The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a child protection conference and of a meeting with her. We did not found fault with the actions of the Council.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to hold an initial child protection conference about two of her children. She is unhappy the Council: invited her to a face-to-face meeting without implementing health and safety measures in response to COVID-19.
did not allow her mother, Ms Y, to attend the conference on her behalf.
assigned a new social worker the day before the conference.
Mrs X also complains about the Council’s involvement with her older child, and the way staff spoke to her. Mrs X says this has caused her distress.
What I have investigated I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the initial child protection conference and actions relating to this. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5)) The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether individual 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.
When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the complaint made by Mrs X and the documents she provided.
I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the documents it provided in response to my enquiries.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Law and guidance Child protection The Children Act 1989 sets out the duties on councils to ensure children are kept safe and their welfare is promoted. Under Section 47 of the Act, where a council suspects a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm it must make enquiries to decide whether to act to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. It should hold a strategy discussion with the police, health and other bodies such as schools. The social worker should decide what action to take and how to proceed following their enquiries.
Where the Section 47 enquiry substantiates the concerns about significant harm, councils should hold an initial child protection conference. This brings together the family and practitioners working with them to make decisions about the child’s future safety, health and development.
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic In late October 2020, the government announced new national restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. From 5 November to 2 December 2020, the government required people to stay at home and not gather with people outside their households. Exceptions to these rules included leaving home to access social services and gathering for work purposes.
The government identified some people as being more vulnerable to COVID-19 due to pre-existing conditions. The government advised them to be especially careful to follow the rules and minimise their contact with others.
The government updated its guidance for children’s social care services. It said there should be no blanket changes to social work practice. While new regulations were introduced temporarily to allow social workers to carry out virtual visits to looked after children, the guidance said where possible visits should be held face-to-face.
No specific guidance was issued about meeting families in council offices. For visits to families in their own homes, guidance on safe working said an initial telephone risk assessment may be helpful. It also said where there were no COVID-19 symptoms reported, personal protective equipment was not required but social distancing should be maintained.
What happened The Council received a referral about Mrs X’s children due to concerns about risks posed by her partner and about home conditions. The Council arranged a strategy discussion with the police, the children’s schools and other social care teams.
Following the strategy discussion, the Council was concerned Mrs X would not engage with an assessment and decided to hold an initial child protection conference. It telephoned Mrs X to tell her its decision and asked to visit the home but Mrs X refused. The social worker visited the children at school.
Mrs X wrote to the Council. She alleged the Council was harassing her based on false allegations about her younger children. She said the Council refused to consider evidence she had which proved the allegations were malicious. She said the police and her younger children’s school had not raised any concerns, but despite this the Council decided to proceed to an initial child protection conference.
The Council invited Mrs X to meet with social workers. It said the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the assessment and its decision to proceed to conference. Mrs X attended with her mother, Ms Y.
The Council’s record of the meeting show it discussed the concerns about the children and the need to carry out a risk assessment of Mrs X’s partner. The record said Mrs X declined a risk assessment and asked if social care would remain involved with her children until they were 18. The social worker said unless they were able to carry out an assessment it was likely concerns would continue to be raised. The Council’s records say Mrs X became aggressive and threatening towards staff and threw furniture. The Council called the police who later recorded the incident as a public order offence.
On the same day the Council sent an invitation to Mrs X to attend the initial child protection conference. This said it would be held virtually due to social distancing rules. The letter said Mrs X could have a supporter with her at the meeting, but supporters would not be entitled to contribute to the discussion.
The next day, Mrs X complained to the Council about the meeting. She said the social worker provoked her by saying she would continue to pursue her over her care of the children. Mrs X said she suffered a panic attack and slammed her hands on the table. She said the social worker lied in a statement to the police saying Mrs X had threatened her. She said she did not want to work with the social worker again.
The Council responded to Mrs X’s first complaint. It said she had ended a call from a social worker to discuss the decision to proceed to initial child protection conference. It said the social work team was not aware she had provided any evidence which disproved the allegations made against her. The Council said the decision to hold an initial child protection conference was made at a multi-agency meeting. It reminded Mrs X of its duties to keep children safe and offered to refer her for additional help. It encouraged her contact the social worker to discuss her situation further. Mrs X was not happy with the response and asked to take her complaint further.
On the same day, the Council told Mrs X it could not investigate her complaint about the meeting as the events were subject of a police investigation.
Two days before the initial child protection conference, Mrs X contacted the Council to say she suspected she had COVID-19 and the family was self-isolating. Mrs X said she may not be able to attend the conference; the social worker reminded her it was a virtual meeting. The social worker said she would ask the conference chair to contact her. Mrs X said she wanted her mother, Ms Y, to attend the conference in her place.
The conference chair contacted Mrs X the day before the conference. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the purpose of the call was to establish if there was anything the chair could do to ensure Mrs X felt comfortable attending the meeting and provide her with an opportunity to share any concerns. The Council reported Mrs X was angry during the call. Mrs X said she wanted Ms Y to attend the meeting to support her, then later said she would not be attending. The Council says Mrs X did not ask the chair if Ms Y could attend in her place.
The initial child protection conference took place the next day. Mrs X did not attend. At the end of the conference, the chair received an email telling her Ms Y had called the Council asking to attend the meeting. The chair contacted Ms Y later that day. The chair apologised she had not seen the message sooner and explained Ms Y would not have been able to attend the meeting unless she was supporting Mrs X to attend.
On the same day, the Council advised Mrs X to contact the Ombudsman about her complaint.
Mrs X made a new complaint about the way the conference chair spoke to her before the conference took place. She said the chair agreed her mother could attend the conference in her place due to her health and self-isolating with COVID-19 symptoms. She asked that a different chair be appointed to any future conferences.
Mrs X made a further complaint that she was told the day before the conference that a new social worker had been assigned to the case. She said this showed the outcome of conference was pre-determined because it was expected the Council would remain involved with the family.
The Council responded to Mrs X in early December. It explained the child protection process can involve challenging conversations with families and professionals. It said the chair’s aim was to assist Mrs X to contribute to the conference and ensure her views and the children’s views were central to decision making. The Council said Mrs X did not agree with the guidance and advice provided by the chair and the nature of the conversation meant the chair had to be assertive to ensure she was communicating clearly and that Mrs X understood.
The Council advised Ms Y would not automatically receive an invitation to conference as she did not share parental responsibility for the children. It said Mrs X did have a right to have a supporter to help her to participate and speak on her behalf, with the chair’s permission. It apologised that Mrs X felt communication about attending the conference was not clear. It said as calls were not recorded it was not possible to make a finding about the complaint. It confirmed a new chair would be appointed for any future conference. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the response to her complaint.
Mrs X made a further complaint about the meeting with social workers before the conference. She said the Council insisted on meeting in person instead of holding the meeting over the telephone or by video-call. She said both her and her mother were shielding, and the Council was aware of this. She said staff were not wearing masks or gloves and this put her and her mother at risk.
The Council responded in December. It said the social work team was not aware Mrs X and her mother were shielding. It said the social worker had offered to meet at Mrs X’s home, but she had declined. The Council said it had proved difficult to gather information for the assessment over the telephone and the social worker felt it was important for Mrs X to see the assessment in person and have an opportunity to raise any queries.
The Council said staff were using masks when moving around the building and there were signs on display about social distancing and wearing face coverings. It said the building was cleaned regularly and hand gel and wipes were available at reception and in the meeting room. The Council said staff asked Mrs X if she wanted them to continue wearing masks during the meeting and she said she did not. It said neither Mrs X nor her mother wore masks in the meeting. It did not uphold her complaint.
Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response. She said she had spoken to the social worker twice the week before the meeting and made her aware she had a stomach condition and her mother had asthma. She said she had told the social worker she had rarely left the house since March 2020 due to COVID-19. Mrs X said the social worker did not show her the assessment during the meeting. The Council directed Mrs X to the Ombudsman.
Analysis I have reviewed the records held by the Council and there is no record of Mrs X telling the Council she could not attend the face-to-face meeting due to increased vulnerability to COVID-19. The Council says if Mrs X had told staff she had specific health concerns preventing her from attending it would have undertaken a further risk assessment.
It was the social worker’s professional judgement that the meeting needed to take place in person given the difficulties the Council had experienced gathering information from Mrs X. The social worker made this decision using their professional judgement and it was a decision they were entitled to make.
The Council provided a copy of its risk assessment relating to COVID-19 for the building Mrs X visited. This detailed the steps the Council was taking to reduce the risk of transmission, which are set out in paragraph 37 of this decision. I am satisfied the Council put necessary health and safety measures in place.
There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to allow Ms Y to attend the child protection conference without Mrs X. Ms Y did not have parental responsibility for the children and was only able to attend the conference as support for Mrs X. As Mrs X did not attend, Ms Y was not entitled to attend.
The Council has provided evidence a new social worker was assigned the day after the conference and not before. In response to my enquiries the Council said duty social workers carry out time-limited work with families before the case transfers to a family support team for longer term support. Once the conference decided a child protection plan was required, the Council allocated a new social worker. The Council was entitled to invite the family support social worker to attend the conference as the family was likely to require longer-term support, whether through a child protection plan or in another form. There was no fault in this decision.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her older child. This complaint is premature. Mrs X needs to ask the Council to consider this complaint further under the statutory complaint procedure before the Ombudsman can investigate.
I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaints about how staff spoke to her. Concerns about the professional standards of social workers should be referred to Social Work England.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman