Family with violent son were let down by council, rules watchdog
IT HAS ORDERED THEY BE PAID £1,500 COMPENSATION
A COUNCIL has been told to pay a distressed Derbyshire family £1,500 after failing to provide sufficient support relating to their violent child for four years.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) – a council watchdog – detailed the failings in an investigation which has now been made public.
It found that Derbyshire County Council failed the family, who do not wish to be identified, in numerous ways between 2017 and 2021. The investigation relates to the support provided by the county council to a family in assisting them with their eldest son, who has ADHD and was regularly violent and abusive towards his mother, father, younger brother and other relatives.
ADHD – Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – is a condition that affects people’s behaviour. People with ADHD can seem restless, may have trouble concentrating and may act on impulse. The exact cause of ADHD is unknown, but the condition has been shown to run in families. Research has also identified a number of possible differences in the brains of people with ADHD when compared with those without the condition.
Other factors suggested as potentially having a role in ADHD include:
being born prematurely (before the 37th week of pregnancy); having a low birthweight; smoking or alcohol or drug abuse during pregnancy.
ADHD can occur in people of any intellectual ability, although it’s more common in people with learning difficulties. In the Derbyshire case, ages for the two brothers and the family’s location within Derbyshire have not been detailed.
The watchdog details that the family was in regular contact with the county council about their abusive son from 2016. After the watchdog’s investigation, the council again accepted that it gave “minimal” consideration to the impact on the mother and that there was a delay in referring her to domestic violence support.
Failures to provide this support throughout the four years saw the watchdog order the council to pay the mother £1,000 and a further £500 because she had to take the issue to an official complaint. The watchdog said the situation “has undoubtedly caused [the mother] significant distress”. It detailed that the council did not provide a social worker from the disabled children’s team because it did not feel his ADHD met the necessary criteria. The watchdog also found that the council repeatedly failed to reply to her emails.
It asked the council to apologise to the family and to urgently update training for its officers. In June 2017, the council put together a plan of action which involved supporting the eldest son with his behavioural and emotional needs, observations of the mother while she was with her eldest son and “support to prevent the family reaching crisis point”, such as therapy.
A further plan was put together in September 2017 which detailed that the eldest son’s school and his parents should alert the council to all “risky” behaviour and information was gathered from a doctor to understand the child’s difficulties. In October, the council “stood down” the search for a foster family to take on the child.
The next month, in November, the council said the risk to the mother from her eldest son had reduced and more plans were put in place for the eldest son to have one-to-one support in school. However, in February 2018 there was a “violent attack” on the mother and a safety plan was put in place for her to contact the police when violent incidents occurred.
The eldest son was taken to A&E for an assessment by the mental health crisis team, and he was found to be “well enough to go home”. After this, the mother asked for her eldest son to be placed in foster care, with the council asking that he should be sent to stay with a family member, temporarily.
The council said the situation had not “met the threshold of significant harm” to take immediate action to take the boy out of his home to protect the family. It said that if there were further incidents then the situation could be escalated.
The family decided to send their youngest son to his grandparents and to keep their eldest son at home for the weekend. After this, they arranged for the eldest son to spend some weekends with his uncle and week nights with his grandparents.
By March 2018 the family had reported fewer incidents, but by August the mother told council staff that her eldest son’s physical aggression had increased. Staff were also told that the boy’s uncle was now “reluctant” to have him over again and that the boy was refusing to go to his grandparents.
In October 2018, the mother called the council with concerns about potential outcomes of violence from her eldest son and asked the authority to house him somewhere. The council was also told that the father intended to move out of the family home to “safeguard himself against false allegations”.
However, the watchdog says the council told the family that accommodating the eldest son “was not an option”. The council’s “time-out” team started taking the eldest son out of the home for various activities. Support from the family breakdown team ended in April 2019 and the council offered the mother nonviolent resistance training in May 2019, which she declined because she felt it was not suitable. In July 2019 a child protection conference, organised by the county council, made both children the subjects of safeguarding plans. It also agreed to have the youth offending team work with the eldest son and for a young carers referral for the younger son. By February 2020, the eldest son was having a weekly session with a psychotherapist in school and meeting with the youth offending team and the younger son was accessing support as a young carer.
In April 2020, a county council social worker recommended that the mother should not allow unsupervised contact between her two sons. The mother told the council that she had no family or friends that could help with caring for the children and reported that her youngest son’s mental health was “dipping”, he was refusing to get out of bed and was in a low mood.
Later that month the eldest son “attacked” his brother, the watchdog report details. From May through to September, the mother repeatedly asked for respite support from the council. In July 2021, the council organised more family therapy and a video was filmed inside the family’s house to see if there were any “sensory triggers” which could be impacting the eldest son. A complaint process found that the council had only shown minimal consideration to the needs of the parents in caring for their eldest son.
It had also failed to signpost the parents to domestic violence support relating to the child’s attacks. The council offered respite support of two hours a week, and increased this to four hours a week during term time and 12 hours a week in the school holidays.
A county council spokesperson said: “It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment on the details of an individual case. However, the council accepts the LGSCO’S decision and recommendations. We are committed to supporting families across the county, have taken on board the improvements outlined in the decision and carried out all the agreed actions identified in the report.”
The council accepts the LGSCO’S decision and recommendations.
County council spokesperson