Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a child protection matter. In relation to some of the concerns raised there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. In relation to others, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the child protection process relating to his two children. He complained about:
• a lack of proper analysis of evidence to justify why the threshold of significant harm was met;
• the consideration of unsubstantiated allegations and opinions, and the use of outdated information;
• a failure to record or address his challenges in meeting minutes;
• not being informed about or able to participate in an appeal panel and a poor appeal response.
2. Mr X said the Council’s failings caused ongoing distress due to the forced separation from his children and says the emotional strain has affected all aspects of his daily life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Threshold for child protection

6. The threshold for child protection is that a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. The minutes for the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) in December 2024 and the Review Child Protection Conference (RCPC) held in March 2025 show the concerns related to previous domestic abuse and the impact of this on the children, and the impact of future parental conflict on them. Initially, professionals were wanting to complete a risk assessment and for Mr X to engage in certain work before having contact with the children. It is clear from the minutes for both the ICPC and the RCPC that the professionals decided unanimously that the threshold was met.
7. In its complaint response, the Council accepted there was insufficient detail in the information given about the outcome of section 47 enquiries, for which it apologised.
8. It noted there was a split ICPC – an initial meeting was held with the children’s mother that confirmed the decision the threshold was met, followed by a further meeting with Mr X. It acknowledged Mr X should have had input into that decision, so partially upheld his complaint, but said it was clear the threshold was met. It also said Mr X had been given the chance to speak to the chair before conferences and had done so. It said it would consider what it could learn from the complaint. In a response to Mr X’s appeal, it added that strength of analysis would be addressed as a training need.
9. The Council apologised and said it will take action to prevent recurrence of the issues raised. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Unsubstantiated allegations

10. Council records record an allegation of harassment made against Mr X, which had been referred to the police. The police report read out at conference did not say they were taking no further action. Mr X provided that as an update, and it was recorded in the minutes with an action for the social worker to follow up with the police. This was appropriate action given that Mr X’s information contradicted the formal report received. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. Mr X has also raised concerns about opinions being presented as facts and other inaccuracies, but these relate to reports prepared by the children’s school. We have no remit to investigate the actions of schools.

Failure to record or address challenges from Mr X

12. Conference minutes show that Mr X made some objections to the content of reports, which were discussed and recorded. Mr X did not raise these concerns at stage 2 of the complaints process. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Appeal process

13. Mr X appealed the decision of the RCPC. He sent his appeal to the Safeguarding Board, but the Council said the local arrangement is that such appeals are considered by a service manager with the independent reviewing officer (IRO), who chairs the conferences. There was no appeal panel, but the Council sent a response that addressed the concerns Mr X had raised in his appeal.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation. In addition, investigation by us would not achieve a worthwhile outcome because the decision that the threshold for child protection is met is a multi-agency decision (not solely by the Council) and all professionals agreed the threshold was met.

Conclusion

15. Mr X has made a significant number of complaints to the Council about the child protection process, and these have been investigated using the statutory children’s complaints process. I have considered the records for the complaints process and have not identified flaws that would justify us reinvestigating.
16. For all the above reasons, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to parts of the complaint and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome in relation to others.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman