Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Ms X’s child, who is a looked after child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation and we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms Y is acting on behalf of Ms X in this complaint. Ms X is concerned about her child, Z, who was removed from her care, having contact with their other parent. Ms X says her child’s other parent has previously been abusive and poses a risk to her child. Ms X wants all contact between her child and their other parent to be stopped and for her to have more contact with her child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s child (Child Z) was removed from her care and placed with a relative, who has since been appointed as Child Z’s Special Guardian. Child Z continues to have contact with Ms X and their other parent.
7. Ms X has raised concerns with the Council about Child Z’s contact with their other parent. Ms X believes the Council has agreed to Child Z having overnight visits with their other parent. She has complained to the Council about this as she believes her ex-partner poses a significant risk to Child Z. Ms X has also asked the Council to agree to Child Z having overnight stays with her.
8. The Council has responded to Ms X’s concerns under stage one of its corporate complaint procedure. It has explained Child Z stopped having unsupervised contact with their other parent while concerns about them were being investigated by another organisation. Following this, the Council undertook its own risk assessment and sought views from Child Z to decide unsupervised contact could resume. The Council decided not to allow overnight visits between Child Z and their other parent. The Council also explained to Ms X that her contact time with Child Z would be increased but would not include overnight visits at this time.
9. The Council has explained it has made the decisions about Child Z’s contact with their parents as part of a multi-disciplinary panel of professionals, taking account of all relevant evidence and Child Z’s wishes. The Council has reiterated that it has not agreed to Child Z having overnight visits with their other parent since its stage one complaint response to Ms X.
10. Ms X wants us to get the Council to stop all contact between Child Z and their other parent. We do not have the power to make the Council take this action, even if we were to investigate and find evidence of fault.
11. The Council appears to have made decisions about Child Z’s contact with their parents in accordance with child safeguarding procedures. It is unlikely we would find evidence of fault in this respect to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our further involvement and we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman