Child protection archive 2020-2021


Archive has 347 results

  • Surrey County Council (20 003 382)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 27-Oct-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council’s children’s services with the complainant’s children. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome that would be achieved by an investigation.

  • Kent County Council (19 017 261)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 27-Oct-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council unlawfully removed her grandchildren from their father’s care in 2018, gave inaccurate information to a court, and failed to prevent them being taken abroad. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. A court considered the case in 2018. It is for a court to decide the future of the children.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 004 918)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Oct-2020

    Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged breach of a court order. This is because the Ombudsman has no legal power to investigate matters already considered in court and cannot consider any action by a council, concerning a matter which is outside our power to investigate.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (19 015 561)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 26-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council carried out an unnecessary section 47, Child Protection investigation about his daughter. The Council has accepted fault for its handling of the Child Protection investigation. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make a financial payment to Mr X for the distress caused by its faults.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (19 003 275)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 23-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral about his child and his subsequent complaints about this, which caused distress to him and his family. The Council has already apologised, made a payment to Mr X and taken steps to address the issues highlighted by the independent complaint investigation, which is an appropriate response for the injustice caused. The Ombudsman makes no further recommendation to remedy the fault.

  • Durham County Council (20 004 836)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 22-Oct-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about contact arrangements for his grandson. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about matters which have been discussed in court.

  • Kent County Council (19 012 755)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 22-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mrs C complains the Council failed to investigate safeguarding referrals she made about her children who are living with her ex-partner. She also says the Council failed to allow her to use her disability aids, which she needs following a brain injury. She says the Council’s actions caused her a great deal of distress. The investigation found no evidence of fault.

  • Essex County Council (20 004 952)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2020

    Summary: We will not consider Mr X’s late complaint the Council did not provide him with appropriate support in 2009 when it was involved with safeguarding his child. There is not a good reason Mr X did not complain sooner, and we could not now carry out a fair investigation.

  • Liverpool City Council (19 017 287)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s children’s services actions since early 2018, relating to allegations against him. We will not investigate this late complaint, because there is not a good reason Mr X did not complain sooner.

  • South Gloucestershire Council (19 016 966)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about child protection action concerning Mrs X’s grandchild. This is because a court is considering the child’s residence and these issues were raised in court.

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