Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral about his child. Further investigation by this office could not add to the response the Council has already provided.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council unfairly treated him as guilty until proven innocent when it received a safeguarding referral about his child. He says he was unfairly separated from his children and it has taken significant time since to rebuild his relationship with them. He wants the Council to apologise for the way it treated him and to investigate impartially in future.

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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council and the police jointly acted on a safeguarding referral from a third party alleging Mr X had assaulted his child. Mr X was arrested and subject to bail conditions which formed the basis of the Council’s safety plan. The Council held a strategy meeting and Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC), which decided the threshold was met to place Mr X’s children on a child protection plan.
5. Mr X says the police investigated and lifted bail conditions around his contact with his children about a month after the referral. The Council stepped down the child protection plan for Mr X to a child in need plan some time later.
6. The Council has provided Mr X with a detailed response to his complaints about the action it took. The Council explained it could not involve Mr X in the ICPC because it needed to avoid jeopardising the ongoing police investigation. It also explained that its safety plan for Mr X’s children sought to ensure he could comply with bail conditions.
7. Councils have a statutory duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. When a council receives concerns about a child, the law requires it to take action to find out more. It only has to have ‘reasonable cause to suspect’. This is a lower burden of proof than used by the police or the Courts who require evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
8. Mr X strongly disagrees with the Council’s actions but that does not mean they amount to fault. The Council has set out the rationale for its actions and they appear to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the professional judgement of the Council’s officers or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Our investigation is not warranted because we could not add significantly if at all to the responses the Council has already provided.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the response the Council has already provided.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman