Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way an Initial Child Protection Conference was conducted. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the courts if he wishes to have different contact arrangements with his children.

The complaint

1. Mr X says there were procedural failings by the Council in the way it conducted an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC), which decided his children needed Child Protection Plans and ordered reduced contact with his children. He feels misrepresented and wants a review of the ICPC process. He also wants increased contact with his children.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. It says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Chair of an ICPC did not allow him to correct alleged inaccuracies in reports considered during the conference, nor was he allowed to provide his own evidence. Mr X says had this been allowed, his children might not have been subject to Child Protection Plans.
7. The decision to put Child Protection Plans in place for Mr X’s children was one the Council was entitled to make given the evidence already available to it. The objective of the ICPC is not to discuss alleged inaccuracies in reports, a point which had already been put to and rebutted by the professionals or agencies involved, but to decide what is in the best interests of a child. Despite this, the ICPC was delayed to give Mr X time to highlight the alleged inaccuracies in the information presented. There is not enough evidence of fault here so we will not start an investigation.
8. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. He ultimately wants increased contact with his children. We do not have the power to tell the Council to stop any child protection action or to allow Mr X different contact with his family. He would need to apply to Court to request different contact arrangements.
9. Mr X also says the Council refuses to proceed any further with his complaints. I do not see any evidence the Council, who used an independent investigator, has failed to adequately address Mr X’s complaint. Its response is clear, to the point, and refers to the facts it relied on. We will not investigate complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the substantive matters of the complaint. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and a request for different contact arrangements is a matter only a court could decide so it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to court to achieve what he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman