The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s children services actions in response to a safeguarding referral. It is unlikely we will find fault or could achieve a significantly different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, says the Council’s children services team has refused to intervene in contact issues involving her child, D, and the father’s family.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X says that in 2014 the Council advised her to prevent contact between her child, D, and an extended paternal family member, Y.
The contact D has with their father is set out in a Court order.
Ms X say that in June 2022 during contact with their father, D came into contact with Y. She says D has refused to have contact with their father since.
Ms X contacted the Council. It considered her allegations and decided they did not meet the threshold to need child protection action. If Y is a risk to D, then as D is not seeing their father there is no risk of D seeing Y. The Council advised Ms X that if she wanted the contact order changed, she would need to apply to Court. The Council also advised Ms X that if she felt D is in any danger she should call the Police.
Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 explains the Councils role if it has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. It then has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. It can only take action if the risk of significant harm threshold is passed.
Our investigation is unlikely to find fault or be able to achieve a significantly different outcome. It cannot take action if there is no risk of suffering harm without it doing so. Here the Council has decided Ms X is keeping D safe. This is a professional decision it is unlikely on the evidence we have seen we could criticise.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find significant fault or can achieve a significantly different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman