Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children services’ actions. It is unlikely we would find he has been caused any significant injustice directly by Council fault which justifies an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s children services team. He says it failed to safeguard his children and mishandled his family situation.

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. (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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

5. Mr X has two children, Y and Z. In 2022 the Court ordered him to be the resident parent for Y. Y lived with Mr X for a while but with agreement moved to live with their mother. In April 2025 that arrangement suddenly broke down. The police and children’s services contacted Mr X to take Y to his home. Y has remained in Mr X’s care since, and Z joined them in July.
6. The Council carried out a family assessment. It decided there was no evidence Y was at significant harm whilst in Mr X’s care and did not need any safeguarding. It held an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) in June 2025 for Z. Mr X was not notified about the ICPC until the morning of the meeting.

Analysis

7. We are unlikely to find the Council failed to safeguard. The Council assessed Mr X is capable of safeguarding the children. Mr X says Y’s mother refused to care for Y and therefore there was no scope for the Council to be able to have any safeguarding plan with Y in their mother’s home.
8. Mr X says the Council failed to support him by not sorting out school places or health appointments. We are unlikely to find Council fault has caused Mr X direct injustice. The Council does not have parental responsibility for either Y or Z. Mr X does and has the power and duty to arrange these.
9. The Council has accepted it should have provided proper notice to Mr X of the ICPC. It has apologised. In the circumstance of this case, there is not enough injustice caused to Mr X by this lack of notice to justify an investigation or remedy further than an apology.
10. Mr X says he complained early in the process about an officer involved in the case. He says that officer should have been removed from the case. We are unlikely to criticise the Council for not changing officers. It is not practical to expect councils to change allocated officers on children services’ cases every time a parent complains about them.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find he has been caused any significant injustice directly caused by the Council’s fault which justifies an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman