The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with issues concerning his children’s care and its investigation of his complaint about this. We have not found fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complains about the way the Council’s Children’s Services dealt with issues concerning his children’s care and its investigation of his complaint about this. He says: The Council did not properly investigate his complaint. It did not consider the entire history of its involvement with the children as he had requested. By limiting the investigation to events in the four-year period from 2016, it failed to take the whole picture into account.
The proposed remedy allowing him to identify factual errors in the Council’s records for correction is impractical due to the number of records and amount of time this would take.
Children’s Services did not properly consider the views of other agencies, such as the police and schools involved with his children, when making decisions about their care.
Children’s Services failed to provide him with support to maintain contact with 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 an organisation’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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Mr X and the Council provided about the complaint.
I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.
Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
What I found
What should have happened The statutory complaint procedure for children’s complaints The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to have a formal complaints procedure to deal primarily with complaints by and on behalf of children and young people.
The process has a three-stage structure. At stage one, a council responds to a complaint. If a complainant is not satisfied, they can ask for a stage two investigation. Stage two investigations are carried out by an independent investigator and overseen by an independent person.
If complainants are still not satisfied, they can request a stage three review, conducted by a panel.
The procedure also sets out timescales for completing the process.
Not all complaints about children’s services must go through the statutory complaints procedure. Children’s services complaints and complaints brought by parents concerning their own rights rather than those of their children, can use the Council’s normal corporate complaints procedure. However, once a council has opted to use the statutory complaints procedure, even if it does not have to, it should complete the process.
When a case has been considered via the statutory complaints procedure, we generally do not reinvestigate the substantive issues. The statutory procedure is designed to provide significant independence and detailed analysis of concerns raised. This means further reinvestigation by the Ombudsman is not necessary unless there are serious and fundamental flaws in the way the case was investigated.
The Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure This says the Council will not normally accept complaints made more than 12 months after the date the matter occurred, or the complainant was notified of it. It will decide, on an individual basis, whether to investigate a complaint received after the 12 month time limit.
What happened
Background
I have set out some background information by way of context. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
Mr X has two children, born in 2011 and 2012. They currently live with their mother. She has mental health difficulties which have an impact on her ability to care for the children.
The Council has been involved with the children’s care since 2011, when a child protection plan was put in place for a number of months.
Mr X’s older child lived with him from 2012, following a breakdown in her mother’s mental health. In 2015, the court made an order for the child’s return to live with her mother. The court order also made provision for Mr X’s contact with his older child.
Both children went to live with Mr X in August 2016, following a further crisis with their mother’s mental health. In December 2016, after contact with the children, their mother refused to return them to Mr X’s care. The children have lived with their mother since then.
The Council completed child and family assessments and put safety plans in place for the children in 2017 and 2018. It carried out further assessments in 2020. A child in need plan was recommended. The case was then transferred to a child protection plan which remained in place until December 2020.
Mr X’s complaint to the Council In October 2020, Mr X complained to the Council about the way Children’s Services had dealt with issues concerning his children’s care.
He said Children’s Services had been extensively involved with his children since 2011. Their mother’s mental health continued to impact their care, but the Council had failed to take appropriate action. He set out details of incidents which had taken place over the period from 2011 to 2020 and complained Children’s Services had failed to: listen to his valid concerns about his children’s safety. Incidents of physical harm had not been included in the assessment.
properly consider the views of the police and the children’s schools at a meeting in April 2020.
support him to ensure his children’s mother maintained the contact arrangements set out in the court agreement.
respond to his communications and requests for written correspondence, failed to provide him with notice of meetings, reports, and minutes. And been unprofessional and unhelpful in its attitude towards him.
Council’s stage one response The Council said: Children’s Services had regularly assessed the children’s care. It ended its involvement when the situation improved. There was no evidence to suggest the children could not remain in their mother’s care. His concerns had been considered, as had the views of the professionals at child protection conferences. But the decisions about whether children should remain in the care of a parent are made by Children’s Services.
Mr X’s contact arrangements with the children were set out in an agreement with their mother. It was not the Council’s role to supervise contact, unless required to do so by the court.
It accepted there had been some communication failures.
Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response. In November, he asked the Council to arrange a stage two investigation.
Stage two investigation The independent investigating officer (IIO) and independent person (IP) discussed Mr X’s complaint with him in January 2021. The specific complaints for the stage two investigation were set out in a Statement of Complaint. These concerned incidents from 2016.
Mr X asked the Council to include all his issues from 2011 in the IIO’s investigation. He said the IIO wanted to see records going back to 2011.
In its reply of 17 February, the Council said: It would only investigate complaints that took place within the last 12 months. Although it would sometimes investigate issues that occurred further back than this, ten years was too long.
It expected someone with a problem about a service to have raised a complaint at the time. Mr X had not made any formal complaints between 2011 and 2020.
Records from a long time ago may not be available. It only retained emails for a year, staff may have left, policies and processes may have changed making it difficult to account for its actions.
It had not accessed records going back to 2011 in its stage one response but had taken an overview of the case.
The Independent Investigating Officer’s report The IIO completed her report on 20 May 2021. This included a chronology of key events from the first child protection plan made in 2011 up until February 2021 and a summary of the background to the complaints.
The IIO confirmed she had reviewed Children’s Services’ records, held interviews with those officers she considered pertinent to the complaints, and requested further information where appropriate.
She set out the details of each complaint, the evidence she had considered and the reasons for her findings.
The IIO upheld the following complaints Complaint 1: The social worker acted unprofessionally in sharing information without Mr X’s consent, by stating in a meeting he had made a complaint.
Complaint 2: The response from the social worker’s manager was rude and unhelpful (upheld in part) Complaint 3: Mr X had not (a) been invited to a child in need meeting, (b) provided with minutes of the previous meeting or (c) minutes of a meeting he attended in December 2020. ((a) upheld in part, (b) and (c) in full Complaint 4: The social worker acted unprofessionally in the way she referred to Mr X’s attendance at a child in need meeting Complaint 6: Information recorded by another council documenting physical abuse was not followed up by the Council Complaint 7: Children’s Services intervened in matters of court ordered contact despite having told Mr X previously this was outside its remit.
Complaint 8: The stage one complaint response did not make it clear which parts of the complaint were upheld and why other parts were not.
Complaint 9: Children’s Services had not followed its complaints procedure, there had been delayed timescales and responses.
The IIO did not uphold: Complaint 5: Mr X’s children had been subject to child in need and child protection plans for a disproportionate amount of time.
She found the case notes demonstrated why the decisions about the child protection plans were made and that the officers considered they were proportionate to the concerns.
The IIO’s recommendations about the action the Council should take in response to the report included that it should: apologise to Mr X for its failings identified in this report adhere to its complaints procedure advise Mr X how factual errors in case file records would be corrected complete a number of service improvements The Council’s response to the IIO report The Council considered the IIO’s findings and recommendations. It told Mr X in June it agreed with the IO’s findings, except for complaints 6 and 7, and would carry out the IIO’s recommendations.
Mr X disagreed with the outcomes proposed for complaints 5 and 7. And he was unhappy the investigation had only considered incidents from 2016, and not the whole history of Children’s Services involvement with his children. He asked for a stage three panel review.
Stage three panel review.
The panel pack included Mr X’s stage one complaints, the Council’s responses, the stage two complaint statement, the IIO, IP and council reports and Mr X’s request for a review. The panel hearing took place virtually on 9 August 2021. Mr X attended and made his representations supported by a friend.
The panel issued their findings on 12 August. They agreed with the IIO’s findings, which now included upholding all parts of complaint 3.
The panel noted the IIO had said Mr X wanted the investigation to research further back into the records but this had not been allowed. And that the correct procedures had been followed.
With regard to complaint 5, the panel said it was clear the decisions to support the children thorough child protection or child in need plans were for the Council to make and it was satisfied the correct procedures had been followed.
The panel’s recommendations included Mr X being invited to list what he considered to be factual errors. Where errors were established, records could be amended to reflect this. A case note could be attached, recording the different views held, where matters could not be established.
The panel also recommended the Council make a payment of £150 for Mr X’s time and trouble pursing the complaint and £250 for the impact on him of the investigation findings.
The Council’s response to the panel’s findings The Council accepted the panel’s findings, save for complaint 6. It said it was unclear if the concerns raised by the other council had been addressed and it would review this further.
It apologised again to Mr X for the failings and confirmed the action it was taking to address the failings. The Director of Children’s Services offered to meet Mr X to offer assurances about the Council’s learning from his complaint.
It agreed with the panel’s recommendation about how to deal with any factual inaccuracies.
It offered Mr X £400 for his time and trouble pursing the complaint and the impact on him of the investigation findings.
Complaint to us Mr X remained unhappy with the outcome and referred his complaint to us in October 2021.
My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?
The decision to limit the investigation to events from 2016 The Council explained in February 2021 why it would not agree to his request for an investigation of the entire history of its involvement with the children from 2011. My view is this decision was made in accordance with the Council’s complaints policy.
And although the IIO did not investigate incidents which took place before 2016, I consider it is clear from her report she had access to sufficient information to enable her to complete a chronology of key events from 2011 as a background to her investigation.
I do not consider it was fault by the Council to limit the complaint investigation to events from 2016.
The statutory complaint investigation Where a complaint has been investigated under the statutory complaints procedure and we consider the procedure has been correctly completed, we do not ordinarily reinvestigate the facts. We accept the findings of the statutory process, and our role will usually be limited to reviewing the remedy.
Based on the evidence I have seen, my view is the investigation was robust. based on significant evidence and the panel hearing review was conducted appropriately. I do not consider there is anything to suggest the investigation or conduct of the review panel hearing was flawed or carried out incorrectly.
I consider the remedies proposed by the IIO, the review panel and the Council were appropriate. They included a recommendation the Council apologise to Mr X for the failings identified in the investigation, which it has done, and service improvements which I understand the Council has carried out.
I consider the recommended payment of £400 to reflect Mr X’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint and the upset caused by the Council’s failings is in line with the expectations in our published guidance on remedies.
The panel also made a recommendation about a way to identify and correct any factual inaccuracies in the case records. I have explained below why I consider this an appropriate remedy.
I have not found fault by the Council in the way it investigated Mr X’s complaints under the statutory complaint procedure.
Proposal for identifying and correcting factual errors in the case records While I appreciate it may be difficult and time consuming, in my view, the only way in which Mr X’s concern about factual errors can be resolved is by him telling the Council which records he considers are inaccurate.
In response to our enquiries, the Council has offered Mr X an appointment with an officer independent of previous involvement with his family to go through this process with him.
I consider the IIO and panel’s recommendation for dealing with this part of Mr X’s complaint is appropriate. I do not find fault by the Council in offering this proposal to Mr X to resolve his concerns about factual errors.
Children’s Services did not properly consider the views of other agencies This complaint was investigated under the statutory complaint process. The IIO and the panel found the Council had followed the correct procedures when making decisions about the children’s care.
I have not investigated this issue any further.
Failure to provide Mr X support to maintain contact with his children.
My understanding is the arrangements for Mr X’s contact with his children are subject to an agreement. The Council is not under a duty to supervise contact and any issues, if not resolved between Mr X and the children’s mother, are a matter for the court.
And the IIO and the panel found the Council was wrong to intervene in arrangements for Mr X’s contact with his children because it had previously elected not to do so.
On this basis I do not find fault by the Council regarding support in maintaining contact with his children.
But, in response to our enquiries, the Council has offered to carry out mediation work, with to the family’s consent, regarding plans for contact with the children.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation of this complaint. I have not found fault by the Council in way it dealt with issues concerning his children’s care and its investigation of Mr X’s complaint about this.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman