Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with concerns about his children and its involvement with him. There was no fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ignored safeguarding issues that he raised about his children. He also says the Council wrongly tried to exclude him from a meeting and prevented one of his children from attending a health appointment.
2. Mr X says this has caused him trauma and he cannot see his children which he says has caused him and his children distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly tried to exclude him from a meeting. This is because, although Mr X did complain to the Council about this matter, when the Council contacted him several times to ask for clarification, Mr X failed to respond. The Council therefore didn’t investigate this. We expect a Council to have had an opportunity to investigate a complaint and reply, but the Council could not do this here.
8. I have investigated the remainder of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Duty to Investigate

11. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)

Section 17 duties

12. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
13. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

Child in Need Plan

14. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.

What happened?

15. In mid-April 2025, Mr X made a referral to the Council about concerns he had for the safety of his children. The Council considered the referral and gained further information from other agencies. It decided based on the information it had that it would take no further action.
16. The following day, a manager noted in internal case notes that the children’s mother had acted protectively, other agencies were supporting and so there was no role for the Council.
17. At the end of April, Mr X and his GP made another referral to the Council concerned about the safety of the children. Two days later, a manager noted in internal case notes that they had reviewed the children’s records and were happy safety plans were in place. It also noted that the Council decided concerns were not substantiated and agreed no further action was needed.
18. In early May, the police contacted the Council for advice. The police had been called to the children’s school because Mr X wanted to take the children out of school to see a GP.
19. The Council spoke to Mr X at the same time to say it did not consider it would be in the children’s best interests to go to a GP appointment that day. It told him it had agreed a safety plan with the children’s mother, and he should seek legal advice about the matter. Internal Council records noted that Mr X was happy with this and said he would engage with an assessment of the children’s needs.
20. Following this, the Council noted that it considered information from other agencies and historical case notes and decided it should complete a child and family assessment.
21. A week later, the Council allocated a social worker to complete the assessment. During this assessment, a social worker spoke to Mr X, the children, the children’s mother and other agencies involved. It finished the assessment three days later noting no concerns. The Council told Mr X to seek legal advice if he was unhappy about arrangements for the children and closed the case.
22. In mid-May, the children’s school contacted the Council saying that Mr X wanted to take one of the children from school to a GP appointment.
23. The following day Mr X contacted the Council requesting permission to take one of the children from school to a GP appointment. The Council noted it reviewed case notes and told Mr X they could not give him advice about taking the child to the GP and he should seek legal advice instead.
24. The day after, Mr X took one of the children from school to the GP. The police attended the GP surgery and took the child back to their mother’s care.
25. The same day, Mr X contacted the Council raising concerns about the safety of the children with their mother.
26. A few days later, the Council started another child and family assessment because of the incidents the previous days. The Council finished this assessment in early June and recommended a child in need plan due to concerns of ongoing conflict and instability.
27. A few days later, the school contacted the Council noting that Mr X had raised concerns about the safety of the children. The school noted it had no concerns.
28. Shortly after this a social worker contacted Mr X about the concerns he had raised the previous day to gain more information.
29. I have seen a copy of a letter from Mr X to the Council from mid-June. In this he complained the Council failed to address safeguarding concerns he raised about his children and caused one of his children to miss a medical appointment.
30. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint a week later. It said:

• It did not uphold his complaint that it failed to investigate or acknowledge safeguarding concerns he raised. The Council said it sent the information to its assessment team for further exploration of need.
• In relation to the Council preventing one of his children from attending a GP appointment, the Council said a disagreement took place at school between Mr X and the children’s mother which required police attendance. It noted the appointment was not deemed urgent and its view was taking the child to the GP was not in their best interest. It considered this should be done instead in a more planned way.

31. Mr X complained to the Council, again in mid-June. He said a social worker had attempted to remove him from an online meeting that he needed to be present at to give a statement in relation to the safety of his children.
32. The Council replied to Mr X in mid-July, noting it had given him several opportunities to clarify his most recent complaint and provide additional evidence but Mr X had ignored these requests. It noted it was happy to wait for further information and reconsider its position on whether it could investigate the matters through the complaint process. As Mr X did not respond to this, the Council closed the complaint.

Findings

The Council ignored safeguarding issues Mr X raised about his children

33. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
34. Mr X made two referrals to the Council in April 2025 and one in May 2025 about his concerns of the safety of his children.
35. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider these concerns, and the information it took account of when deciding whether it needed to take action.
36. The Council considered its duty to investigate in each of the concerns that Mr X raised about the children. In making its decision each time, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from the children, their mother, other agencies and information from Mr X. It recorded its decision each time with evidence and managers reviewed the matter. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making decisions on the referrals and I cannot therefore criticise it.
37. There is no evidence the Council ignored the concerns Mr X raised. The Council acted in line with its duties and there was no fault in its actions. The Council considered all the information and was satisfied with the plans in place.

The Council prevented one of Mr X’s children from attending a health appointment

38. Mr X wanted to take his children to the GP on two occasions in May 2025 but said he could not arrange this with the children’s mother because he was not allowed to speak to her.
39. The school and police raised concerns about this matter to the Council who advised that Mr X should seek legal advice about the matter due to issues between him and the children’s mother and that the GP appointment should be done in more of a planned way. Council records note that Mr X said he was happy with this arrangement at the start of May 2025.
40. Later in May 2025, when Mr X asked the Council again about taking he children to a GP appointment, the Council noted that it could not give him advice about this matter and as the children’s mother was not involved in the discussion, he should seek legal advice about this matter.
41. There is no evidence that the Council prevented Mr X taking the children to the GP on any of the occasions, it advised him to seek legal advice and there was no fault in the actions of the Council here.
42. I also note that when Mr X did take one of the children to the GP in mid-May 2025, the police attended and took the child back to their mother’s care. This decision was made by the police without Council input and so there was no fault in the actions of the Council related to this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman