Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s child protection actions concerning Ms X’s family. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council was at fault by manipulating her family. She said it lied, ignored elements of their case, exaggerated facts and got other facts wrong. She said a delay by the Council in contacting them coloured its later actions. She said it had not explained why it had not carried out a risk assessment of her partner, but continued to assert he posed a serious risk to children. She said the Council had traumatised her children and torn apart her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Child protection actions by councils with such duties have a low threshold, and they have a wide latitude to take actions to protect children. All other interests are secondary to that in law. If the Council receives a child protection referral that it cannot quickly discount, it would be usual to make enquiries to satisfy itself that children are not at risk of or are suffering significant harm. In this case, the referral came from a credible source and referred to matters concerning Ms X’s partner that the Council could treat as posing a potential risk of significant harm to Ms X’s children. That Ms X takes the view the risk was not so great, and that she says the Council took long to react to the referral, does not affect that.
6. Speaking to children alone to determine if they have suffered significant harm, even where a child may have a condition, or this may be upsetting, is regarded as good practice. In this case, the partner might potentially have had unsupervised contact with the children.
7. The Council stated it had not made the children subject to child protection plans because the partner had left the family home and Ms X ended the relationship by the time it needed to make the decision. It could make that decision, and making it does not mean its earlier actions would have been fault. The Council could also decide later that child protection plans were not needed when Ms X resumed the relationship because she had agreed to abide by a safety plan intended to prevent unsupervised contact between the partner and her children. That Ms X takes a different view of the risk posed by her partner would not allow us to decide the Council’s opinion is wrong.
8. Other matters raised by Ms X in her complaint to the Council would not be likely to lead to a finding of fault because there is not enough evidence of fault in the central matter complained of.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation by us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman