Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parenting assessment because we could not add to the independent investigation and review that has already taken place. The law prevents us considering complaints about the conduct of care proceedings, and there is not enough evidence of fault in arrangements to supervise contact to justify an investigation. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about a parenting assessment and care proceedings. She is unhappy with arrangements for the supervision of contact with her child and oversight of the care order. She wants the Council to appoint a different social worker. She says her involvement with the Council has caused her considerable distress and wants compensation.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms M was involved in care proceedings. I have not included the details here to ensure her anonymity. She objects to a parenting assessment undertaken by the Council for the proceedings. She says the original assessment was positive, but the assessment present to the Court was not.
7. She says her dealings with the Council have caused her considerable stress for which she has required counselling, medication and time off work. She wants the Council to pay compensation.
8. She is also unhappy that the social worker appointed to supervise contact and oversee the care order was involved in the assessment she does not like. She wants the Council to appoint a different social worker.
9. The Council responded to Ms M’s complaint at all three stages of the statutory children’s complaints process. This is a formal procedure, set out in law, which councils must follow to investigate certain types of complaint. It involves:

• a written response from the Council (Stage 1);
• the appointment of an independent investigator to prepare a report (Stage 2); and, if the person making the complaint requests
• an independent panel to consider their representations (Stage 3).

10. When a council has investigated a complaint under this process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We consider whether the council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel.
11. Of the 14 complaints investigated, three were partially upheld or upheld.
12. One concerned an WhatsApp exchange over the course of a weekend between Ms M, the child’s father and the social worker about a password. The matter was resolved the following week.
13. The second concerned delays circulating minutes after meetings. The Council set out the changes it intends to make to address this.
14. The third concerned changes to the parenting assessment before it was submitted to the Court. It appears the changed (‘negative’) version may have been circulated to Ms M’s legal team and not shared directly with Ms M before it was presented to the Court. The Council accepted this was not good practice.
15. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel in full.
16. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is nothing we could add to the independent investigation and review that has already taken place.
17. The law prevents us investigating complaints about matters relating to the care proceedings, including the contents of reports produced by the Council. I cannot, therefore, consider Ms M’s complaint about the parenting assessment presented to the Court or the toll this has taken on her health. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants.
18. Ms M wants a different social worker to supervise contact and the care order. The Ombudsman does not decide how the Council should deploy its staff. This is the Council’s job. We cannot question Council decisions taken without fault.
19. There was discussion at the review panel meeting about how the Council allocates its staff and the importance of the relationship between the social worker and the child as well as with the parent. This satisfies me the Council has considered the needs of all concerned. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
20. For the reasons set out above, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because we could not add to the independent investigation and review that has already taken place. The law prevents us considering complaints about the conduct of care proceedings, and there is not enough evidence of fault in arrangements to supervise contact to justify an investigation. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms M wants, and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman