Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services matters which are not separable from court proceedings. The Information Commission and Social Work England are better placed to consider other aspects of her complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decisions to hold child protection plans.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about children services’ actions. She says they have emotionally and mentally destroyed her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
6. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation; or
• there is another body better placed. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Miss X which included the Council’s replies to her.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background events

9. The Council’s children services team carried out a child protection assessment on Miss X’s family following a school referral in November 2025. One child, Y, went to live with their father. The other, Z stayed with Miss X. The Council called an Initial Child Protection Conference (CPC) in December 2025. It recommended a child protection plan for both children. The Council adopted this recommendation.
10. Y’s father started court proceedings to obtain an order that Y live with him.
11. In March 2026, the Council held a review CPC. It recommended ending the child protection plan for Y which the Council adopted, but continued for Z. The Council had concerns that it had not obtained evidence needed about a family member’s historic background. Once it received this it called a review CPC in early June 2026 and Z’s child protection plan ended.

Miss X’s complaints and our position

12. Miss X complained in December 2025 to the Council about the first social worker appointed to the case. By mid January 2026, this social worker had been changed. Our investigation could achieve no more.
13. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable. If Miss X has concerns about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker, it is reasonable to expect her to report her concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.
14. Miss X complained to the Council in early March 2026. She was not happy with the father changing Y’s school and GP and the Council’s involvement in this. She wanted more contact with Y. Here there were ongoing child arrangement court proceedings. The Court has wide powers in child arrangement proceedings. We cannot investigate issues which those proceedings had the power to cover.
15. Miss X also complained about the second social worker. She said the continued child protection plan for Z and the associated social work visits amounted to harassment and intimidation. The Council denied this.
16. The CPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
17. After the Initial CPC, there will be one or more Review CPC to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
18. Review CPC should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
19. The CPC is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
20. The CPC plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the CPC unless there was good reason not to. Here we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to hold a child protection plan in the circumstances Miss X has described.
21. Miss X has more recently complained about the Council not complying with the Court’s case management orders. We cannot investigate this as it is about the conduct of court proceedings.
22. Throughout Miss X’s complaints she has alleged the Council has stated inaccurate allegations about her family. She had the opportunity to state her views to the CPCs.
23. The Information Commission (IC) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes holding or using inaccurate information.
24. There is no charge for making a complaint to the IC, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the IC. This is because the IC is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. I consider that to be the case here and Miss X should therefore approach the IC about her information accuracy concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

25. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we cannot investigate issues involved in Court proceedings. We are unlikely to find fault or there are other bodies better placed on her remaining matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman