The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs F complained the Council failed to provide enough support for her partner’s (Mr X) problems with substance abuse, his children’s welfare and education, and relied on her to report safeguarding issues. We found no fault in the process the Council followed, or the support it provided the family. We cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions. The Council has already apologised for its failure to communicate with Mrs F and Mr X during a short period in 2021, which was enough to remedy the distress this caused.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs F, complained on behalf of herself and her partner, Mr X. She said the Council failed to: take her concerns about Mr X’s substance abuse seriously and provide enough support to the family; support Mr X’s children with their mental health and mentoring needs, and to attend school; respond in a timely manner, or at all, to contacts from Mrs F or Mr X, and failed to keep records of information provided to it.
As a result, Mrs F said she and the family had experienced distress and she had been unable to work.
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 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
As part of my investigation, I have: considered Mrs F’s complaint and the Council’s responses; discussed the complaint with Mrs F; considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and considered the law and guidance relevant to the complaint.
Mrs F 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
The Children Act 1989 The Children Act 1989 sets out the duties of a local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their areas who are in need. This includes duties to: promote their upbringing by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs, such as access to an education and promoting their educational achievements; provide accommodation for any child in need within its area who appears to require accommodation in circumstances where the person caring for the child is prevented from, or unable to, providing a suitable accommodation or care. A child accommodated in this way is a ‘Looked After Child’; consider the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the accommodation, as far as this is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare; and have a care plan in place for a Looked After Child and keep it under review. This includes working with the children, persons with parental responsibility and others interested in the welfare of the child.
Care Orders Where a council has concerns that a child is in need of protection, if its concerns are serious, it should apply to the court for a care order.
The courts aim to interfere as little as possible. Removing children from their families should be a last resort. The court should only remove a child from a family if it considers it necessary.
If a council has serious concerns, it will apply for a full care order which means it will share parental responsibility for the child with their parents or guardians. The council will decide where the child should live and with whom.
Councils should consult parents and guardians about important decisions, but the council has the final say on all important decisions relating to the child What happened Mrs F lives with her partner (Mr X), who has had problems with substance abuse over a long period of time.
Mr X has two children who used to live with him. However, following an Interim Care Order in 2019 and a Final Care Order in Autumn 2020 they were placed under long-term fostering plans. Mrs F does not have parental responsibility, this is shared between Mr X and the Council.
Since then, Mr X’s children has lived in different placements, which they have absconded and return to Mr X after some time.
In 2021 the Council met with Mrs F and Mr X to put in place a working agreement to improve the relationships in the family. This set out: the expectations of Mr X to stop consuming or exchanging drugs near the family home, and to engage with the Council’s Substance Misuse Service; and how the Council’s Social Worker would work with the family, seek updates from the services supporting Mr X and coordinate the children’s support plans.
Mr X has not engaged with the Council’s Misuse Services and his substance abuse has continued.
Mr X’s children has since the Care Orders lived in different placements, which they have absconded and returned to Mr X after some time or been missing. The police have been involved when they were missing. One of the children were arrested in 2021. Both children have been absent, and excluded, from schools which means they have received a limited education.
Mrs F’s complaint Mrs F complained to the Council in late 2021 about the quality of service it had provided to her and the family. She said it had failed to: take her concerns about Mr X’s substance abuse seriously and provide enough support to him and the family; support Mr X’s children enough with their mental health, mentoring needs, school attendance, and to understand the underlying reasons for their needs. This included one of the children’s vitamins deficiency; supervise the children enough, and she had wrongly been used as a safeguarding person; and respond in a timely manner, or at all, to contacts from Mrs F or Mr X, and failed to keep records of information provided to it.
In response the Council found it had properly supported Mrs F and the family. It explained it had: worked with the family and professionals to provide support for Mr X’s children’s mental health and wellbeing. This included therapeutic interventions, advocacy, mentoring, and advice about counselling. However, the children had either refused the services or some support was put on hold due to behavioural issues, police involvement or when new placements started. It also said it was its social worker’s concerns which led to a medical investigation and diagnosis of one of the children’s vitamins deficiency; not left the children unsupervised in Mr X’s care, when they absconded their placements. It had worked with the family to return them to their placement, or find new placements as soon as this was reasonably practicable; made efforts to ensure Mr X’s children attended school. This included finding alternative placements which would accept them, its Social Worker visiting Mr X’s children’s home to encourage School attendance, arranging a taxi service to school, involving Mr X in the decisions around his children and seeking his views. However, despite new school placements being made available one of the children has refused to attend; supported Mr X as set out in the working agreement, which included providing him with support from Substance Abuse Services, and making unannounced visits. It also agreed to a less direct approach in monitoring Mr X following Mrs F’s request; and provided support to Mrs F and Mr X through its interventions, which included practical support with finances, completing a misuse risk assessment and further support and discussions. It had also referred the whole family to a service to improve relationships and the family dynamics.
The Council accepted it Social Worker had over a three-week period not responded in a timely manner and failed to be in contact with Mrs F and Mr X. It explained its social worker had left its service, and another social worker was away on sick leave. A third social worker was allocated and then made contact with Mr X. It apologised for its failure to respond or communicate properly with Mrs F and Mr X during this time.
The Council also said it had put processes in place to ensure there are sufficient and appropriate measures in place during staff absences.
Mrs F asked the Ombudsman to investigate as she still believes the Council failed its duty toward her and the family. She said this included when Mr X’s children had shown behaviours in her home which made her feel unsafe.
Analysis Mrs F does not have parental responsibility for Mr X’s children. The Council is therefore limited in what information it can share with her. However, the evidence shows it has considered her views and included her in its decisions.
Support for Mr X Mrs F said the Council had failed to provide enough support to her and Mr X to help him with his substance abuse.
I acknowledge Mrs F believes the Council should have done more to support Mr X. However, I have not found the Council at fault. This is because the Council has referred and, on several occasions, offered Mr X support from substance misuse services in its area. It put in place a working agreement with Mr X and Mrs F to set out the expectations of the Council and Mr X. It has also offered therapeutic support and practical support with finances.
However, Mr X has not engaged with the services the Council offered. As the Council cannot force Mr X to attend or engage with its services, I cannot fault the Council for Mr X’s decisions not to do so and his continued substance abuse.
Support for Mr X’s children Mrs F also said the Council had failed to do enough to support Mr X’s children with their general welfare, mental and physical health, and their education.
The evidence shows the Council has been involved with the family for several years, and in 2020 it obtained a final care order. It has since: involved professionals and Mr X to put care plans in place, and it has kept these under review; allocated social workers to work with Mr X’s children and the family as a whole; placed Mr X’s children in various fostering placements, and worked with Mr X and his children on each occasion they absconded; acted when it was notified Mr X’s children were absent from school, or had been excluded. It has continued to find new school placements either in or out of the Council’s area. Its social worker also attended their home to encourage attendance at school and arrange for taxi services to take them; offered services to support Mr X’s children with mental health and facilitated mentoring support; and continued to work with Mr X, Mrs F and the children throughout and considered their wishes.
It is clear Mr X’s children has had, and continues to have, behavioural issues. These have impacted their education and exclusions from schools, engagement in criminal activity and police involvement, and they have continued to abscond from placements and return to Mr X.
However, I have not found fault in how the Council supported the Children. This is because the Council has continued to work with the family throughout the process and considered their views. It made services, support, education, and placements available to Mr X’s children. The Council could not force his children to engage with the support it has provided, or to remain in the placements. it can only act once it becomes aware of further issues and concerns. On each case it has considered the concerns it received and taken views it was entitled to. I cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions.
Support for Mrs F Mrs F said the Council had failed to provide enough support to her and used her as a safeguarding person. She also said she had been left to feel unsafe when Mr X’s children returned to Mr X’s home.
I understand Mrs F has been in a difficult position due to Mr X’s substance abuse and his children’s behaviour in Mr X’s home when they absconded placements. At times this involved threatening behaviour towards her and police involvement.
However, I have not found the Council at fault for failing to provide Mrs F enough support. This is because: Mrs F does not have parental responsibility, she does therefore not have a right to be involved with Mr X’s children’s care plans. However, the evidence shows the Council did consider her views and concerns; the Council could not control whether Mr X’s children returned to his home. If Mrs F did not wish for them to enter their home, or she was concerned about her safety, she could report her concerns to the police. It was not for the Council’s officers to enforce such wishes or restrictions; the Council has since placed Mr X’s children further away with the aim of limiting their ability to abscond placements and return to Mr X’s home.
I have also not seen any evidence the Council placed a safeguarding responsibility on Mrs F. However, I acknowledge her presence in Mr X’s home meant it was often her who would see or experience issues which caused concerns.
Communication with Mrs F and Mr X The Council agreed its social worker had failed to stay in contact and communicate with Mr X and Mrs F for a period in 2021. It explained this was due to a social worker leaving its service, and sickness of another social worker. It has apologised and put in place measures to ensure it allocates social workers in such circumstances without delay, who can respond to contacts and concerns.
I am satisfied the Council’s apology was enough to remedy the limited distress this caused Mrs F and Mr X, and it has taken steps to prevent such issues in the future.
I have seen no evidence of Mrs F’s concerns the Council has failed to keep proper records of the information provided to it.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman