Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Ms X’s child’s case. The complaint is substantively about the conduct of court proceedings and the content of court reports, which the law prevents us investigating. It is reasonable for Ms X to raise all concerns as part of the proceedings.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s involvement in her child’s case. Her concerns included the Council discriminated against her, was biased towards the child’s father, made misleading representations, breached court orders, shared court documents with third parties and did not properly conduct therapy.
2. Ms X said the Council’s actions caused significant distress to her and her child. She said the Council also wrongly rejected her complaint despite it not primarily being about matters that are in court.
3. Ms X wanted the Council to arrange reviews of the case by independent assessors, with Ms X’s involvement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by an organisation concerning a matter which the law says we cannot investigate. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X’s complaint is about the Council’s actions in relation to her child’s case. The courts are currently involved, and the Council has been ordered to provide representations, including Section 7 reports.
9. The law prevents us from investigating what happens in court. This includes the content of the Council’s representations to court and also prevents us investigating parts of the complaint Ms X has brought to the court’s attention already.
10. Ms X is of the view the Council’s peripheral actions, such as its conduct outside of the courtroom, are separable and should be considered via the complaints process. She complains, for example:
• a social worker who was allocated to the case partway through did not familiarise themselves sufficiently with the case;
• the social worker did not carry out visits in line with Child in Need guidelines; and
• the Council made a referral to therapy services that mischaracterised the reason for the referral, subsequently preventing the therapy to have the effect the court intended it to.
11. These matters are not separable to the court proceedings. The alleged consequence of many of the matters Ms X complains about would be the Council’s subsequent representations to court. Her concerns the Council has not followed court orders are directly relevant to how the court further considers the case.
12. It is reasonable for Ms X to raise all concerns as part of the ongoing proceedings, where she has not already done so. Her concerns relate ultimately to her view of how reliable the Council’s representations to court are, and are therefore relevant to the court’s consideration of what weight to give the Council’s representations.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is largely about what happened as part of court proceedings, and all concerns are reasonable for Ms X to raise as part of the ongoing proceedings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman