• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• My assessment
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation. Mr X also has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use if he wishes to vary the contact and residence arrangements for his child.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council has left his infant child at risk in the care of the child’s mother. He said the child’s maternal grandparents abused alcohol, and were racist and controlling. He wanted the Council to produce a child protection plan to protect his child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Councils with child safeguarding responsibilities have a duty to consider whether reports indicate a child may be at risk of significant harm. Whether a child is already subject to a child protection plan, they must review that, and a child protection conference may decide the risk has lessened to the extent that the child should be classed as a child in need instead.
8. In this case, the records provided by Mr X show his former partner and their infant child arrived in the Council’s area with a current child protection plan in place. The records show that a review child protection conference later decided the risk to the child was less, and it ended the child protection plan. The child became a child in need. A child protection conference is a multi-agency body and we cannot question its decision. However, I note that the reason for the child being subject to a child protection plan is shown in the record Mr X provided as relating to the conflict between him and his former partner. It took the view the risk of harm had lessened because the former partner was now living away from Mr X.
9. Mr X disagrees with that view of risk, saying his former partner has an eating disorder and that her parents pose risks to the child. The Council’s current view, as stated in its recent response to Mr X’s complaint, is that there are no current child protection concerns, though the case remains open with an allocated social worker as the child is currently treated as a child in need. That is a matter of professional judgement after following correct procedure by putting the matter to a child protection conference. Mr X’s disagreement alone is not evidence of fault, and investigation by us would not be likely to show otherwise. We could not direct the Council to take a particular course of action.
10. Mr X also says his former partner’s parents have obstructed his contact with his child. Only a court can direct contact arrangements where there is a dispute.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation;
• Investigation would not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking; and
• Mr X has a right to go to court to pursue alternative contact or residency arrangements it would be reasonable to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page