Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault in a child protection matter. Investigation by us of the Council‘s actions in respect of Mx X would be unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mx X said the Council’s actions in respect of them were lies, slander, negligence, defamation of character, harassment, maladministration and misfeasance. Mx X’s complaint to the Council made it clear that the matters complained of related to the Council being concerned that Mx X might pose a risk to a child.

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. The child protection matter that gave rise to the complaint concerned two children. One of them made an allegation about Mx X. The other child remained in the family home.
6. I have seen confidential copies of the records of child protection conferences. They show that the main child protection concerns involved people other than Mx X. However, it is clear the Council also received a referral about Mx X as a result of what one child had said.
7. Child protection does not operate on the basis of guilt or innocence. Instead, it is designed to reduce or eliminate risk of significant harm to children. That means child protection authorities may deem a person poses a potential risk to a child if the child or another child alleges actions that cannot be disproved that would amount to harm. We could only find fault if the Council had reached a decision that was procedurally flawed due to being outside the range available to it, or that defied the known facts.
8. In this case, the children were already subject to child protection plans due to known risks. A review child protection conference took the view that because of the child’s allegation about Mx X, which could not be disproved, there was a potential risk to another child still at home. It could do that. While that decision might be unfair to Mx X, investigation by us would be unlikely to find that the Council should have reached a different decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mx 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