The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s communication with him about his daughter, who it had assessed as being as a child in need, information about him included in meeting records, and its decision about sharing information. We have not found fault with the Council in the way it dealt with these issues.
The complaint
I am calling the complainant Mr X. His daughter, who I am calling Z, was assessed by the Council as being a child in need. Mr X complains: The Council will not allow him to attend Z’s child in need (CIN) review meetings or provide him with the minutes of these meetings. He says he has a parental right to this information; His medical information was shared at a CIN review meeting without his agreement; Z made false allegations about him, which were included in CIN review meeting minutes and supported by her social worker; and A social worker spoke to him in an unprofessional way in a phone call.
Mr X says the false allegations, and stress of dealing with these issues have affected his physical and mental health.
Mr X wants the Council to apologise, discipline the social workers concerned and take his concerns about Z’s care arrangements seriously.
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 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 someone has a complaint about data protection, we normally expect them to refer this to the Information Commissioner. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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.
What I found
The law A court has considered whether children have capacity to make decisions for themselves. The court decided that where a child has reached a sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up their own mind on the matter requiring decision, then the parental right yields to the child’s right to make their own decisions. This is often referred to as Gillick competency (after the court case in which this was established).
The Council’s process The Council follows procedures set out in the Safeguarding Children Procedures Manual adopted by the Manchester Safeguarding Partnership, of which it is a member.
This manual: says the child’s welfare is the focus in all work with the child and family. Everyone working with children must seek the voice of the child and reflect and respond to it in all aspects of this work; explains a young person aged 16 or older is presumed to have capacity to consent to the sharing of personal information. Children aged 12 or over may generally be expected to have sufficient understanding. But this is not based simply on age; and includes guidance on how to assess a child or young person’s understanding and capacity to give consent to the sharing of their personal information.
What happened I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
Background
Z does not live with Mr X. She lives with another family member. The Council assessed Z as being a child in need and held regular CIN review meetings.
Mr X was initially invited to, and provided with minutes of, these meetings.
Z told the Council she no longer wanted her information shared with Mr X. The Council told Mr X about her decision and that it had decided it would not invite him to further CIN review meetings or share the meeting minutes with him.
Mr X complained to the Council about this decision, the way a social worker spoke to him during a phone call, and information about him included in the CIN meeting minutes.
In its response to the complaint, the Council said: Under its Children’s Services process, it will not share a young person’s information with a parent if the young person does not consent to this.
Relevant information about him was shared in a CIN review meeting to inform the Council’s work with Z.
Z had expressed her views about certain events. These were recorded as Z’s views in the minutes. They were not allegations about him by its social workers.
It apologised on behalf of its social worker if Mr X felt she had been unprofessional in her phone call with him.
Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us.
My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?
The Council’s decision not to invite Mr X to CIN review meetings or share the minutes with him.
Mr X says he has a parental right to information about Z. But the law and the Council’s process recognise that, in some circumstances, this right is overridden by the child’s decision not to share their information with a parent.
The information I have seen confirms Z told the Council she did not want her information shared with Mr X. The Council’s records show it considered Z’s age and understanding, took account of her views and wishes, and obtained legal advice before making the decision not to share her information with Mr X. It says its decision will be reviewed if circumstances change.
I do not consider there was fault in the way the Council made its decision not to invite Mr X to CIN review meetings or share Z’s information with him.
Data Protection concerns The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is responsible for regulating data protection. The ICO is the best placed body to handle concerns about data protection.
For this reason, and as explained in paragraph 6 above, I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about this. If he believes his personal information has been wrongly shared by the Council in CIN review meetings and minutes, I consider it reasonable he should raise this with the ICO.
Allegations about Mr X included in the CIN meeting minutes These allegations were included in minutes sent to Mr X before the decision not to share any further information with him. Mr X has had the opportunity to read what was said and provide his comments.
I consider the minutes make it clear these were Z’s thoughts about Mr X’s involvement in matters concerning her safety and wellbeing. The minutes show her views were discussed at review meetings but were not allegations social workers had made.
I do not consider there was fault in the way the Council recorded information about Z’s views in the minutes.
The social worker’s conduct The Council says records confirm its social worker explained to Mr X, during a call, she was not prepared to continue speaking with him right now but would call him back.
I do not consider I have sufficient evidence about the circumstances, or what was said, to make a finding of fault by the Council in its communication with Mr X. I note the Council has already apologised to Mr X if he found the communication unprofessional and we would not recommend it take any further action in any event.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation of this complaint. I did not investigate Mr X’s data protection concerns. I have not found fault by the Council in its communication with Mr X, the way it made its decision about sharing information or recorded information about Z’s views in meeting records.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman