Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the Council’s decision to have a Child Protection Plan. We are unlikely to find fault which caused its decision. And as the Child Protection Plan has now ended, we are unlikely to achieve a significantly worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council should not have called a Child Protection Conference (CPC) or had a child protection plan (CPP) for her child, Y.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; 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 Miss X and the Council, which included the CPC decisions and minutes.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Child protection conferences

5. A council can call a Child Protection Conference (CPC). It can do so if, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm.
6. The CPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan (CPP).
7. After the Initial CPC, there will be one or more Review CPCs. They consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the CPP should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
8. The Council should hold Review CPCs within three months of the initial CPC, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
9. The CPC is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
10. The CPC plays an advisory role. The Council has the final decision on whether to place a child on a CPP or to discontinue a CPP. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the CPC unless there was good reason not to.

Background events

11. The Council called an initial CPC in November 2024. It recommended a CPP. The Council held a review CPC in March which also recommended a CPP. Its decision was not unanimous. The Council held a further review in July 2025 which recommend the CPP be ended.

Analysis

12. The November CPC minutes explain the concerns why the CPC believed Y to be at significant harm. It is unlikely our investigation could decide the Council’s decision to have a CPP was flawed. The CPC minutes show the justification for a CPP.
13. The March CPC minutes showing continuing but reduced concerns. The decision to recommend a CPP was not unanimous. We are unlikely to find the Council’s decision to follow the CPC recommendation was flawed. Whilst not every CPC member agreed, there was still justification for a CPP.
14. Given the Council has since ended the CPP, our investigation is unlikely to achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault which caused the Council to hold a CPP for Y for 8 months. We are also unlikely to achieve a significantly worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman