Summary: Mrs X and Ms Y complained about the Council’s involvement with Ms Y’s family. There was no fault with how the Council carried out a child and family assessment. There was some fault with how the Council shared distressing information with Mrs X and failed to carry out some direct work with her. This caused Mrs X some avoidable distress for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Mrs X and Ms Y complain about the Council’s involvement with Ms Y’s family between August and November 2021. They say the social worker assigned to the case:
• completed an incorrect child and family assessment;
• ignored evidence they presented;
• failed to assess whether Mrs X was a suitable adult to supervise contact with Ms Y’s child;
• made unfounded allegations about Ms Y’s partner;
• told them not to complain; and
• lied about the actions of another social worker.
2. As a result, Mrs X and Ms Y say their family was caused significant distress and Ms Y and her partner were prevented from spending time together. They want the Council to take action against the social worker and make future employers aware of their conduct.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
8. 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.
9. 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

10. I considered:
• the information Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided, including relevant social care records; and
• relevant law and guidance.
11. Mrs X, Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child in need

12. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
13. 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.

Child protection

14. 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)
15. 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.
16. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
17. If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference.
18. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
19. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

What happened

Background

20. In 2021, Ms Y had a daughter D who lived with her most of the time. Ms Y started a relationship with a new partner, Mr Z, in early 2021. Mr Z later told Ms Y that he had been convicted, several years ago, of a serious offence involving a child around D’s age.
21. After the Council became aware of the relationship, it told Ms Y and Mr Z that he should have no contact with D until she turned 16. It told her that if Mr Z did have contact with D, it might need to take legal action to protect D.
22. At first, Ms Y decided to end the relationship, so the Council ended its involvement with her family. However, Ms Y and Mr Z resumed their relationship in mid-2021. After the Council became aware of this, it decided to complete a further assessment of Ms Y’s family, which it started in September 2021.

Social service involvement between September and December 2021

23. The Council visited Ms Y and D’s home in mid-September 2021. It received reports from Mr Z’s probation officer and other professionals involved with Ms Y’s family. The Council also spoke to D at her school around a week later and arranged for a specialist social worker to meet with Ms Y and D’s father to discuss its concerns and assess their abilities to keep D safe.
24. As a result of its investigations, the Council completed a child and family assessment and decided that D should be placed on a child in need plan. The plan the Council produced said that, to keep D safe:
• Mr Z should have no direct or indirect contact with D;
• Mr Z should make direct contact with the Council’s children’s services team if there were any changes; and
• if Ms Y and Mr Z intended to move in together, or the suggested plan was breached, the Council would arrange for a strategy discussion to decide whether child protection action was necessary.
25. Mrs X said the child and family assessment contained over 40 errors and mistakes, so it was not an accurate reflection of the situation or Mr Z. Mr Z and Ms Y complained to the Council about the report at the time.
26. In late October 2021, the social worker visited Ms Y and D at home to discuss the child in need plan. Mrs X was also present for the meeting. The Council’s notes say that, during that meeting, the social worker explained a particular psychological model related to Mr Z’s offending and how this related to the Council’s views about the risks to D.
27. The Councils records show it had continuing concerns about Ms Y and Mrs X not fully appreciating the risks Mr Z posed, that they were minimising his offending and finding reasons to explain what happened.
28. During a phone call in early November 2021, the social worker discussed further details of Mr Z’s offending with Mrs X, including allegations about Mr Z’s possible conduct at the time based on the particular psychological model. There is a dispute between the Council and Mrs X about when this phone call happened and whether this happened before or after the social worker sought advice from a specialist. However, there is no dispute that the phone call happened or that the social worker made the allegations.
29. During a visit to Ms Y and D in mid-November 2021, D told the social worker that she had spoken to Mr Z during a video call between Ms Y and Mr Z. Because of that disclosure, the Council reviewed the situation and held a strategy meeting to consider child protection action. After the strategy meeting, the Council started child protection action in early December 2021.

Complaint about the assigned social worker

30. Ms Y complained about the conduct of the specialist social worker in late 2021 and the Council sent its final response to this complaint in early February 2022.
31. Because of that investigation, Ms Y and Mr Z complained to the Council in May 2022 about the main social worker assigned to Ms Y’s case, who produced the October 2021 assessment. They complained the social worker:
• had an inappropriate conversation with Mrs X in early November 2021;
• told them not to complain; and
• tried to ‘cover up’ for the specialist social worker during the previous complaint investigation.
32. The Council’s investigation into the complaint decided, in late July 2022, that:
• the allegations the social worker made about Mr Z’s likely actions were based on a strong theoretical and factual evidence base;
• it would have been better if that conversation happened in person, with someone else present, rather than by telephone, as suggested by the specialist social worker;
• the social worker had not told Ms Y or Mr Z not to complain, but had explained that a complaint would not change the Council’s view about the risk Mr Z posed to D;
• there was no evidence the social worker had tried to cover up or protect the specialist social worker during the previous investigation; and
• there was some poor case recording by the social worker assigned to the case, with some phone calls not having been written up.
33. Mrs X and Ms Y asked the Council to escalate their complaint about the assigned social worker to the second stage of the Council’s complaints procedure in November 2022. However, at this time the social worker no longer worked for the Council and so the Council told Mrs X it did not intend to consider the complaint further.

My findings

34. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman in January 2023. Therefore, her complaints about events in 2021 are late. However, I am satisfied that Mrs X and Ms Y were dealing with their previous complaint about the specialist social worker and could only complain about some actions of the assigned social worker after February 2022 after the Council responded to their first complaint. The Council’s records of what happened during that time are also still available. Therefore, I am satisfied there are good reasons to investigate their complaint about actions in 2021 now.
35. It is not our role to decide whether the action the Council took to protect D was appropriate; that was the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decisions properly. We cannot question a decision the Council made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence. Similarly, we cannot question the professional judgement of the Council’s social workers.

Child and family assessment

36. When considering children in need and child protection, councils must focus on the welfare and safety of children as their main priority. I am satisfied the evidence shows the Council did this during the period I have investigated.
37. During its child in need assessment the Council sought appropriate information and evidence. It spoke to both of D’s parents, spoke to D alone (as required), sought information from other professional involved with D and Ms Y, and information from the probation service about Mr Z. The evidence shows the Council considered all this information as part of its assessment. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council carried this out.
38. Having considered the child and family assessment the Council completed and other social care records, I am satisfied the facts it contained were an accurate reflection of the information the Council gathered.
39. Ms Y and Mr Z said there were over 40 errors in the assessment. There were some typographical errors in the finished assessment, but I am satisfied these did not affect the final outcome. I appreciate that Ms Y and Mr Z disagree with the social worker’s interpretation of some of that evidence and the conclusions reached in the assessment. However, these were the result of the professional judgment of the social workers involved. Since there was no fault in how the assessment was prepared, I cannot question the outcome.
40. I have not seen any evidence the Council ignored the family’s views or evidence the family provided during the period I have investigated. The family clearly disagreed with some parts of the report and the evidence shows the Council considered these points and made changes to the report as a result.
41. I have not investigated the Council’s actions during the child protection proceedings which started in December 2021, since Mrs X and Ms Y have not yet complained about this to the Council. It is appropriate the Council has an opportunity to respond to any complaint about this process first.

Mrs X’s suitability to supervise contact

42. In its first assessment, the Council stated that Mrs X might have been a suitable person, able to help protect D.
43. However, shortly after it shared the child and family assessment with Ms Y and Mrs X, the Council started to record concerns that Mrs X was downplaying and trying to justify Mr Z’s offending and behaviour at the time. As a result, its view was that Mrs X might not be able to ensure D’s safety when around Mr Z.
44. The Council has accepted it did not carry out direct work with Mrs X about Mr Z’s offending and how the Council had assessed the risks he presented to D. This was fault.
45. However, I do not believe that even if the Council had done this direct work, it would have resulted in any changes to Mrs X’s views about Mr Z at the time. The evidence shows the Council only changed its view about this when further information became known about Mr Z’s offending around April 2022. When this was shared with Mrs X the Council observed a change in her views and, at this point, the Council started to change its views about supervised contact between Mr Z and D.
46. I am satisfied the Council kept Mrs X’s capacity to protect D under review during the period I have investigated, and it made its decisions in line with the evidence it had, and the observations it had made, at the time.

Allegations about Mr Z

47. There is a dispute about when the conversation took place with Mrs X in November 2021. However, both Mrs X and the Council agree this conversation took place and that the social worker shared details about Mr Z’s likely conduct at the time of his offence.
48. I appreciate the information the social worker shared was distressing for Mrs X to hear. However, I am satisfied that the social worker shared this information based on an established theoretical background and the facts of Mr Z’s offending available at the time.
49. The Council accepted the social worker should have shared that information with Mrs X in a different way, preferably in person and with other staff present. However, I am satisfied the information would have been distressing to Mrs X whenever and however she heard it and that much of the distress Mrs X experienced was unavoidable. The Council should apologise to Mrs X for the avoidable distress it caused by how it shared the information with her.

Council’s response to the complaint

50. I have seen no evidence that social workers tried to discourage Mrs X or Ms Y from complaining. The social worker did explain that a complaint would not result in any changes to the Council’s views about the risk Mr Z posed to D.
51. I accept that Mrs X and Ms Y may have understood these explanations as discouraging them from complaining. However, there is no evidence this was intentional. The evidence shows the Council shared information about its complaints process with Ms Y and Mr Z during its involvement and responded to other complaints they made.
52. There is no evidence of fault with the Council’s investigation into Ms Y’s concerns about the assigned social worker. The Council considered the available evidence, sought Ms Y’s views and explained its decisions based on that evidence. The Council was entitled to weigh the evidence it had available when reaching its decision, including preferring clear and comprehensive case records when these were present. Where case records were not available or conflicted with Ms Y’s views, the Council addressed this when making its findings.
53. In her stage two complaint, Mrs X and Ms Y said the main action they wanted the Council to take was against the assigned social worker. Since the social worker no longer worked for the Council, I am satisfied with its explanation for not investigating the complaint at stage two.
54. 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.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. Within one month of my decision, the Council will apologise to Mrs X for the avoidable distress it caused by how it shared some sensitive and distressing information with her. The Council should have regard to the guidance on effective apologies in our Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault with how the Council carried out a child and family assessment. There was some fault with how the Council shared distressing information with Mrs X and failed to carry out some direct work with her. This caused Mrs X some avoidable distress for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman