The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We did not find fault with the Council’s actions in relation to the decision to make Ms X’s child, Y, subject of a child protection plan. The other parts of Ms X’s complaint were considered and suitably addressed during the Council’s complaint handling.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the way the Council responded when there were concerns about her child, Y. She said the Council: Wrongly made Y subject of a child protection plan instead of recoginsing their disability.
Failed to consider Y’s disability, NICE guidelines and set realistic expectations.
Exposed Ms X to her abusive ex-partner in meetings.
Ms X said this caused her significant distress and had a detrimental impact on her health.
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) The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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 considered the information Ms X provided. We made enquiries with the Council and considered its response with relevant law and guidance.
Ms 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
Law and guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ July 2018 (‘Working Together 2018’) This is statutory guidance for local authorities and other agencies on how they should work together to assess children’s needs and make arrangements for promoting and safeguarding their welfare. It sets out the principles, processes and timescales for carrying out child protection investigations.
Where a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it has a duty under section 47 to make enquiries to enable it to decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
In carrying out these section 47 duties, the local authority has the power to call on other bodies to help with its enquiries, including the police and relevant health and education professionals.
If, following a referral and an initial assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides that the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the local authority convenes a Child Protection Conference. Certain bodies must attend if the local authority invites them to do so, including another local authority, and various health bodies (Children Act 1989 s.47(11)).
The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include making a recommendation that the child should be subject to a Child Protection Plan.
After the Initial Child Protection Conference, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended or discontinued.
What happened What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all then information I reviewed during my investigation.
Ms X lives with her child, Y. Y is autistic and has anxiety.
Y was subject of a child in need plan from May 2020. In October 2021 concerns for Y’s progress as a child in need increased and the Council initiated a section 47 investigation and decided to hold an initial child protection case conference (ICPC).
Prior to the ICPC the Council completed a child and family (CAF) assessment. Ms X provided written comments on the CAF report.
The ICPC took place in November. Ms X attended. All the professionals agreed Y should be made subject of a child protection plan under the category of neglect. A child protection plan was created for Y.
The plan was reviewed at conference in December. All professionals agreed the plan should continue.
A second review conference was held in February 2022. All professionals agreed the plan should continue.
In April Ms X complained to the Council. She complained the Council: Failed to understand Y’s needs and disability.
Failed to take account of specialist reports.
Did not consider best autism practice.
Produced a child protection plan that was not fair or realistic in relation to Y’s needs.
Failed to consider Ms X’s experience of domestic abuse and the impact of this on her ability to engage in the process.
Delayed sending conference minutes after the meetings.
Ms X’s desired outcomes were: A review of the social work practice in our case by someone who is independent of the decision making that has taken place so far; and by someone who has experience of working with autistic young people or, at the very least, has access to resources (including the NICE Guidelines) of best practice; A review of the decision making that has led to child protection; A re-evaluation of the appropriateness of Y being under child protection, based on the outcome of the review; An acknowledgement that mistakes have been made in this instance.
The Council responded in June. It responded to each of Ms X’s complaints. It partially agreed with complaint d). It said: ‘I agree that the plan is not specific enough with regards to what needs to change to allow the child protection plan to end. Having spoken to the social work team, they also feel that the plan is not clear, and this is the reason that an early review child protection conference has been called. I have made some recommendations to the social work team with regards to progressing the plan and I will set these out later in the response’.
In response to complaint e) it told Ms X the social worker would discuss the concerns with Ms X and put a plan in place to minimise the impact on Ms X.
In response to complaint f) the Council apologised for the delay.
The Council also found there was a delay referring Y to child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). It apologised and said the referral had been made.
The Council made recommendations.
The child protection was reviewed again in June. The review conference decided Y’s child protection plan should end but Y should continue to be supported on a child in need plan.
Ms X asked to escalate her complaint to stage two. She did not feel the stage one response addressed her main concerns. Ms X explained her outstanding complaints, she said the Council: Failed to properly consider Y’s disabilities when it decided to make Y subject of a child protection plan.
Produced an unachievable safety statement as part of the ICPC.
Failed to properly address her concerns that the social workers did not have sufficient understanding of Y’s issues and focused on parental blame.
Disregarded NICE guidelines when it placed Y on a child protection plan.
Provided an incomplete record of the review conference.
Treated her differently because she is autistic and requested personal information that was not relevant.
Ms X asked the Council to acknowledge Y should not have been made subject of a child protection plan. She also asked for the child protection status to be removed form Y’s record.
The Council provided its final response in July. It responded to each of Ms X’s complaints. It agreed with the stage one response. It offered a further apology for the quality and timeliness of the conference minutes. It did not agree to Ms X’s desired outcomes because it did not find fault with the decision to place Y on a child protection plan. It told Ms X her views and reasons she disagreed were recorded on Y’s file.
Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
I did not find fault with the Council’s decision to make Y subject of a child protection plan.
The decision was a unanimous multi agency decision by those who attended the conference, therefore the actions of other agencies and professionals is out of our jurisdiction.
I can consider the actions of the Council in respect of: Convening the Conference Attending the Conference, explaining the reasons for the Conference, and presenting the information gathered, including any evidence of abuse or neglect and the impact on the child Analysing the information to enable informed decisions to be made about what action is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child Preparing a report for the Conference on the child and family and the local authority’s recommendation Sharing the information with the child and family beforehand where appropriate Recording Conference decisions and recommendations and ensuring they are acted on I carefully considered the above points and Ms X’s complaints about why she felt the Council failed to properly understand Y’s needs in the context of the concerns.
I also reviewed the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s comments and concerns along with the various views of professionals involved with Y.
I did not find evidence the Council ignored Ms X’s concerns or views. There was also no evidence the Council failed to consider the professional reports or other professionals views.
Ms X may disagree with the Council’s decisions but that does not mean there was fault with the way they were made. Where there does not appear to be fault, we would not question the professional judgement of the decision maker.
During the Council’s complaint handling it upheld Ms X’s complaints that: The child protection plan was not specific enough.
The conference minutes were not of an acceptable quality and were not distributed in a timely manner after the conference.
There was no plan in place to manage the attendance of Ms X’s ex-partner at conferences and meetings.
The Council provided a suitable response to the complaints it upheld, and I do not have anything further to add to the Council’s consideration of these complaints.
Final decision
I did not find fault with the Council. I completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman