Council reminded to note children’s responses in safeguarding investigations “fully” after failures found

The woman behind the complaint, Mrs X, complained that the council failed to consider her concerns properly, dismissing evidence of child abuse and domestic violence from the children’s father as “historical”.

The report noted that Ms X has two sons, (Y and Z), who live with her and go to secondary school. There is a court order preventing Ms X’s former partner (Y and Z’s father) from contacting them.

In 2023, the council received a referral from an NHS Trust about Ms X, Y and Z. Children’s Advice and Support Services (CASS) considered it and recommended an assessment under S17 of the Children’s Act.

After the assessment and strategy meetings, the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) agreed with the police that it needed to be progressed to S47 enquiries for an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC), due to emotional harm because of past trauma from parental domestic abuse.

In August 2023, the ICPC agreed that:

• Ms X should not expose the children to any conversations of adult issues about their father;
• The police to place a SIG marker on the children’s home address;
• The council to carry out monthly visits to the children;
• Z will have a Child in Need (CiN) Plan and Y will have a Child Protection Plan;
• The father to engage in a DA perpetrators program.

Three months later, a review agreed Y would come off the Child Protection Plan and have a CiN Plan instead.

In January 2024, Ms X complained to the council. She said she went to the council for support, and instead it carried out a S47 investigation into her behaviour.

The council responded the following month and said speaking to Ms X, Y and Z was necessary to make a decision about whether to continue to a child protection case conference. The involvement was focused on supporting Ms X and her children.

The Ombudsman noted however that the information detailed in the children’s section of the report for the ICPC was “sparse”.

The council apologised the report did not contain the fuller views of the children and upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint.

Ms X was not happy with the response so she made a stage two complaint in February 2024. She contended:

• The council did not properly consider her concerns with her ex-partner;
• She felt the chief executive did not believe her account; and
• Y’s full account was not included in the report.

Investigating the complaint, the Ombudsman said: “The council carried out the S17 assessment, made enquiries and decided to do a S47 investigation as it considered the children were at risk of significant harm, as it is entitled to do. I cannot find fault with the council for carrying out the S47 investigation.

“The Council have agreed the children’s views were sparse in the investigation and apologised for this. It is important the council gives weight to the children’s views. However, the injustice is limited to Ms X as this S47 investigation was not about the previous domestic abuse. I recommend an apology from the council and a service improvement so children’s responses are fully noted in the future.”

The Ombudsman noted that Ms X made a stage two complaint in February, but the council did not respond until May – which was a delay of two months and therefore fault.

However, the Ombudsman found the injustice to Ms X was “limited” and so an apology would be sufficient.

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended the council send a written apology to Miss X, and remind staff to:

• note children’s responses fully or keep a record about why it was not appropriate to seek further information;
• ensure all documents on an investigation are kept together so they can be retrieved if needed;
• send complaint responses as set out in the council’s policy, or if investigation takes longer, to let the complainant know.

Birmingham City Council has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson