Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s action in respect of a child protection case saying this caused distress and led to the wrong decision being made. The Council accepts there were inaccuracies in the report for the case conference and has taken action to remedy this. However, we cannot say this resulted in the wrong decision being reached.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s action in respect of a child protection case. In particular, she complains a report contained inaccurate information, that it was provided late and the Council failed to explain why it changed from a child in need to a child protection case.
2. Mrs X says this has caused significant distress and led the professionals involved to make the wrong decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• considered the comments and documents the Council provided in response to a document request from our assessment team;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Duty to investigate

7. 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)

Acting on a referral

8. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
9. 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.

10. 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”.
11. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.

Key facts

12. In March 2023, the school reported to the Council that Mr and Mrs X’s son, B, had marks on his face. B also reported that Mr X had slapped him. A meeting was held at the school with Mrs X and a social worker. Mrs X told the social worker that when trying to calm B down she grabbed his face and thinks her nails may have dug in. She said it was accidental and she had not intended to hurt B. Mr X denied slapping B. A section 47 investigation was undertaken and Mr and Mrs X attended a voluntary interview with the police at the end of March.
13. A child in need (CIN) meeting was scheduled to take place on 31 March but the social worker had an emergency and so the meeting was cancelled 35 minutes before it was due to start. On 6 April, the Council sent an Mr and Mrs X notification of an initial child protection conference (ICPC) for 18 April. Mrs X says that there was nothing to explain why the matter had changed from CIN to ICPC.
14. Mr and Mrs X did not receive the links to allow them to attend the online ICPC meeting. The social worker spoke with Mrs X on the telephone on 21 April. The notes of the call say there was a discussion about what an ICPC is, what it would look like and who would be involved. Mrs X also discussed her concerns about B’s behaviour and how to manage this.
15. The ICPC meeting was held on 3 May. The day before, the social worker visited Mr and Mrs X to deliver the ICPC report. The notes show the social worker apologised for the delay in getting the report to them. She said that if they read that night and had questions, she would make herself available to answer them due to the short notice. There was also a discussion about the general situation and Mr and Mrs X voiced their fears that B would be taken away from them. The case notes indicate the social worker said she was involved to offer support and help them with their parenting issues and not to take B into care.
16. At the ICPC meeting, the chair explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss whether the threshold of significant harm had been met for the children to be placed on a child protection plan or whether a CIN plan was sufficient to support the family. The minutes show that both Mr and Mrs X had the opportunity to speak and give their point of view.
17. The minutes show that there had been previous involvement with the family and there were concerns, including from Mr and Mrs X, about B’s behaviour which included self harm. The Chair took the view, after listening to all contributions, that the threshold for a child protection plan had been met and that this would allow for a higher level of support for the family and B. The minutes show that all professionals attending the ICPC agreed the threshold had been met for a child protection plan. Five said the threshold had been met under physical harm and one said under emotional harm. The plan includes details of the action that will be taken to support the family.
18. Mrs X made a complaint to the Council the following day. She complained the report made to the ICPC contained incorrect information which resulted in an unfair and unjust decision being made. The Council responded on 8 June.
19. The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint about inaccurate information saying the social worker should have been more concise and description in the report about the marks on B’s face. It agreed the term “several” was not clear and could give the wrong message. It was noted this issue was raised at the meeting and is recorded in the minutes. It also agreed there were errors in respect of dates and the name of the GP surgery. The Council agreed to make amendments in its system.
20. The Council also apologised that the report for the ICPC was provided late. It said that it aims to share the report 48 hours before the meeting but this was not possible due to the social worker being ill the previous week. The Council also apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused by the cancellation of meetings at short notice. It said more consideration should have been given the fact that Mr and Mrs X are both working parents and so have to plan time off with their employers.
21. It said there had been a telephone discussion with Mrs X on 21 April in which the social worker explained the decision to progress to an ICPC. However, it said that it should have provided Mrs X with an information pack about child protection and child in need plans. It said it would use Mrs X’s complaint for training purposes in order to prevent stress to other families in the future.
22. In respect of the errors affecting the decision made, the Council explained this was a multiagency decision at which the police, school and nurse gave views about the level of support necessary. It said it was unable to override the decision and that the next meeting would be held in July where Mrs X could present evidence about progress and a decision would be made whether to continue with a child protection plan or end the plan and offer support through a child in need plan. The Council said the inaccuracies in the report did not impact on the decision reached.

Analysis

23. The Council accepted fault when responding to Mrs X’s complaint. It acknowledged the inaccuracies in the ICPC report, accepted it cancelled meetings without proper consideration and that the description of B’s facial injuries was not precise. I consider the apology already provided is a suitable remedy for these faults.
24. Mrs X says the Council did not explain why the meeting changed from CIN to child protection. I have not seen anything in writing to show how this was explained to Mrs X. I have seen file notes of a telephone call with Mrs X on 21 April and these say the social worker provided this explanation to Mrs X but no further details are provided. I also note the Council accepts it should have sent information leaflets to Mrs X about this. I am satisfied there was a telephone conversation to discuss this and while I don’t know exactly what was said, I am not persuaded this amounts to fault.
25. Mrs X says the outcome of the ICPC was unfair and unjust because of the acknowledged inaccuracies. I can understand that Mrs X is unhappy about the decision to make this a child protection matter. However, the focus of such interventions is always the well being of the child. The outcome of the ICPC is not necessarily always a child protection plan, it could be a CIN plan. However, the professionals attending the meeting have to consider all the information presented and form a view on that. The minutes show that the marks on B’s face was not the only concern. Other incidents had been observed and reported about B’s behaviour and how the family was managing it. I cannot say that the acknowledged faults in this case resulted in a decision that otherwise would not have been reached.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I will now complete my investigation as fault has been accepted and a suitable remedy for the resulting injustice provided.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman