Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in supporting the complainant’s wife in removing his children from the family home on false grounds and in denying him contact with them. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council has been at fault in supporting his wife in removing his children from the family home on false grounds and in denying him contact with them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council has unreasonably accused him of being a perpetrator of domestic violence and has facilitated the removal of his children from the family home. Mr X says the Council has acted outside its remit, and in contradiction to the findings of the courts. He wants the Council to help him to reconnect with his children, with whom he is not in contact.
6. The correspondence Mr X has provided shows that, at the point at which he made his complaint, an assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 was underway. That being the case, the Council had not yet taken a definitive view on whether Mr X’s children are at risk of harm.
7. What the Council did was act on a referral it received and assisted Mr X’s wife to exercise her parental right to move with the children to a confidential address. Mr X does not agree with this action but that does not mean it amounted to fault. Neither does it indicate that the Council was acting outside its remit, as Mr X alleges. The fact that the Court chose not to issue a non-molestation order does not outweigh the Council’s duty to consider and act on referrals it receives. It is entitled to take its own view.
8. Mr X will have the opportunity to any action the Council decides to take as a result of the assessment. There is no evidence of significant fault in the Council’s actions so far, and there are therefore no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene. Neither can we achieve what Mr X wants. If he believes he is being unreasonably denied contact with his children, his recourse is to take the matter to court. There is no role for the Ombudsman

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman