Summary: Mr X complains about the actions of the Council’s children services following the death of his child. He also complains about the findings of a serious case review. We are discontinuing our investigation. This is because most of Mr X’s complaints are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. For the remaining complaints within jurisdiction, we do not consider it proportionate to investigate further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions of the Council’s children services following the death of his child. He also complains about the findings of a serious case review. Mr X says the way the Council handled his son’s death has caused him extreme distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X.
7. I considered the information provided by the Council.
8. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

9. In April 2019, Mr X’s child died following an incident. Between April 2019 and March 2021, Mr X made complaints to the Council about the actions of children services following his child’s death.
10. A serious case review was started in January 2020. The serious case review was completed by the Norfolk Safeguarding Children Partnership. This was a multi-agency body, which the Council was a part of.
11. Mr X complained to the Council about the following matters:
• A social worker asked him to attend a meeting on the day his son died.
• A social worker pressurised his older children to look after their younger half-siblings after son’s death.
• A social worker made inaccurate statements in a statement for court.
• The serious case review was inadequate, biased, and was more focused on him rather than his ex-partner’s care of the child.
• An officer did not turn up for an arranged meeting.
• Social services proposed no contact between his adult son and a sibling who was due to be adopted.
• Photographs of injuries to his children he provided to the Council in 2019 was not shown in court.
12. The Council responded to Mr X complaints and noted:
• Children services will always look to family and friends to support children as being with people they know is preferable to foster care. The Council said people’s first reaction was normally to say they cannot care, but sometimes people change their mind. This was why the social worker asked again. The Council apologised to Mr X if he felt social worker was pressurising the older children.
• The statement produced by the social worker was for the court proceedings, so it could not investigate the contents. If Mr X disagreed with the information, he should raise it with his solicitor so it can be managed within the court process.
• It could not investigate the serious case review findings as the process had been completed by Norfolk Safeguarding Children Partnership.
• The decision about adoption made by the Court.
• Accepted there had been a misunderstanding about the meeting. The Council offered to pay back the cost of the taxi and offered Mr X another meeting.
• The issue of the photographs not being shared in court was not something it could investigate as it was part of court proceedings. The Council said Mr X should have raised it with his legal representative so the Court could have been made aware of the concerns.
13. Mr X said he would like to see officers dismissed from their positions within the Council as an outcome of our investigation.

Analysis

14. Mr X’s complaints about an inaccurate statement prepared for court, photographs not being shown in court, and about contact arrangements between siblings are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because these complaints are about what happened in court or could have been addressed during court proceedings. Therefore, we cannot investigate these complaints by Mr X.
15. The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to consider the actions or decisions of a council within a multi-agency body. The serious case review was completed by the Norfolk Safeguarding Children Partnership. This is a multi-agency body which the Council was a part of.
16. However, Mr X’s complaint is about how the multi-agency body completed its serious case review and the findings reached. Mr X’s complaint is not about the specific actions/decisions of the Council within the serious case review.
17. Therefore, I do not consider this complaint to be within jurisdiction because it is a complaint about the action/decision of the multi-agency body, rather than specifically about the action/decision of the Council.
18. This leaves three of Mr X’s complaint that could potentially be investigated by the Ombudsman.
19. On Mr X’s complaint that an officer did not turn up for an arranged meeting, I do not consider any further investigation would lead to a different outcome. This is because the Council had accepted fault, offered to pay back Mr X for his expenses, and offered Mr X a new meeting.
20. Therefore, the Council has already appropriately resolved the complaint and it is unlikely, on balance, that any further investigation would lead to a different outcome. Therefore, it is not proportionate for the Ombudsman to investigate this complaint.
21. On Mr X’s complaint the Council pressurised Mr X’s older children to look after the younger half-siblings, the Council has accepted the social worker did ask the older siblings to look after the younger children. The Council provided its rationale for why the social worker did this and I consider the Council’s rationale to be reasonable in the circumstances.
22. It is clear Mr X’s view was the social worker was pressurising his children. However, even with further investigation, it is unlikely on balance I will be able to reach a finding on this. Therefore, I do not consider it proportionate for the Ombudsman to investigate this complaint.
23. Finally, on Mr X’s complaint the Council asked him to attend a meeting on the day that his son died. It is unclear what the circumstances were surrounding the reasons for the Council asking Mr X to attend the meeting. Therefore, this is a matter the Ombudsman could investigate further.
24. It is acknowledged there is potential for fault and any fault is likely to have caused Mr X some distress. However, Mr X has said he wants the Council to dismiss the officers involved as an outcome. This is not a remedy the Ombudsman can recommend. Instead, any potential remedy is likely to be a small financial remedy to recognise the distress caused to Mr X.
25. Therefore, as further investigation is unlikely to achieve the outcome Mr X wants, I do not consider it to be proportionate to investigate this complaint further.
26. For the reasons outlined above, I am discontinuing my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because most of the complaints are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. For the remaining complaints within jurisdiction, I do not consider it proportionate to investigate further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman