Child protection archive 2020-2021


Archive has 347 results

  • West Sussex County Council (20 000 694)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about her child’s current care arrangements as the Court is considering this. And we will not investigate her complaint about events in 2015 as there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (20 005 986)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: Ms B complains about the way the Council responded to a child protection referral about her children. We find fault with the Council for failing to complete the statutory complaint process. This caused Ms B injustice. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice.

  • Kent County Council (20 009 466)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children services team’s approach towards him. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

  • Nottingham City Council (20 010 853)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council was at fault in its involvement with her family in the course of child in need and child protection action. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part, or add anything to the investigation the Council has carried out.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 325)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint that the Council has failed to investigate and explain why her son was removed from her care and why she has been denied contact with him. Her complaint about her son’s placement is late and there are no grounds for us to consider it now. It would be reasonable for Miss C to pursue contact issues in court.

  • Suffolk County Council (20 005 345)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 22-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s Common Assessment Framework report and plan. Mr B says the Council’s actions caused him and his children distress. The Council was at fault for not considering Mr B’s complaint under the statutory complaint procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay.

  • Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 002 538)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 22-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to address concerns he raised regarding his ex-partner’s behaviour towards their children. He also complained the Council did not uphold all his complaint points at Stage 3 panel. He said the Council’s actions led to his children being removed from his care. The Council was at fault when it failed to carry out the Stage 2 investigation in line with statutory requirements. This fault has not caused Mr X a significant injustice.

  • Portsmouth City Council (20 010 113)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 22-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council has been at fault in the way it has treated her and her family. This is because the complaint is late, and it is unlikely investigation would add anything significant to the responses the Council has already made.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (20 010 135)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 22-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a children services assessment as it is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different outcome than already achieved through the Council’s children social care complaints process.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (20 001 475)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 19-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council was at fault in producing an inaccurate assessment, and in disclosing her personal information. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matters Miss B has raised.

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings