Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making relating to child protection arrangements for her child. This is because it is unlikely we would find any fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X was unhappy the Council decided her child (Y), would be made subject of a child protection (CP) plan. She said the Council made this decision based upon a flawed assessment and did not have her consent. Miss X said the decisions were not evidence based, and she wants the Council to remove the CP arrangements.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X said the Council’s assessment of Y was flawed, was not evidence based, and she did not provide it with her consent to act.
6. Following its contact with Y, the Council initiated a Child and Family (CAF) assessment and at the end of the CAF assessment it decided that Y would be subject of a CP plan. The evidence shows to support its assessment, the Council sought information about Y from a range of sources including Miss X, and other agencies.
7. Shortly after it made this decision it held an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The evidence of the conference minutes show this was multi-agency meeting, and Miss X provided her views. At the end of the ICPC, the notes reflect it was a unanimous decision that Y would be subject of a CP plan.
8. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 Act places a duty on the Council to make enquiries as are necessary into the welfare of a child, where they have cause to believe a child is at risk of significant harm.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council decided it had a duty to make enquiries, and it carried out a CAF assessment. It decided within the required timescales that Y would need to be subject of a CP plan and then it held an initial conference in line with the relevant legislation and guidance.
10. Because there is no obvious flaw in how the Council made its decision(s), we would not criticise the decision(s) it made, irrespective that Miss X disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman