Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We are unlikely to find the fault Mr X alleges and we cannot investigate the Police’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to safeguard his child and keep him properly informed. He says it also ignored past events and prevented contact between him and his child Q.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about action taken by or on behalf of any local policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, Section 26, paragraph 2 as amended)
3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X which included the Council’s replies to Mr X’s complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background events

6. Mr X has a child Q with Ms Y. Mr X does not live in the UK. The Council says the Police became aware of an incident involving Ms Y and Q and the Police arranged for an extended family member to temporarily care for Q. The Council says it became aware the next day and began a five day s47 safeguarding investigation. During those five days it spoke with Mr X. Mr X says this is because he contacted the Council. The Council accepts this is the case. It says no one provided it with his contact details.
7. The Council then carried out a child in need assessment which ended two months later. It involved Mr X. He would have liked to have had more involvement.
8. Mr X complained to the Council. He says the Council should have proactively contacted him more and kept him involved more. He says the Council should have properly considered him as an option to care for Q. He does not believe the Council has kept Q safe. He says the Council has failed to look properly into his allegation Ms Y abducted Q from him. He says the Council has failed to assist his contact with Q.
9. The Council said in reply that it told Mr X all the relevant information it could. It did not control the contact Q has with their family. It said it was not for it to investigate the abduction allegation. It told Mr X has had to apply to Court if he wanted contact with Q which Ms Y did not consent to.

Analysis

10. We cannot investigate the circumstances around the incident why Q ended up in another family members care because of the Police’s involvement.
11. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council not handing Q to Mr X as he was not in this country. And it did not have the power to hand Q to Mr X as it did not have parental responsibility for Q.
12. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council not telling Mr X everything about Q’s care and circumstances. It cannot disclose information about Ms Y without her consent.
13. The Council does not have parental responsibility for Q and therefore cannot dictate Q’s contact with family.
14. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council not exploring Mr X’s abduction claims. The Council is not responsible for investigating criminal allegations.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find the fault Mr X alleges and we cannot investigate the Police’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman