The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about errors in the Council’s management of his children’s care since August 2019. He says it excluded him from the children’s looked after review process and failed to consider whether it could discharge the care orders. He also complained about poor complaint handling. There was no fault in how the Council reviewed the care orders at each child’s review. However, the records do not show the Council’s reasons for not inviting him to each meeting or that it reviewed how to include him in the process from March 2020, when its long-standing arrangement was disrupted. This was fault which caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. There were also errors in the complaint handling. The Council will write to Mr X to apologise for the faults and make a payment to acknowledge any distress and uncertainty caused. It will also review how it completes looked after reviews with Mr X’s children and review its complaints handling.
The complaint
Mr X complained that since August 2019, the Council: has failed to act in his children’s best interests as it has excluded him from his children’s Looked after Child reviews and not considered during the reviews whether it could support court applications to discharge his children’s care orders and return them to his care.
has not reassessed his parenting abilities or provided him with any parenting skills training.
refused to consider his complaint under the Children’s Statutory Complaints procedure.
He says the Council’s actions have denied him a right to a family life. He wants the Council to apologise, compensate him for the lost time with his children, reassess his parenting abilities and work with him to regain care of his children.
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) 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) 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). I have decided there are good reasons to investigate Mr X’s complaint since August 2019. Although the court granted care orders for his children in 2014, Mr X says August 2019 is when he last attended a review for his children.
We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended) This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
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 read Mr X’s complaint and spoke with him about it on the phone.
I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it sent me.
I have taken account of our published Guidance on Remedies.
Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on two draft versions of the decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Background information Looked after children Sometimes children and young people cannot be cared for by their parents. These children may need the council to accommodate them under a care order granted by the court or by a voluntary agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
To achieve its duties to its looked after children, councils must have a care plan for each child, which is kept under regular review.
The Council’s policy says that in order to support an application to the court to discharge a care order, it must be able to show there has been a significant change in circumstances since the care order was issued by the court.
Looked after Child (LAC) Reviews and the role of the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) LAC review meetings oversee how a council is fulfilling the child’s care plan, the child’s progress and decide any necessary changes. There are statutory timescales for holding reviews which say after the third review, LAC reviews should be completed at least every six months.
Every looked after child must have an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO). Their role is to ensure the authority is meeting the child’s needs and the child’s voice is being heard. The IRO chairs the LAC review meetings.
Statutory guidance, the Independent reviewing officers' handbook , sets out the role and responsibilities of the IRO, including how to prepare for and carry out LAC review meetings. It says: the IRO and the social worker, in consultation with the child, should agree the best way to manage the process for each child, before each review.
if the parents are excluded from the part of the meeting involving the child, the IRO should be satisfied that consultation documents have been sent to the parents for them to complete.
any reason for excluding the parents from the review should be kept under regular review and a record of the reason placed on the child’s record.
Reviews should include consideration of: the legal status of the child and whether it remains appropriate; whether the placement is meeting the child’s needs; arrangements for contact in relation to parents, siblings and other family members and significant others.
The Council’s policy on Looked after Children The policy says a decision not to invite a child, parent or person with parental responsibility should only be made in exceptional circumstances. Decisions should be recorded, together with the reasons on the child’s records.
Each review should consider a range of topics including: the effect of any change in the child’s circumstances since the last review; whether any change should be sought in the child’s legal status; arrangements for contact and whether there is a need for changes to the arrangements; whether the placement continues to be the most appropriate available.
The policy says it is the IRO’s responsibility to record the review. When a parent does not attend the review, the IRO and the social worker should decide what information should be provided to the parent. This may be a consideration where there is a no contact order in place or contact is being supervised by the Council.
The Children’s statutory complaints procedure There is a formal procedure, set out in law, which councils must follow to investigate certain complaints about children’s services. The procedure aims to ensure concerns are resolved swiftly and, wherever possible, by the people who provide the service locally.
Statutory guidance provides details of what may form the subject of a complaint under this procedure. This includes all local authority functions within Part 3 of the Children’s Act 1989. Part 3 sets out the services councils must provide for children and their families in their area and includes the role and responsibilities of the IRO in relation to looked after children.
Complaints about the actions of an IRO therefore fall under the statutory complaint’s procedure.
The Human Rights Act The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to including respect for private and family life.
Our remit does not extend to making decisions on whether or not a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But we can decide whether or not a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
In practical terms, councils will often be able to show they have complied with the Human Rights Act if they can: show they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected; and there is a process for decisions to be challenged by a review or appeal.
What happened Background information Mr X has several children. In 2014, the courts granted care orders for all of Mr X’s children. Most of the children are currently in the Council’s care, and some have reached adulthood. This investigation only concerns the children in the Council’s care.
The youngest children have ‘no contact’ orders in place, set by the court. These restrict Mr X from having direct contact with them. Mr X has direct contact with the other children six times a year.
The Council says as part of its LAC review process for Mr X’s children, it meets with Mr X twice a year. It says this arrangement has been in place since the courts granted the care orders. At these meetings, it provides Mr X with updated information about the children, provides a redacted version of the children’s LAC reports and gathers his views. Council records refer to this agreement in January 2019. The record says Mr X had requested the Council provides information to him during face-to-face meetings, rather than posting documents to him.
In June 2019, the Council responded to a complaint Mr X made about it refusing to complete a parenting assessment with him. The Council responded saying it had told him what information it needed him to provide as part of this assessment, but he had not provided it. Because of this, it had not progressed the re-assessment. It asked him to provide the requested information and gave Mr X the email address to send it to and included a pre-paid envelope, should he wish to post the required information.
Events from August 2019 Mr X says August 2019 was the last time he attended a review for his children.
In September 2019, the IRO and a social worker met with Mr X, in line with the agreement. It says during this meeting it: updated him on the children’s progress; gathered his views for future LAC reviews; provided him with redacted versions of the children’s LAC review reports.
Between September and December 2020, the Council completed LAC reviews for each of Mr X’s children in its care. The records we have seen show each LAC review considered: the child’s wishes and feelings.
the child’s current placement and whether it was meeting their needs.
the court orders in place for each child and whether they remained appropriate.
the current contact arrangements between the child and their parents and also between the child and their siblings.
They do not record a reason why Mr X was not invited to attend but some of the records included references to Mr X’s wishes and views.
The Council says the IRO and social worker met with Mr X again in February 2020. The Council says in line with long standing agreement, it gathered his views, discussed his children’s progress and provided him with redacted versions of the LAC review reports.
From March 2020, the Council was unable to meet with Mr X due to COVID-19 restrictions.
Between April and July 2020, the Council completed LAC reviews for each of Mr X’s children in its care. The records we have seen show each LAC review considered: the child’s wishes and feelings.
the child’s current placement and whether it was meeting their needs.
the court orders in place for each child and whether they remained appropriate.
the current contact arrangements between the child and their parents and also between the child and their siblings.
Each LAC review report said the IRO and social worker would meet with the children’s parents to update them once COVID-19 restrictions were lifted.
The LAC review reports between April and July 2020 do not include any reference to Mr X’s views or a clear recorded reason why he was not invited to the meetings.
In August 2020, Mr X told the IRO he was unhappy that the ‘no contact’ orders had meant he had not seen his youngest children since 2014 and the Council had not worked with him to progress his level of contact. The IRO responded and said the Council had taken specialist advice about how to gradually introduce contact again. It said the advice was to start with indirect contact such as writing letters, exchanging pictures and then gradually build up from this, progressing at the child’s pace. It said this approach had worked well with one of the children, who had now said they wanted to start joining their siblings at the contact sessions with Mr X. It advised him to start to write to his youngest child to begin this process with them.
Mr X had further email contact with the IRO in September 2020. The IRO responded to Mr X’s queries and said she was conscious they had not met face-to-face for a while, due to COVID-19 restrictions. She said as soon as the restrictions allowed, she would arrange a face-to-face meeting.
Between September and December 2020, the Council held LAC reviews for each of Mr X’s children in its care. It reviewed the children’s placements at each review and the contact arrangements between the children and their parents and siblings. It deemed that the care orders in place remained appropriate. The reports do not record any consultation with Mr X to gather his views before the meetings, any reference to his views or a clear recorded reason why he was not invited to each of meetings.
In December 2020, Mr X complained to the Council. He said that at each of his children’s LAC reviews, the Council had refused to consider whether it was appropriate to apply to the courts to request a discharge of the care orders. He said the Council had refused to rehabilitate him or carry out a reassessment of his parenting.
The Council responded in January 2021. It said it could not accept a complaint about issues that had been to court. If he wished to challenge the court’s decision to issue the care orders for his children, he should take legal advice and approach the courts directly. It said the IRO had reviewed contact in line with the children’s wishes and feelings. It said the IRO’s role was to act within the best interest of the children and they were making appropriate decisions in line with Council policies. It did not offer him any further route to escalate his complaint within the Council, but said if he was not satisfied with the response, he could bring his complaint to us. Mr X brought his complaint to us in March 2021.
Between March and June 2021, the Council held LAC reviews for each of Mr X’s children in its care. It reviewed the children’s placements at each review and the contact arrangements between the children and their parents and siblings. It deemed that the care orders in place remained appropriate. The reports do not record any consultation with Mr X to gather his views before the meetings, any reference to his views or a clear recorded reason why he was not invited to each of meetings.
In its response to our enquiries, the Council told us: It had long standing arrangements in place with Mr X to meet with him twice a year as part of his children’s LAC reviews. It said it shared information with Mr X and updated him on his children’s progress during these meetings.
Mr X had asked it not to post documents to him and this was why the LAC review reports were provided face-to-face.
It had not been able to meet with Mr X since February 2020, due to COVID-19 restrictions. It said now COVID-19 restrictions were lifting, it had contacted Mr X in July 2021 to arrange a face-to-face meeting.
Mr X had not requested a referral for any parenting training or courses since August 2019. Because of this, the social worker had not offered them.
Analysis LAC reviews I have reviewed the LAC review records since September 2019 which show the Council: considered each child’s care order and care plan as part of the reviews. In each LAC review report, the IRO concluded the care plan in place remained appropriate.
considered the current contact arrangements between the child and Mr X at each review.
The records show the IRO considered the appropriateness of each child’s care order and care arrangements at each review. The Council fulfilled its duty to review these points during the reviews. In each case, the Council’s decision was that the care orders and care arrangements in place remained appropriate. As the Council considered these points, this was not fault and we cannot question its decision.
The LAC review reports do not record any consideration of why, in each case, the Council did not invite Mr X to attend. This was fault. He is left uncertain about whether the Council considered all relevant matters when deciding to continue to exclude him from the LAC review meetings. However, if it were not for this fault in record keeping, we cannot say whether the Council would have come to any different decision about Mr X’s attendance at the meetings as there could be reasons why it may not have been appropriate for him to attend all or some of his children’s LAC review meetings.
Mr X retains parental responsibility for the children in the Council’s care, and so the Council should include him in the LAC review process or clearly document on the child’s records why this is not appropriate. The Council says between August 2019 and February 2020, the Council met with Mr X in line with its long-standing agreement to gather his views, update him on the children’s progress and provide redacted copies of the reports. The LAC reports from this time do contain some reference to Mr X’s views and there is no evidence Mr X told the Council he was dissatisfied with this arrangement. On balance, I am satisfied Mr X did have the opportunity to contribute to the LAC review process during this time.
From March 2020 onwards, the Council was unable to meet with Mr X due to COVID-19 restrictions. There is no evidence the Council reviewed arrangements with Mr X in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. It could not meet with Mr X and there is no evidence the Council wrote to him before each LAC review to ask for his views or comments as it is required to do by the statutory guidance and its policy. This fault denied Mr X the opportunity to contribute to each child’s review from March 2020. This caused him frustration. It also caused Mr X uncertainty as whether the Council’s decisions would have been the same if he had been able to contribute.
The Council usually provided Mr X with redacted copies of the LAC reports during face-to-face meetings. It could not do from March 2020 onwards but did not review this arrangement. Although Mr X had previously asked the Council not to post documents, he may have been happy to receive information in another way during the pandemic when face to face meetings were not possible. This was fault and as a result, Mr X did not receive the information he was entitled to receive about his children from February 2020 to July 2021.
By failing to record its decisions about Mr X’s involvement in the LAC reviews for his children and failing to review the arrangements for sharing information with him from March 2020 onwards, we cannot say the Council had due regard to his human rights. It cannot show it considered the impact these decisions would have on Mr X.
Parenting training The Council says Mr X has not asked for any further parenting training since August 2019 and so it has not offered it to him. The Council’s complaint response from June 2019 set out what information Mr X needed to provide to support a re-assessment of his parenting. There is no evidence Mr X provided the Council with the required information to progress this re-assessment, and so I do not find the Council at fault.
Complaint handling Complaints about the actions of an IRO fall under the Children’s statutory complaint’s procedure, as their role and responsibilities are covered in Part 3 of the Children Act 1989. Mr X’s complaint to the Council contained several points related to his dissatisfaction with how the IRO had carried out their role and conducted the LAC reviews. The response provided did not respond to his specific points. The Council should have investigated this part of his complaint under the children’s statutory procedure. It did not do so, and this is fault. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty as to whether the Council was taking his complaints seriously and left his complaint unresolved. However, the complaint response did signpost him to us and we have now investigated his complaint.
Agreed action
Within one month of the final decision, the Council will: review how it prepares for the LAC reviews for each of Mr X’s children in its care. It should ensure it has a process in place to consider whether Mr X should be invited and how he can contribute to each of his children’s reviews. Any decisions should be appropriately recorded on the child’s records with clear reasons.
write to Mr X to apologise for failing to include him as part of the LAC review process for his children since February 2020 and for the poor complaint handling.
pay Mr X £200 as a token to acknowledge the frustration caused to him by not being involved in his children’s LAC reviews, including consultation before and the sharing of reports afterwards, from February 2020 to July 2021.
Within three months of the final decision, the Council will review its complaint handling to ensure that complaints about the involvement of parents at LAC reviews and complaints about IROs are appropriately investigated under the children’s statutory complaints procedures.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. I have found fault and recommended action to remedy the injustice caused and improve services.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not considered the Council’s actions before August 2019. This is because this is too long ago and if Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s actions before this time, he could have brought a complaint to us earlier.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman