Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decisions regarding a temporary placement for her grandchild and the contact arrangements for her son and his children. The Ombudsman has stopped investigating the complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X and her son want.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on her own behalf and on behalf of her son, Mr Y. She complained that, in connection with a child protection case involving her grandchild, Mr Y’s child, G, the Council:
• did not allow G to be placed with her; and
• decided unfairly that Mr Y should only be allowed supervised contact with his children.
2. Ms X says she lost the opportunity to look after her grandchild. She says her son has been unable to spend quality time with his children, there is no end in sight to the current supervised contact arrangements, and the stress of the situation has affected her son’s health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information from:
• Ms X’s complaint to us and from a telephone conversation with her; and
• the Council’s responses to Ms X through its complaints procedure and its response to my enquiries.
5. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on this draft decision. I considered the comments received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr Y and G’s mother, Ms Z, are separated. G lived with Ms Z but also spent time with Mr Y.
7. The Council became involved with the family after G had an injury while in
   Mr Y’s sole care.
8. As part of its safeguarding procedures the Council carried out assessments of
   Mr Y’s and Ms Z’s parenting abilities. During that time the Council placed G temporarily with other members of G’s family and then with unrelated foster carers. G later returned to live with Ms Z. The Council would not consider placing G with Ms X because of her involvement after G was injured and before any medical help was sought for G. Ms X says the Council considered her as one of the ‘pool of perpetrators.’
9. The Council also required Mr Y’s contact with G to be supervised by Mr Y’s family. Mr Y was aware of the requirement but did not sign his agreement to it.
   Mr Y understood that, if he had unsupervised contact with G, the Council could seek to remove G from Ms Z’s care.
10. Mr Y and Ms Z had another child. The Council extended the requirement of supervised contact to cover contact between Mr Y and the newborn child.
11. Ms X complained to the Council and said Mr Y wanted to have unsupervised access to G. Through its complaints procedure the Council explained to
    Ms X and Mr Y that it would not change its requirement for Mr Y’s contact with G to be supervised unless it was ordered to do so by a court. The Council did not intend to take court action itself because it considered G was being safeguarded appropriately by the supervised contact arrangements. The Council said Mr G could apply to the court for a contact order himself.
12. Mr Y took his own court action. The court issued a child arrangement order which requires his contact with both children to be supervised.

Reasons for not continuing an investigation into Ms X’s complaints

The Council’s refusal to place G with Ms X

13. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could find fault with the Council refusing to place G with Ms X. The Council’s consideration of her as one of the ‘pool of perpetrators’ was a sufficient reason for refusing such a placement. Also, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman after G returned to live with Ms Z. In those circumstances the Ombudsman cannot achieve a remedy Ms X would be happy with as there is currently no need for an alternative placement for G.

The Council’s decision that Mr Y should only be allowed supervised contact with his children.

14. Mr Y’s court hearing took place after the start of our investigation. The court ordered that Mr Y’s contact with both children must be supervised. The decision of the court is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction although the actions of the Council before the court decision are still in jurisdiction. But, even if we found fault with the way the Council handled the issue of contact arrangements, the court’s order now ensures Mr Y cannot have the unsupervised contact he wants. In these circumstances, although the Ombudsman cannot be sure there has been no fault with the Council’s actions, we cannot justify further investigation of this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have stopped investigating Ms X’s complaints. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X and Mr Y want.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman