Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s actions have denied the complainant and his children their right to family life. This is because the key decisions were made in court and do not fall to the Ombudsman to consider.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that fault on the Council’s part in the course of its involvement with his family has denied him and his children their right to family life.

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 about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, 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)

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. Mr X’s children are in their mother’s care. Mr X says the actions of a social worker were material to the negative outcome of private law proceedings relating to the care of the children. Specifically, he complains that the social worker induced the children’s mother to make complaints to the police, and then produced a biased Section 37 report.
8. Mr X says that, as a result of the Council’s actions, he has not seen his children for 20 months. He believes this has denied him and the children their human right to family life and amounts to parental alienation. He also specifically complains that a social worker has not yet passed on gifts from him to the children.
9. The arrangements for the children have been determined in court. This places all matters relating to them outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This includes where the children live and the nature and frequency of Mr X’s contact with them.
10. The law prevents us from considering what happens in court. This extends to the content and production of evidence such as Section 37 reports. We cannot therefore consider whether the Council’s actions have contributed to the fact that Mr X has not seen his children. There is no discretion available to us on this matter.
11. Mr X has set out what he regards as unfairness in how the Court considered the case. That is not something on which we can express a view. If Mr X is unhappy with the current arrangements for care or contact, or believes his legal rights have been infringed, his recourse is to go back to court. There is no role for the Ombudsman.
12. The allegation regarding Mr X’s gifts for his children is not so significant as to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. I note that the Council has declined to accept a complaint from Mr X until he has met with an officer from the service. That is a reasonable position and we will not criticise it. This may provide Mr X with the opportunity to pursue the matter with the service directly, and raise the matter formally if is unhappy with the response.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because it concerns matters which have been decided in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman