Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision about contact between Mr X and B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council has not properly considered his wish for contact with B.

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:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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.
6. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Until March 2021, Mr X was jointly fostering B and had done so for nearly five years. Mr X and Ms Y separated and Mr X left the family home. He began having contact with B twice weekly. He says he had been B’s daily father. In September 2021, the Council decided that it needed to reduce Mr X’s contact with B. It says it considered B’s best long term interests. It says it consulted with B’s Independent Reviewing Officer and B’s birth parents. The proposed contact would be similar to the birth parents. The Council proposed a six month gradual reduction in contact.
8. Mr X complained. He says it is not in B’s best interests to reduce the contact. He says the Council did not consult widely enough.
9. The Council sent two replies to Mr X’s complaints. Its replies show that it held a meeting with Mr X in early January 2022 attended by the allocated social worker, the team manager and the supervising social workers.
10. Mr X it seems had the opportunity to explain his views to the Council. Mr X feels this was after the Council had made its decision.
11. The Council as B’s corporate parent has to make the decisions on B’s care. It has a general duty to promote contact between specific people which includes wider biological family members but does not specify previous foster carers.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. It is unlikely we would find fault in how it took the decision, as it consulted with relevant people and Mr X has had a good opportunity to explain his view. We therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault which has caused its decision on contact.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman