Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the child protection actions of social workers. Most of these are not separable from matters of contact and residence decided by a court. Investigation of the rest is not warranted by the alleged fault, and it is unlikely to lead to the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained of the actions of social workers in removing her grandchild from his mother’s care. She said a social worker was rude and threatening and that contact has been unsatisfactory. She said removing her grandchild has caused the family distress and wants the child returned.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Ms X’s complaint and the complaint correspondence. I gave Ms X an opportunity to comment on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council decided Ms X’s grandchild was at risk of significant harm and removed him from his mother’s care. His contact and residency were therefore a matter for a court. The complaint correspondence shows court action has taken place. Most of the matters complained of are not separable from those only a court can decide.
8. Regarding the manner of the social worker and what she said, this is a matter of one person’s word against another’s with no independent corroboration. Even if it were possible to establish what was said, we could not achieve the outcome Ms X wants.
9. Contact sessions since March 2020 have been virtual, not face-to-face. While the family understandably finds that unsatisfactory, given the circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is not unreasonable.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because most of the matters complained of are for a court and it would be reasonable for the family to return to court. Investigation of the remaining matters is unlikely to lead to the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman