Child protection archive 2020-2021


Archive has 347 results

  • Nottingham City Council (20 003 205)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 06-Jan-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has treated the complainant badly and will not tell his wife to return to the family home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Torbay Council (19 017 097)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 05-Jan-2021

    Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council investigated concerns she had about the person caring for her granddaughter. We found there was no fault in the way the Council explored each allegation. The Council was also not at fault for limiting how much information it shared with Miss X, or for deciding to keep her granddaughter in a foster placement with her sibling.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 890)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 05-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the remedy the Council offered following its investigation into his complaint about a child protection investigation. He said the Council delayed completing a risk assessment, which delayed him resuming contact with his son and this caused him distress. Mr B felt the remedy offered by the Council did not reflect the distress he experienced. We decided the remedy offered by the Council was sufficient given the injustice caused to Mr B by its fault.

  • London Borough of Newham (20 004 080)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 05-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council carried out its child protection risk assessments. He says the Councils reports are inaccurate and biased. The Ombudsman discontinued its investigation into Mr B’s complaint. It is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

  • Norfolk County Council (20 004 261)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 05-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained about an assessment the Council wrote in respect of their granddaughter D, for whom they were special guardians. They felt the Council misrepresented them in the assessment, included inaccurate information about them and treated opinions as fact, which caused them distress. We cannot find fault with the actions the Council took.

  • Torbay Council (19 020 207)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 04-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council completed an assessment during a child protection investigation without allowing him the opportunity to have input. He also complained the Council failed to give him enough time to read the assessment report, especially as he has dyslexia. We find the Council failed to give Mr B enough time to read the assessment report. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused to Mr B.

  • London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (20 001 013)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 04-Jan-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council when it required him to complete an anger management course before returning to the family home. It did so based on its assessment of the risk to the children and although it could have been more flexible, its more cautious approach was to safeguard the children, and was not fault.

  • London Borough of Newham (20 004 394)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 24-Dec-2020

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to explain why the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry was not met. This is because the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner.

  • Hampshire County Council (20 003 141)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 23-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr C complains about the actions of the Council towards himself and his child, D. The Council considered his complaint at stage one of the statutory children’s complaints procedure but refused to further consider it at stage two. We find fault with the Council for denying Mr C the opportunity to progress his complaint through the statutory complaint’s procedure. An injustice was caused to Mr C by putting him to the time and trouble of complaining to the Ombudsman. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, consider his complaint at stage two and make staff aware of this complaint to share learning from it.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (20 000 636)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 22-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the actions of children services and their handling of a child protection intervention. She says the Council misrepresented information, did not tell her it was assessing her, did not involve her in the assessment, and did not invite her to the initial child protection conference. She also complains about the social worker and the Council’s complaint handling. We find some fault with the Council. We have made recommendations.

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