Archive has 5 results
-
Norfolk County Council (17 018 099)
Statement Upheld Child protection 29-Mar-2019
Summary: There was no fault with the way the Council reached its decision to share information about a child protection investigation with the hospital where Miss B was giving birth. There was also no fault with the way the Council decided to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conferences. However, the Council failed to keep proper records which has hindered this investigation and left Miss B with some uncertainty about what happened and how decisions were reached. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss B and take action to improve its record keeping in future.
-
Surrey County Council (18 005 872)
Statement Upheld Child protection 29-Mar-2019
Summary: Mr X says the Council did not communicate with him when it conducted a section 47 enquiry into an allegation of abuse made by one of his children in 2017. There was no fault because the Council did not communicate with Mr X before it closed the section 47 enquiry. There was fault because the Council asked Mr X’s former partner to sign a working agreement without fully considering all the circumstances. It should also have consulted the Police when it closed the enquiry. The identified faults did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of the matter by the Ombudsman.
-
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (18 017 637)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 28-Mar-2019
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint that the Council has been at fault in the course of its involvement with her children. This is because the matters about which Miss A complains have been, or can be, considered in court.
-
East Riding of Yorkshire Council (17 006 049)
Report Upheld Child protection 18-Dec-2018
Summary: Mr F complains the Council failed to protect his young son, B, from harm. B’s mother, Ms M, told the Council she had ended her relationship following an assault by her partner, P. However, she quickly resumed the relationship. B was seriously injured by P. B now lives with his father, Mr F.
-
City of York Council (17 006 785)
Report Upheld Child protection 16-Oct-2018
Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complain about what happened when their youngest son, who we shall call Z, was admitted to hospital. Ms X and Mr Y’s son passed away whilst he was in hospital and whilst the family were subject to ongoing court action by the Council regarding their children. Ms X and Mr Y say the Council restricted their ability to spend time with Z when he was in hospital which limited the time they were able to spend with him before he passed away. Ms X and Mr Y complain the Council delayed dealing with their complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.