Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of child protection matters. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council conducted and handled a risk assessment in connection with child protection matters. He says the Council’s actions have caused him distress, affected his mental health, and had a negative impact on his relationship with his child.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of risk assessment checks. The checks were carried out as part of child protection action. He disputes both the process followed and the findings reached.
7. Specifically, Mr X was unhappy with the time taken to complete the assessment, the professionalism of the social workers involved, and the level of support provided to him. He also disagreed with the outcome of the Council's child protection risk assessment, which determined that he should not have unsupervised contact with his child and should not have contact when under the influence of alcohol or other substances. Mr X considered this outcome to be unreasonable and believed it was not supported by the evidence available to the Council.
8. There is nothing to suggest fault in the way the Council carried out the assessment that would warrant us questioning the professional judgement of the social workers or their managers. The records show the Council considered the relevant information, assessed the risks identified, and reached a decision that was proportionate and defensible in the circumstances. In the absence of evidence of significant fault in the assessment process, we cannot question the conclusions reached in the risk assessment or the subsequent recommendations regarding Mr X's contact with his child.
9. If Mr X believes the risk assessment, or any other information held by the Council, contains inaccuracies about him, it is open to him to use his right to rectification. There is no role for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman