Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about child protection. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it reached its decision to warrant our further involvement, and we could not achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly substantiated a child protection matter after he and his wife asked the Council to accommodate their child due to the child being beyond parental control. He said the Council led them to believe there was nothing to worry about, but the effect of the finding has serious potential consequences for his career, as his work brings him into contact with children. He wanted the Council to assure his employer he posed no transferrable risk to other children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. It is not in dispute that Mr X and his wife asked the Council to accommodate one of their children. At a date after that request, the Council held a safeguarding strategy meeting. This found that the child had been placed at risk of significant harm. Mr X does not accept the Council’s finding.
6. The Ombudsman can only decide if the Council’s decision was reached properly. If there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision, we cannot substitute our own view.
7. As the unredacted records of the safeguarding strategy meeting that reached the decision are not normally available to parents unredacted, I asked the Council for a copy. This did not show enough evidence of fault in process to warrant investigation by us. I explain further below.
8. The Council has a duty to consider safeguarding enquiries where it has reason to believe a child may be suffering or at risk or suffering significant harm. This is done via a strategy meeting. The safeguarding process is not intended to act like a trial, with both parties giving evidence. Its intention is solely to minimise or eliminate risk of significant harm to children. That means the Council did not have to ask for Mr X’s input.
9. The views of Mr X and his wife were nonetheless clear. They felt their child was at risk online, had contacted an unsuitable adult, was not going to school, and did not want to live with them. They felt the reason for the child leaving their home should be because the child was beyond parental control. These views were summarised in the record of the strategy meeting, which was attended by Council officers and other professionals not employed by the Council. The records also made it clear the child had been interviewed alone, which is in line with requirements. The child’s views were reported as being at odds with those of their parents. Council officers and other professionals who knew the child also gave their views. None of them shared Mr X’s concerns, taking the view that the child was a good school student, and that the difficulties at home were the result of over-restrictive parenting that sought to prevent normal teenage behaviour. They gave reasons for their views. The attendees at the strategy meeting were unanimous in their view that the child had been subject to emotional harm.
10. As already stated, it is not for me to agree or disagree with the decision reached if it was reached properly. In this case, the records of the strategy meeting suggest the panel acted properly and was entitled to reach the view it did. It follows that investigation by us of the process followed would be unlikely to find enough evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement. Nor could we recommend the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman