Summary: Mr K complained the Council failed to properly investigate his safeguarding concerns about harm caused to his daughter by her mother. We found no fault the process the Council followed. It reached a decision it was entitled to make, and we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr K, complained the Council failed to properly investigate his safeguarding concerns about harm caused to his daughter by her mother. He also said the Council was biased toward women as it had previously investigated a safeguarding allegation against him.
2. As a result, Mr K said he experienced distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr K’s complaint to the Council and the Council’s responses;
• considered relevant Law and Guidance and Council Policy; and
• discussed the complaint with Mr K and explained my view. I gave Mr K the opportunity to comment on my view before reaching my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child Protection investigations

7. Anyone who is concerned that a child is suffering or at risk of harm should inform the Council. If the Council has reasonable cause to suspect the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm it must make enquiries to decide whether to take action protect the child or promote her welfare. (Children Act 1974, section 47(1))
8. The government has issued guidance to Councils managing cases where there are concerns about a child’s safety or welfare. (Working Together to Safeguard Children)
9. It is the Council’s Policy for its Safeguarding Children Partnership to consider the safeguarding referrals it receives. This includes considering what action, if any, should be taken on each referral.

What happened

10. Mr K has a daughter, Child X. He is separated from Child X’s mother, Mrs Y, who has parental responsibility for her.
11. In early 2020 Mr K raised a safeguarding concern to the Council. He said he was worried about how Mrs Y dealt with the impact of COVID-19. He said she had taken Child X out of school a week before the lockdown and her home was unclean. He also said Mrs Y told him he could not see Child X during COVID-19.
12. The Council told Mr K, based on the information he had provided, it would not take any further action. It explained this was because Mrs Y had parental responsibility, so she had the right to say who Child X should stay with. It told Mr K he could seek legal advice about contact with his daughter.
13. Three months later, Mr K again raised concerns about Mrs Y’s handling of COVID-19 to the Council. He said Child X was now very weary of everything due to concerns about COVID-19.
14. The Council told Mr K it had considered his concerns, but it again decided these did not meet its criteria. It suggested for Mr K to seek legal advice about contact with Child X.
15. Mr K complained to the Council about its refusal to investigate his concerns. He said this was wrong because it had previously investigated Mrs Y safeguarding allegation against him. He said it should have investigated his concerns because:
• Mrs Y’s allegations against him was not true;
• Mrs Y did not tell him she was pregnant and had moved in with her new partner;
• he had not met Mrs Y’s new partner. However, when Mr K met his partner, he had to introduce her to Mrs Y straight away;
• Mrs Y’s home was too small for three people, and this will be worse when her baby is born;
• Mrs Y’s home is not clean, and once she returned Child X’s soiled underwear to Mr K in a bag which had been sealed for two weeks; and
• he found the Council’s decision to be biased as it had previously investigated Mrs Y’s safeguarding allegations against him.
16. In response, the Council did not uphold Mr K’s complaint. It said it Safeguarding Children Partnership had properly considered his concerns. However, it did not find Child X was suffering, or was likely to suffer, significant harm. It could therefore not take any action. It explained it understood Mr K had issues around contact with Child X, but this was a matter for the courts to consider.
17. Mr K says he has been to court regarding contact with Child X. However, he feels Mrs Y used COVID-19 and safeguarding allegations to prevent his contact with Child X.

Analysis

18. I have not found in how the Council handled Mr K’s safeguarding concerns. This is because the concerns Mr K reported to the Council were unlikely to meet the threshold of a safeguarding concern.
19. Based on the evidence available, the Council’s Safeguarding Children Partnership followed its Policy and found it did not have reasonable concerns Child X was suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. It was therefore entitled to reach its decision to close the safeguarding investigation. As there was no fault in the process it followed, I cannot criticise the merits of its decision.
20. In addition, I have not seen any evidence the Council was biased. It considered each safeguarding allegation on their own merits.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman