Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council failed to safeguard her child. We could not add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council had failed to safeguard her child, Y, from their father (Mr W). She said it returned Y to Mr W’s care despite being aware of the risks. She said the Children and Family Courts Advisory Service (CAFCASS) had lied in Court.
2. Miss X said the Council’s actions had affected her mental health. She said it resulted in Y being at risk of emotional and physical abuse. She wants the Council to accept responsibility for its actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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:
6. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement, or

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. Where a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it, unless there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question.
10. Miss X made three complaints to the Council about Y’s care. As Y is a ‘looked after child’ the Council considered these through the statutory process. At stage two, the Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) to oversee the investigation. The IO upheld one of Miss X’s complaints. They did not uphold the other two. They set out their reasons for this in their report.
11. Miss X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage three. The stage three panel did not change the stage two findings. However, it made additional recommendations to improve the communication between Miss X and the Council.
12. Although Miss X remains unhappy with the outcome of the complaint, we will not investigate. Firstly, we cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the decision to return Y to Mr W’s care. That is because this was considered by the Court. Therefore, it is outside our jurisdiction. Nor can we investigate her complaint about the content of the CAFCASS report. That is because CAFCASS is not within our jurisdiction.
13. In terms of her complaints to the Council, I have reviewed the stage two report, stage three panel findings and the adjudicating letters from the Council. The IO interviewed relevant people, reviewed the case records and applied the statutory guidance. They have set out their reasoning where they have not upheld a complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how they completed the investigation to justify our involvement. The Panel has independently reviewed this process. Recommendations had been applied where necessary. We could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman