Council did not speak with father about safeguarding referral, then created safety plan which was “one-sided” and contained assumptions about his ability to parent, Ombudsman finds

The man behind the complaint, Mr Y, complained about the council’s actions in its children’s services involvement with his family. In particular, he said the council:

• was biased against him and made decisions based on false information. Mr Y complains the safety plan was one-sided and included conditions to benefit his ex-partner and her family. The council also made reference to addictions which Mr Y said he does not have.
• was manipulated into having Mr Y arrested in front of his young child.
• breached his personal data by disclosing his location to his ex-partner.
• breached his right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence as per Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman said Mr Y has a young child, referred to as Z.

Mr Y has joint parental responsibility with Z’s mother. Mr Y and Z’s mother, (Miss X), are no longer together and live separately.

Mr Y reported that, until the matters complained about, he had regular and consistent contact with Z. The contact arrangements were agreed between Z’s parents and not ordered by the courts.

Despite the arrangements working well, Mr Y said Miss X changed the agreement in mid-2024 and insisted that Mr Y returned Z directly to her home, rather than via a third party (Mr Y’s father).

The council said there was a contact record around this time referring to a police incident which described Mr Y as appearing “in drink”.

In summer 2024, Mr Y returned Z to Miss X’s house. She called the police to report criminal damage and harassment, which Mr Y denied.

Mr Y told the Ombudsman he had no contact with Miss X for around ten days. He went to collect Z from their education setting, which he said was planned and part of their normal routine.

Mr Y said the setting then locked him inside the premises while staff called the police as a result of Miss X telling them that she had a restraining order.

The police arrested Mr Y. The council since confirmed there was no active restraining order in place at the time.

The police force made a referral to the council. Children’s Services picked up the case, allocated a social worker and contacted Miss X to arrange an initial visit. After the visit, Miss X emailed a family member of Mr Y’s to say that a plan was being developed and that her relatives would need to check Mr Y is sober before he has any contact with Z.

Miss X gave Mr Y’s home address to the social worker.

The social worker drew up a ‘safety plan’ to protect Z from “emotional harm” caused by witnessing “frightening behaviour”.

The council shared the safety plan with Mr Y two days after creating it.

The following day, the social worker visited the address provided by Miss X. The social worker reported that Mr Y did not answer the door, so they hand delivered a letter asking Mr Y to make contact.

Mr Y later emailed the social worker to confirm he was willing to participate in an assessment, provided it was focussed on Z’s care arrangements.

Mr Y’s representative complained to the council about the contents of the safety plan and apparent bias towards Mr Y.

A few days later, Miss X contacted the social worker to withdraw her consent for the assessment to progress. She said her intention was to agree contact arrangements for Z through the courts. The council closed its case.

Analysing Mr Y’s complaint, the Ombudsman said: “the council acknowledged that the social worker waited 12 working days after receipt of the referral and before making direct contact with Mr Y. In the meantime, the council contacted Miss X and completed a safety plan based on allegations made about Mr Y.

The council did not seek to verify those allegations or at least seek Mr Y’s response to the comments made about his sobriety.

“The council’s own procedures say that it involves both parents – and wider family members – when completing safety plans. In this case, the council drew up the plan before speaking with Mr Y and therefore did not follow its own procedures and acted in a way which appeared one-sided.”

According to the report, the council accepted it acted “disproportionately” when agreeing that Miss X’s family would need to assess Mr Y’s sobriety. The council also acknowledged it was wrong to accept Miss X’s assertion that there was an active restraining order in place.

The Ombudsman noted: “Although defamation claims can only be considered by the High Court, the LGSCO can consider the actions of the council and arrive at a view on the extent to which it had or had not damaged someone’s reputation.

“The unverified comments about Mr Y’s alleged alcohol and drug dependency would likely have affected his reputation amongst those who had access to the safety plan. This caused unnecessary and avoidable distress.”

Further, the Ombudsman found that by excluding Mr Y from the safety planning process, the council failed to have due regard to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The report noted that the council has now apologised to Mr Y and offered a remedy payment of £1,350, in recognition of the distress caused by the fault. The Ombudsman found this was an appropriate amount.

Finally, the Ombudsman said: “I have also considered whether to recommend service improvements in this case. In its final complaint response, a senior manager confirmed:

“I have spoken directly with the relevant Group Manager about your complaint and the learning themes. They will in turn speak to the individuals and teams to ensure that everyone understands the expectation that families (residing, non-residing parents and extended family network) will be contacted in a timely manner, be equally involved where safe to do so when informing why there is need for social work involvement and commencement of any assessment”

“Based on this, I am satisfied the council has already taken proportionate remedial action to remind staff of their responsibilities to ensure service improvements in the relevant teams.”

A Hull City Council spokesperson said: “Whilst it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment on the specifics of this case, we have taken forward the learning and action arising out of the investigation which the Ombudsman is satisfied with, including providing appropriate remedies.”

Lottie Winson