Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Ms J’s complaint about the Council initiating child protection procedures. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms J complains that the Council initiated child protection procedures when it did not have good reason to do so. She also complains about what happened during this process. She says the Council’s actions caused significant distress and could have resulted in her losing her job.

Back to top

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

2. I have considered the information Ms J provided with her complaint and subsequently, and given her the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

3. The Council received a referral from the Probation Service about Ms J’s partner. Ms J does not believe this referral should have prompted the Council to initiate child protection procedures. But the Council has a duty to act upon such referrals, to check the safety of any children involved. Ms J has children. So it is unlikely we would find fault here.
4. There is guidance for councils about the child protection procedures it should follow. The Council must collect information to help it decide if children are at risk of harm. The Council knew Ms J worked in a school and asked the school for information about Ms J’s role there. There was no requirement in the guidance to talk to Ms J about this beforehand. So it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council for doing this.
5. Ms J’s view is that child protection procedures were unnecessary, because she has evidence her partner does not present a risk of harm to her children. Ms J is entitled to hold that view. But it does not mean the Council was at fault, in making its own assessment, and reaching a different view on the evidence available. We cannot question decisions which are not flawed by administrative fault, and there is nothing here to suggest the Council failed to follow the proper procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

6. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman