Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council ending child in need plans for Mr X’s children. The Council no longer has safeguarding concerns about the children, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right return to court to resolve issues of contact with his children.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council was wrong to end children in need plans for his children. He said his ex-partner is not complying with the most recent court order and there are different risks top two of his children that require the Council to monitor them via child in need plans.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. It is clear from Mr X’s complaints that he does not have the access to his children he would wish for. The Council’s response to his complaints states the children do not always wish for contact with him. His statement that his ex-partner is already showing signs of not adhering to the most recent court order, and his statement that he wishes to co-parent the couple’s children, both add weight to the conclusion that contact with children is a major focus of the complaints. Regardless of whether it is his ex-partner or his children who are restricting his contact with them, that is a matter only a court can resolve where it is in dispute. For that reason, it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to return to court to seek the outcome he desires.
7. The Council has explained why it no longer has safeguarding concerns about the children, and its decision to end the child in need plans is a matter of the judgement of social workers, not of fault. That Mr X takes a different view of potential risk is not evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• he has a right to return to court to regulate contact and/or residence arrangements for his children it would be reasonable to use; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to end child in need plans to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman