Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about a child protection conference because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response. The welfare of Ms M’s children was to be considered by the Court. It would have been reasonable for Ms M to raise any concerns or disagreements about the Council’s assessment directly with the Court during the proceedings.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains following a child protection conference in May 2025. She says the Council presented out of date and inaccurate information in its report. She complains the Council did not invite her mental health nurse. Ms M believes this influenced the outcome. She is unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaint.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could have been raised during legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) 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. The Council was involved because of concerns about Ms M’s care of her children.
7. By the time of the child protection conference, the children lived with their father. He had begun private family proceedings to determine where the children should live.
8. The child protection conference decided Ms M’s children were at risk of neglect in her care and there should be a child protection plan.
9. Ms M disagrees with the decision and the evidence on which it was based. She did not engage with the child protection plan or the Council’s efforts to promote contact with her children.
10. In its response to Ms M’s complaint, the Council noted the Court had ordered the Council to undertake an assessment and produce a welfare report. The Council agreed to involve Ms M’s mental health nurse and continue to work with her to promote her contact with her children.
11. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the child protection conference because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
12. In any event, the welfare of Ms M’s children was to be considered by the Court. It would have been reasonable for Ms M to raise any concerns or disagreements about the Council’s assessment directly with the Court during the proceedings.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman