Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council substantiating a child protection concern about Mr X. The Local Authority Designated Officer for child safeguarding reached a decision they were entitled to reach based on the evidence before them. Investigation by us would be unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X said there was fault by the Council in reaching a decision to substantiate a child protection concern about him as a foster carer. He said the local authority designated office (LADO) process operated like a kangaroo court and he was not allowed to attend. He also said his actions had been self-defence. He wanted the Council to reverse the decision and compensate him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Child protection does not operate on the same basis as court cases, whether civil or criminal. The aim of any LADO process is to protect children from risk of harm, not to establish the innocence or guilt of an adult. The threshold for substantiating risk of harm to a child is deliberately set low by law and guidance. That a LADO’s decision may seem harsh is not a reason for us to find fault with it if it was within the range open to them based on the known facts.
6. Mr X accepted he had bitten a teenage foster child’s forearm during a struggle. He also accepted he had not told his employer about the incident promptly. Both of these matters would allow an allegation of harm to a child under 18 to be substantiated. The LADO could do so even if the teenage foster child had first attacked Mr X. They were entitled to accept the view of social workers that Mr X resorted too quickly to the use of restraint techniques rather than de-escalation, although he said his use of them was limited. There was also no requirement for the LADO to weigh matters against Mr X’s justifications for his actions, either in the original incident or in not telling his employer, which he would have been required to do as his work would bring him into contact with children or vulnerable adults.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the LADO’s actions to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman