Summary: Mr E complained the Council has failed to properly investigate his concerns about his daughter’s wellbeing. We find the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr E complained the Council has failed to properly investigate his concerns about his daughter’s wellbeing. He says that because of the Council’s failure to investigate, his ex-partner’s actions are continuing to have a mental and emotional impact on their daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
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 Mr E submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it provided in response.
5. Mr E and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council has been involved with Mr E and his daughter (F) at various times over the past few years.
7. The court issued a Child Arrangement Order which said that F would live with her mother. Mr E was given specific times and dates to have contact with F. The Council was not party to the proceedings.
8. Mr E contacted the Council the following year. He said his ex-partner’s mental health was having a damaging impact on F. He also said his ex-partner was making it difficult for him to spend time with F and this meant he was not having regular contact with her.
9. The Council spoke to Mr E’s ex-partner. She described the difficulties around contact between Mr E and F. She also said the arrangements were not working but it would be in F’s best interests to see Mr E.
10. Mr E called the Council for an update. He said his ex-partner was being difficult and he was not sure what else to do. He also said his ex-partner’s anxiety was having an impact on F. The Council said his ex-partner’s mental health had been raised in court. It also said the main issue was around contact and that him and his ex-partner could not agree. Mr E said the court order was not effective.
11. Mr E’s ex-partner contacted the Council again and provided it with a further update. She re-iterated her previous frustrations about the contact arrangements not working.
12. A senior member of staff reviewed Mr E’s concerns. She looked at the history of the case. She noted Mr E and his ex-partner had a difficult relationship, and this was the subject of legal proceedings. She also noted that neither party had raised concerns about the basic care of F, but there were concerns about the future emotional impact on F. She concluded there was no role for children’s social care at the current time and Mr E and his ex-partner would need to abide by the court order.
13. Mr E called the Council for an update. He said someone had told him they would call him back, but no one had. The Council told him it had closed the case and there was no role for children’s social care. Mr E was unhappy and said his ex-partner had stopped him from seeing F altogether. He also said his ex-partner had mental health issues and that is why she was stopping contact.
14. The Council told Mr E it did not get involved in contact issues. However, it agreed to get a senior member of staff to review the matter again.
15. The senior member of staff reviewed the file again and reiterated her previous advice that there was no role for children’s social care and there was a court order in place. A different senior member of staff reviewed the case a few days later. She agreed with the recommendation for no further action.
16. Mr E complained to the Council. He said after one phone call it had decided that no further action was necessary. He said that he was not having any contact with F. Finally, he said he was concerned that his ex-partner’s attempts of parental alienation and malicious parenting were having a damaging impact on F.
17. The Council responded to Mr E’s complaint. It said it had satisfied itself there was no need for further intervention. It also said as there was a court order in place, Mr E would need to return to court to challenge the order.
18. Mr E emailed the Council and said the court order had nothing to do with his complaint. He repeated his concerns about F.
19. The Council issued a further response to Mr E’s complaint and said it had carried out an assessment and the outcome was there was no need for further intervention. It said it did not consider F was at risk.
20. Mr E remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

21. The Ombudsman can only question a decision or process if it is carried out with fault. In Mr E’s case, the Council investigated his concerns by speaking to his ex-partner and assigning a senior member of staff to review the file. She reviewed the history of the case and noted Mr E and his ex-partner had a difficult relationship. However, there were no concerns about the basic care of F. She also noted there were concerns about the future emotional impact on F. However, at the current time Mr E and his ex-partner would need to abide by the court order, and therefore no further action was required. That was a decision she was entitled to make based on the information she had reviewed.
22. When Mr E called for an update, a different senior member of staff reviewed the file. She also came to the same decision that no further action was required.
23. Mr E is frustrated the Council keeps referring him to the court order. He says his concerns are not to do with contact, but F’s emotional wellbeing. He also says he is being prevented from seeing F because of his ex-partner’s mental instability.
24. Mr E’s concerns about F’s emotional wellbeing because of his ex-partner’s parental alienation are directly linked to the contact arrangements in the court order. The court order is specific on when he should see F and what both him and his ex-partner should adhere to. If Mr E feels his ex-partner has wrongfully prevented him from seeing F, then the Council is not at fault for suggesting it is open to him to return to court to challenge the court order.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman