Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions following a safeguarding referral about his children. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has discriminated against him and his family. He believes it has used false information to place his children on Child Protection plans. He says his children were traumatised when the Council removed from his and his wife’s care for four days.

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. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police or schools when these relate to safeguarding matters. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council and police received a safeguarding referral about Mr X’s children. The police attended and arrested Mr X and his wife. Where children are in need of immediate protection the council, or the police, must act as soon as possible after the referral if removal is required. The council can apply for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO), or the police can issue a Police Protection Order (PPO) which means a police officer can remove the child immediately.
8. The Council acted following the arrests and PPO by placing Mr X’s children in foster care for four days while the police completed its investigation. The police ended its involvement shortly after this and did not pursue any charges against Mr X and his wife. When a council has 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 that used by the police or the Courts who require evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
9. The Council undertook its own child protection enquiries. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
10. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of concerns. He and his wife strenuously deny causing harm to their children. The Council convened an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) and concluded the children should be placed on child protection plans. Mr X and his wife attended the ICPC and were able to submit their representations to the ICPC Chair in writing.
11. There is no doubt the process of children being subject to child protection plans can be a stressful and upsetting time for the family involved. Any parent or carer would worry about outside agencies becoming involved in their family life. That does not however mean the Council should not act to ensure children are protected from harm. The Council has given Mr X detailed reasons for taking the action it has in his children’s case.
12. The Council followed the correct process to investigate the concerns the school and Police raised with it. I cannot say there is fault in the Council’s actions, even though Mr X thinks the Council should have investigated differently. I cannot say that even if the Council had acted differently, that it would have resulted in any different outcome.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council appears to have followed the correct process, considered relevant information and fully justified the reasons for its decision. In the absence of fault with the Council’s decision making, we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman