The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has treated his family during child protection investigations. As a result he says the family did not receive adequate support and they experienced unnecessary distress and anxiety. We do not find the Council at fault as it followed the process properly and provided the family with support. Being involved in a child protection investigation is always likely to be distressing but we do not find this was a result of fault by the Council. The Council said it would consider drawing up a ‘child on parent violence protocol’ and it has agreed to provide an update on progress.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the way the Council has treated his family during child protection investigations. He says the Council has: failed to understand the family circumstances, ignoring child on parent violence while blaming the parents, putting undue pressure on him to sign a safety plan, and including inaccurate information in reports; and failed to carry out the recommendations of a statutory children's social care complaints investigation about events in November 2020 when his son was arrested.
As a result he says the Council has failed to provide appropriate support to the family and they have experienced unnecessary distress and anxiety.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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) The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The Council appoints an Independent Investigating Officer to investigate and an Independent Person to oversee the investigation at stage 2. If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome they can take the complaint to a stage 3 Review Panel. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
How I considered this complaint
I discussed the complaint with Mr and Mrs X and considered the information they provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I considered relevant law and guidance on councils’ duties towards children. Mr 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
Councils’ duties towards children Councils have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need by providing services appropriate to the child’s needs. A disabled child is a child in need. (Children Act 1989, section 17) Councils carry out assessments of the needs of the child to determine which services to provide and what action to take.
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) The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the family and if it considers there may be a risk of harm it should hold a strategy meeting to decide whether to proceed with a child protection investigation. This may result in a decision to hold a multi-agency Child Protection Conference, which may agree a Child Protection Plan. The Council keeps the Plan under review and will end the Plan when a Child Protection Review Conference considers it is no longer needed to keep the children safe. The Council may then treat the child as a Child in Need and offer support under a Child in Need Plan.
What happened
Background
Mr and Mrs X’s teenaged son, B, has a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder.
Children’s Social Care have been involved with the family since late 2018 when Mr and Mrs X reported they were struggling with B’s behaviour. This led to a social work assessment. As a result the Council offered support to B as a Child in Need. It provided funding for him to have a support worker or ‘enabler’. During 2019 Child in Need meetings and visits continued, Mr and Mrs X reported that the enabling was working well for B but they needed more support. The Council referred them to a family practitioner for parenting support and carried out life skills work with B. B was referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) and also had an Education, Health and Care Plan.
Events from April 2020 What follows is an outline of key events in the child protection process relevant to my investigation. It is not intended to cover everything that happened In April 2020 Mrs X contacted the Council’s Emergency Duty Team in Children’s Social Care twice to report incidents where B was becoming increasingly violent, causing damage to the home and threatening his parents. On the first occasion the Council advised her to call the police. The second time B went to stay overnight with another relative.
The Council carried out a social work assessment and continued to deal with the issues under the Child in Need process. There were visits to the home and advice from professionals to Mr and Mrs X about strategies to help deal with B’s behaviour. Mr and Mrs X did not feel these were working.
There was a further violent incident in August when B threatened his parents. They called the police and B was arrested.
Between September and November there were four further incidents when the police attended. In the November incident B caused damage to the home. When Mr X called the police the call handler reported hearing B in the background saying Mr X had assaulted him. B was arrested with bail conditions stating he could not return to the family home for two weeks. As there was no friend or family member identified for B to stay with, the Council placed him in a short-term foster placement.
Mr X made a complaint about events surrounding B’s arrest and lack of communication from the Council. This is the subject of the complaint under part b) in paragraph 1 above. I deal with that complaint later in this statement.
After receiving the referral from the police the Council held a strategy discussion in mid-November. The decision was to start a child protection investigation jointly with the police. The Council carried out a social work assessment which recommended a 12-week Child in Need Plan. The Plan included support from the multi-disciplinary team aimed at reducing the risk of children and young people going into care, the Edge of Care Team. There was to be separate support for B and for his parents.
Around two weeks later Mrs X reported further incidents to the Council, including when he was ‘smashing up the home’.
In mid-January 2021 there was another incident between Mr X and B. The Council held a strategy meeting and decided to start a child protection investigation and hold an Initial Child protection Conference (CPC). The multi-agency Initial CPC took place in early February. The recommendation was to place B on a Child Protection (CP) Plan. The CP Plan included support from the Child in Need Plan as well as further support.
The social worker continued to visit B, and Core Group meetings and Edge of Care reviews took place over the next three months. These noted that support from professionals was showing positive changes within the family. There were fewer incidents at home and no calls made to the Council or police. Mr and Mrs X were reporting they better able to de-escalate situations.
There was a Review CPC meeting in late April 2021 after a further social work report. The Council decided to remove B from the CP Plan and return to the Child in Need process.
Child in Need and Edge of Care review meetings continued. They noted improvements in relationships and communications within the home over the following month, but also some further incidents.
In June 2021 B reported to his school that Mr X had punched him. The Council held a strategy meeting and decided to start another child protection enquiry jointly with the police. The social worker spoke to B and Mr and Mrs X and obtained their version of events. Mr and Mrs X reported that Mr X had hit B in self-defence after B had hit him, but denied it was a punch. There was a further incident where B pushed Mr X, and Mr X was unconscious and had to go to hospital. The Council decided to convene an Initial CPC.
The Initial CPC took place in early July 2021 and resulted in B being placed on a CP Plan. The minutes of the Conference record that while the primary concern was for B there was also concern about Mr and Mrs X’s safety. The CP Plan included further sessions for Mr and Mrs X with the Edge of Care team, identifying a mentoring service for B, and the rest of the support in the Child in Need support to continue along with direct social work sessions with B.
There was another incident in mid-July with B damaging the home and making violent threats to his parents.
The child protection process continued with Core Group meetings to review progress. Mr and Mrs X attended, at times challenging words used in previous social work reports. One of their support workers gave the view that it was important to note they were victims of physical abuse in their home.
In the meantime, in mid-July, Mr and Mrs X made a complaint to the Council about the way it was dealing with them through the child protection process. They said they felt persecuted. The complaints included the following.
Social work reports were inaccurate. They gave an example of where two social workers had given different accounts of the same incident.
They were unhappy with the way social workers carried out interviews with them. They said the Council was trying to force them to sign a safety plan with the threat of legal proceedings if they did not. They said this put them under unnecessary stress when even the police agreed the incident was self-defence and so the allegation of physical abuse was unsubstantiated.
The Council was blaming and condemning them and making unsubstantiated allegations against them rather than supporting them.
In August the Team Manager had a meeting with Mr and Mrs X to discuss the concerns they raised in more detail. The Council responded to the complaint in writing a week later.
It acknowledged that ‘child on parent’ violence was a very difficult situation for families.
It recognised that the child protection process, which was designed to protect children, could be particularly difficult for families in these circumstances.
It said it was pleased B was going to be offered support with his behaviour as this impacts on Mr and Mrs X as parents.
It confirmed the Council did not yet have a ‘child on parent violence pathway’ to help professionals working together with families in these circumstances. It said it would look into whether there was any plan to develop a protocol and would include parents in designing it if there was.
It agreed to arrange another meeting with staff involved to talk about “whether child protection planning is the best response to the difficulties in your family at this time”.
It referred to the discussion at the meeting about possible future support from the Edge of Care team which Mr and Mrs X said they had found helpful in the past. It confirmed other support that would be starting.
At the meeting there was also a discussion about the minimum involvement with Children’s’ Social Care possible if was B removed from a CP Plan. This would be to move support to the Support and Advice Team, allowing the family to continue receiving short breaks funding.
Mr and Mrs X had a further meeting in mid-September with a Senior Manager and Team Manager to discuss their concerns about the description of the incident in the latest allegation. They spoke about their negative feelings about social work involvement with the family and how they felt blamed. The Council explained the focus of the child protection process was on protecting the child. It said it had started a child protection investigation this time because of allegations B had made which it had a duty to look into. It also referred to the support B was receiving with his own behaviour. They discussed that if the Review CPC recommended ending the CP Plan any social work involvement would be voluntary and could continue under a Child in Need Plan or from the Support and Advice team, with a short break plan.
The Council also agreed that the social work report for the Review CPC would look at whether the Council’s work with the family while B was on the CP Plans had been counterproductive.
There appear to be several social work reports for the Review CPC, with a final one saying it was superseding the previous ones. The report gave an update. Mr and Mrs X had been supported to look at all the behaviour support plans and reported they were using them effectively. There had been no recent incidents. B had support in education and his parents were helping him explore his options for the next stage. He had a part-time job and the family was still receiving the short breaks funding. The social worker said she “not feel child protection planning was supportive of the family’s holistic well-being at this time”. This was partly because of the family’s reaction to social work involvement and B no longer wishing to work with a social worker.
The Review CPC took place in early October 2021 and recommended ending the CP Plan. At the meeting Mrs X read out a statement about her dissatisfaction with the child protection process. She referred to lies and unsubstantiated allegations and blame being put on the parents. She spoke about lack of support for B. The Chair of the Conference asked Mrs X for a copy of her statement so it could be fully captured in the minutes. The meeting also heard from B himself about what he felt had worked and what had not. The family confirmed they wished to continue with the short break package. The Chair advised that she the Team Manager and Area Manager would be having “a learning discussion around this case to explore how it could have been managed differently”.
The Council closed the social work case and moved it to the Support and Advice team The Council agreed a care package for B including enabling, overnight respite and behaviour support.
November 2020 complaint The complaint went through two stages of the children’s social care complaints procedure. Mr X said he was happy with the outcome. The key findings on the upheld complaints were as follows: There was poor communication from children’s social care around the time of B’s arrest and following his arrest. The Council should have kept Mr and Mrs X informed about what was happening to B.
This was partly responsible for B being held in custody for longer than necessary, although the Council did try to help the family find somewhere to stay. It had also told the police that as a young man with autism and other special needs B should not be taken into custody.
The Council agreed to the recommendations of stage 2 investigation report. I set out the recommendations below as well as the action the Council says it has taken in response.
Apologise to B for his experience of being held in police custody for longer than necessary. The Council apologised in the final complaint response and also sent a draft apology letter for B to Mr and Mrs X in September 2021. It says it heard no more from the family about this.
Apologise for failings in communications with the family. The Council apologised in the final complaint response.
The Council to review the process of induction and support for new staff. The Council said in the final complaint response that Children’s Services was “actively leading on a review and implementation to strengthen the experience new staff have when joining the Department”.
The Council to look into how to have a constructive working relationship with the family. The Council agreed to offer a meeting to Mr and Mrs X to discuss this. The meeting took place with two service managers in July 2021.
Mr X to reflect on how the family can work with the council in B’s best interests. This was not an action for the Council.
The Council to reflect on the decision-making that led to the proposal that B should be ‘stepped down’ to Advice and Support and how this was communicated to the family and professionals. The Council said it was “actively leading on a review and implementation” to ensure children and families receive the right support at the right time.
The Council to consider how communications with the police on the night of B’s arrest could have been more constructive. In the final response letter the Council said it would consider the learning it could take from the events of that night. Since then the Council says Area Managers from different social work teams have been attending regular meetings with the police aimed at improving joint working relationships.
The Council to address the different understandings of staff about how to communicate effectively with the family on the night of the arrest to improve practice in future. The Council says the Disabled Children’s Services management group meets every week and discussion of learning points from complaints is a regular item on the agenda.
Mr X took up offer of meeting with senior manager. When he complained to the Ombudsman he said he not received an apology letter to B and so he could not be sure the Council had acted on any of the other recommendations.
Analysis – was there fault causing injustice?
Complaint a) Mr and Mrs X undoubtedly faced an extremely difficult situation. They have a son with complex needs, who was at home more because of the COVID-19 lockdown, and prone to violent and aggressive episodes where he damaged the home and threatened his parents. Mr and Mrs X were trying de-escalation techniques they had been taught but felt they did not always work. I recognise they felt blamed. However when a young person reports an incident of harm to a professional or agency such as a school, police or support worker, they have a duty to pass on the details to Children’s Social Care. The Council then has a duty to investigate. Any child protection investigation is inevitably distressing for the family involved, especially in these type of circumstances. The Ombudsman’s role is to look at whether there was any fault in the process causing injustice to the complainant.
I have looked at the child protection and Child in Need documents for the period complained about. In each case there is evidence that the Council responded promptly and appropriately to the referrals received. Social workers saw Mr and Mrs X and B separately and heard their views. They included these views and accounts in their reports and pointed out where they differed or conflicted. They noted B’s accounts of events and his views were sometimes inconsistent and confused. Mr and Mrs X and B attended CPC’s and Core Group meetings. B had an advocate to support him in presenting his views. Mr and Mrs X had the chance to present their own view of events in addition to written reports they provided.
The Conference Chair also ensured meetings heard reports from a range of professionals and agencies involved with the family. She included Mr and Mrs X when asking for views about the level of risk in order to decide whether to start and continue CP Plans.
Mr and Mrs X feel the Council unfairly blamed them for incidents when they were dealing with violence and aggression from their son, and de-escalation techniques they had tried to use were not working. They also say social work reports contain inaccurate information. I can see that social work reports raised concerns such as that Mr and Mrs X “could appear angry and confrontational”. Also that “it is believed” one of the incidents was triggered by their actions in not using techniques they had been advised to use. One of the concerns raised in the social work reports to CPCs was that Mr X’s approach to parenting and to B’s behaviour might have the effect of exacerbating situations. Mr and Mrs X disagree strongly with these views. The reports also contain views from social worker that they saw Mr and Mrs X as strong advocates for B and wanted the best for him. They noted that B expressed the desire to remain at home, saying he felt safe there.
The Council is not at fault for including social workers’ views and opinions in reports. What is important is that it also obtains views of the parents and young person and all professionals and agencies involved with the family, and considers them when making decisions about how to proceed. Based on the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied this happened.
If there are factual errors in reports or minutes of meetings I would expect the Council to correct them. But where it is a question of a difference of opinion, the Council should ensure it places the parents’ views on file. The Council says it has done so. However it says it has not always been clear which information Mr and Mrs X regard as inaccurate. Based on the evidence I have seen I could not say there were factual inaccuracies that the Council failed to correct and so I do not find fault. If Mr and Mrs X still consider there are factual errors as opposed to differences of opinion, it is open to them to write to the Council to ask for corrections.
Mr and Mrs X say they felt unsupported and the Council did not take account of their experience as victims of child on parent violence. I have looked at the support offered to them and to B. During the period of the Child in Need and child protection process family received support as follows: Short breaks package of financial support to allow B to have an enabler and overnight respite.
Edge of Care Team support, with a separate Adolescent Worker for B and a Family Worker for Mr and Mrs X. This support to B was aimed at helping him manage and regulate his emotions. For the family as a whole it was aimed at helping them understand one another’s behaviours and triggers to try and reduce tension in the household.
Sessions with a domestic violence support service, both for Mr and Mrs X as victims of domestic abuse and to B as potential perpetrator.
A clinical psychologist worked with B and drew up a behaviour support plan Sessions for Mr and Mrs X with an organisation providing help with behaviour support, specialising in autism and challenging behaviour.
Mr and Mrs X reported on several occasions that they valued some of the help provided, especially from the Edge of Care team. Reports also note at various times that they said themselves they had reflected on advice received and felt they had become better at handling challenging incidents.
Minutes of CPCs show the analysis and decision-making took account of the complexities of the family situation. Conferences considered what was working and not working. At each stage they reviewed what the risks were of ending the child protection process and whether there were alternative ways of providing support. At the Initial CPC in July 2021 in the second child protection investigation, the Chair heard and acknowledged the pressures Mr and Mrs X faced. The meeting took account of views expressed by the police and B’s school that Mr X acted in self-defence and was also at risk of assault from B. They noted the risk to all members of the family if violent incidents continued. But the recommendation of the Conference was to continue the child protection process to ensure the family would receive the extra support needed.
At the final Review CPC the documents show the meeting took account not only of the improved situation and relationships, with increasing stability in the household and fewer incidents reported, but also the family’s views of social work intervention. When the Council felt it was no longer beneficial to continue the child protection process but the family would accept support through other parts of the service, it decided to end the CP Plan and close the case.
So overall, for the reasons I have explained, do not find fault in the child protection process, even though Mr and Mrs X disagree with some of the opinions expressed. I also consider that the Council has listened to their concerns and reflected on its own practice. I do not doubt that the family found their involvement in the process distressing. But I do not consider that was a result of fault by the Council.
There is no requirement to have a specific procedure for dealing with child on parent violence. But it may be beneficial to have one and the Council said it would look into it. I cannot say the lack of protocol caused an injustice in this case as there is evidence that the Council referred Mr and Mrs X to support services as part of the Child in Need and child protection planning processes. Also the support provided to B was intended to have an impact on his behaviour towards them as his parents with the aim of reducing violent and aggressive acts. I do not know what difference it would have made if the Council had had a specific policy on child on parent violence. Nevertheless I can make recommendation for a service improvement in this area.
Complaint b) The Council has confirmed the action it has taken on each of the recommendations. Based on this response I do not consider the Council was at fault in failing to act on the recommendations. However I am not clear what form the reviews referred to under recommendations 3 and 6 took or what the outcome was. I invite the Council to provide further information about this.
Agreed action
The Council has agreed to provide the Ombudsman with an update on what it did to consider producing a child on parent violence protocol. If did not take any steps, it should consider doing so within three months of the decision on the complaint and tell the Ombudsman the outcome.
Final decision
I have not found that the Council was at fault in how it dealt with the child protection process even though Mr and Mrs X are unhappy with the content of social work reports. Nor did it fail to provide them with support. The agreed recommendation for the Council to provide an update on its consideration of a child on parent violence protocol is related to a potential service improvement rather than any injustice caused to Mr X and his family.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman