they needed. We did not find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Ms B, complained the Council failed in its duty to tell the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) her three children were subject to child protection plans. She says if the Council had done so, her children would have been assessed for autism spectrum disorder sooner. She complained the Council’s failure significantly delayed her children getting the support they needed.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
4. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.
5. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered:
• Ms B’s complaint and the information she provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
8. Ms B and the organisation had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered all comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

9. The Children Act 1989 sets out a council’s responsibilities to safeguard children. The government published guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, in 2010 and updated it in 2013, 2015 and 2018. The guidance sets out the legal requirements and expectations on individual services to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
10. Where a child’s need is relatively low level, individual services and universal services may be able to take swift action. Where there are more complex needs, the Council may offer a service under section 17 (child in need) or section 47 (child protection) of the Children Act 1989.
11. Child protection plans are focused on the child’s safety, health, and development. Their purpose is to support the family and wider family members to safeguard and promote the welfare of their child, provided it is in the best interests of the child. Councils are responsible for recording decisions and actions agreed at child protection and child in need meetings and following up those actions to ensure completion.
12. A child with special educational needs may have an EHCP. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The following people have a specific right to ask councils to conduct an education, health and care needs assessment for a child or young person aged between 0 and 25:
• the child’s parent,
• a young person over the age of 16 but under the age of 25, and
• a person acting on behalf of a school or post-16 institution.
13. The Council commissions Brighter Futures for Children to deliver children’s social care. The Council remains responsible for fulfilling its duties under The Children Act 1989.

What happened

14. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
15. Ms B has three children: D, E and F. In 2019, the family moved to Reading from another council area. At the time, the children were aged from 14 to 17.
16. In March 2020, the Council started a single assessment for D, E and F. A Single Assessment is an in-depth assessment which addresses the central or most important aspects of the needs of a child and the capacity of his or her parents or carers to respond appropriately to these needs within the wider family and community context. The assessment recommended E and F be assessed by CAMHS for autism spectrum disorder.
17. The Council held a strategy meeting for the children in April 2020 and decided to start child protection enquiries.
18. In June 2020, the Council held an initial child protection conference for D, E and F. Attendees considered whether the children would benefit from an education, health and care (EHC) plan. An education health and care plan sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The minutes note this would be difficult to obtain for D and F as they were achieving high academic levels. The minutes recorded that E’s school would need to spend more time with her to decide whether she met the criteria for an EHC plan. The Council gave the school an action to refer D and E to CAMHS for autism spectrum disorder assessments, and F to the community mental health team (CMHT) because of his age. The school was to provide an update at the next core group meeting.
19. The Council held a core group meeting in September 2020. In this meeting, the Council recorded D and E were awaiting CAMHS assessments. The Council noted school was going to follow up E’s CAMHS referral because it had not been received by CAMHS. The family’s support worker told the Council she had worked with Ms B to complete D’s CAMHS forms, and they were awaiting E’s. Attendees confirmed F had been referred to the CMHT.
20. The Council held another core group meeting in January 2021. The minutes recorded referrals had been made to CMHT for F and CAMHS for D and E. The Council noted CAMHS had an estimated waiting list of two years. The minutes show the Council had spoken with CAMHS about fast-tracking D and E’s assessments. CAMHS did not consider there was justification for this because they were not on child protection plans because of possibly having autistic spectrum disorder.
21. In February 2021, the Council held a review child protection conference. It noted the action to refer the children for autism spectrum disorder assessments was met. Minutes indicate F had been assessed and diagnosed as having autism spectrum disorder as there is an action for the Council to follow up F’s autism spectrum disorder support.
22. The Council held another review child protection conference in May 2021. The Council invited CAMHS to attend and it sent apologies. Attendees agreed D and E should move to child in need plans. The Council ended F’s child protection plan because he had turned 18. The Council sent CAMHS minutes of the meeting.
23. In October 2021, children’s services closed D and E’s cases.
24. Ms B complained to the Council in June 2022. She said her children were not prioritised for autism spectrum disorder assessments. She said because of this they did not receive the support they needed, were not given EHC plans and did not meet their academic potentials.
25. In July 2022, CAMHS completed an assessment for D and found he met the criteria for an autism spectrum diagnosis. CAMHS provided recommendations for school and family support.
26. The Council responded in July 2022. It said Brighter Futures for Children did not contribute to any delay in the children’s assessment for autism spectrum disorder. It did not uphold Ms B’s complaint.

Analysis

27. I found no fault with the Council’s actions.
28. Council records confirm referrals were made to CAMHS for D and E to be assessed for autism spectrum disorder. The Council followed up the referrals and spoke to CAMHS about their cases and whether they should be prioritised. CAMHS did not think there was justification for this and explained it had an estimated two-year waiting list. In July 2021, D was assessed as having autism spectrum disorder.
29. Council records also confirm a referral was made for F to be assessed for autism spectrum disorder. F was referred to CMHT because he was nearing 18 when the referral was made. F was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder by February 2021.
30. If Ms B felt her children needed support through an EHC plan, she could have asked the Council to conduct an assessment regardless of whether they had an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Ms B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman