Summary: Mrs P complains about her lack of contact with her granddaughter, G. The Council has not prevented Mrs P from seeing G. It has suggested she attend contact with other family members, including her son, G’s father. The Council declined Mrs P’s request to take G away for a weekend but gave reasons for its decision. The Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s decisions.

The complaint

1. Mrs P complains about her lack of contact with her granddaughter, G. She is unhappy she was not considered a potential carer for G.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decisions are right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with them. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decisions were reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered:
• information provided by Mrs P;
• information provided by the Council;
• the Children Act 1989; and
• The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations, volume 2: care planning, placement and case review published by the Department for Education in June 2015.
5. I invited Mrs P and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs P is G’s paternal grandmother: G’s father is Mrs P’s son.
7. The Council removed G from her parents because they were unable to care for her. The Council had been involved for some time. The Council arranged for G to live with relatives.
8. The Court granted the Council a Care Order for G in October 2018. This gives the Council parental responsibility for G.
9. Mrs P says she learned that G was no longer living with her parents from a family member who had read about it on social media. She asked her son why she was not involved. She says he told her, “we decided not to tell you.”
10. Mrs P alleges the Council has colluded with G’s parents, maternal relatives, her ex-husband and his partner to exclude her. She does not believe the Council has acted in G’s best interests. She was particularly unhappy she had not been considered as a carer for G and had not been able to take G to visit her extended family.
11. The Council explained that Mrs P was not part of the care proceedings and was not included in the Family Group Conference when contact was agreed. The Council said this was led by G’s parents, not children’s social care.
12. Mrs P is unhappy. She says she had regular overnight care of G before she was taken into care. She believes she could have provided better care for G than relatives on the other side of the family.

Consideration

13. The Ombudsman does not decide where G should live or the contact she should have with her relatives. This is the Council’s job. My role is to check the Council made its decisions properly.
14. The Council’s primary concern is G’s welfare.
15. Legislation and government guidance set out how councils should act when working with children and families, including when councils remove children from their parents. Two principles are particularly relevant to Mrs P’s complaint:
• parents should be encouraged to exercise their parental responsibility for their child’s welfare in a constructive way, and where compulsory intervention in the family is necessary, it should, where possible, support rather than undermine the parental role; and
• continuity of relationships is important and attachments should be respected, sustained and developed.
16. The Council has parental responsibility and can overrule G’s parents, but they have not lost their parental responsibility for G.
17. G is a very young child. She was 30 months old when she was removed from her parents and taken into the Council’s care. The Council worked with G’s parents to identify important relationships and potential carers for G. The Council invited the people G’s parents identified to a family group conference to discuss contact between G, her parents, her half-siblings and her extended family. Mrs P was not invited.
18. The Council explained why it did not consider Mrs P as a potential carer for G: she was not suggested by G’s parents and other, suitable people were. There is no fault in the Council’s decision.
19. The Council declined Mrs P’s request to take G away for a weekend, but gave reasons for its decision: the Council wants G to settle with her new carers. There is no fault in the Council’s decisions.
20. The Council has not prevented Mrs P from seeing G. It has suggested she attend fortnightly contact with other family members, including her son, G’s father. G’s father still has parental responsibility and can involve Mrs P in his daughter’s life. There is no fault in the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have ended my investigation. While the Council declined Mrs P’s request to take G away for a weekend to visit relatives, it has not prevented Mrs P seeing G. There is no fault in the Council’s decisions. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman