Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about issues around her children being accommodated for a week with extended family. We are unlikely to find Council fault has directly caused significant injustice. We cannot investigate events considered and decisions made within Court proceedings.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council acted when her children went into care for seven days in 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, 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. (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 Miss X and the Council’s replies to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In May 2024 Miss X children went to live with extended family for seven days. Miss X says the Council told her it had received a safeguarding allegation which meant they either had to live with extended family or would be taken to foster carers. The Council says Miss X nominated family.
7. After the seven days, a Court, following the Council’s application for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) ordered the children be returned to Miss X under 24 hour surveillance.
8. Miss X says the Council did not tell her the full account of the safeguarding allegation when the children left her care. The Council said in its reply to her complaint the Police had asked for details to be kept from Miss X as revealing them would risk its investigation. We are unlikely to find any significant Council fault in deciding not to disclose the full events.
9. Miss X believes the children should never have left her care. The Council says it was acting in line with safeguarding practice and principles. Miss X alleges failings around the consent she gave for her children to live with family. We will not look at this. On Miss X’s account the children would have been removed without her consent if she had not consented. The Council has alternatives for this, including a Police Protection Order. It is unlikely given what she was told, that we would find that had she not consented the children would probably not have been removed but would have remained in her care.
10. We cannot investigate the decision to have 24 hours surveillance or issues with this. A Court decided this and it was for the Court to decide if and when it should be amended.
11. In its reply to Miss X’s complaint the Council accepted some communication issues. It offered £100. We are unlikely to achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we cannot look at issues which have been decided by a Court. We are unlikely to find fault or significant injustice directly caused by any failings in getting consent to accommodate Miss X’s children with their extended family.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman