Child protection archive 2020-2021


Archive has 347 results

  • North Somerset Council (20 011 351)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 09-Mar-2021

    Summary: We cannot investigate Mr C’s complaint about the involvement of the Council’s children’s services with his family. This is because the matter has been considered in court.

  • Kent County Council (19 011 815)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 05-Mar-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains that both councils – Kent and Havering – failed to take safeguarding action when her older, adult son disclosed that he had sexually abused her younger son, who is a child, six years previously. Kent was at fault for a two-month delay in telling Havering about the disclosure, and both councils were at fault for failing to tell Ms X about it in good time. Both councils also failed to properly communicate with each other when considering safeguarding action, which meant neither held a strategy discussion to explore the potential risk. Ms X’s younger son, who, it appears, was not actually a victim of abuse, suffered no injustice. But both councils have agreed to provide remedies to recognise Ms X’s distress, and to change their procedures and train their staff to prevent similar failures in future.

  • London Borough of Havering (19 011 816)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 05-Mar-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains that both councils – Kent and Havering – failed to take safeguarding action when her older, adult son disclosed that he had sexually abused her younger son, who is a child, six years previously. Kent was at fault for a two-month delay in telling Havering about the disclosure, and both councils were at fault for failing to tell Ms X about it in good time. Both councils also failed to properly communicate with each other when considering safeguarding action, which meant neither held a strategy discussion to explore the potential risk. Ms X’s younger son, who, it appears, was not actually a victim of abuse, suffered no injustice. But both councils have agreed to provide remedies to recognise Ms X’s distress, and to change their procedures and train their staff to prevent similar failures in future.

  • Coventry City Council (20 003 907)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 04-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of child protection procedures concerning his daughter C. We have found some fault in the section 47 investigation leading to an initial child protection conference. We also found the Council should have considered Mr B’s complaint through all three stages of the statutory procedure. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £350 and has already taken steps to improve its procedures.

  • Lancashire County Council (20 011 444)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 03-Mar-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council made false allegations about her, leading to the removal of her daughter from her care. This is because the complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now.

  • City of York Council (20 011 049)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss D’s complaint that the Council failed to ensure that a member of staff sends her a personal apology for including inaccurate information in a social work report. This is because it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (20 010 726)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 01-Mar-2021

    Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to take safeguarding action to protect her child. The Court is considering the child’s care and we cannot investigate the same issues.

  • Staffordshire County Council (20 010 814)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about matters during a court case in 2013 and the actions of her son’s special guardians at contact sessions. We cannot investigate matters that happened during court proceedings, and it would be reasonable for Miss X to return to court if she is dissatisfied with contact arrangements.

  • West Sussex County Council (20 010 383)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Feb-2021

    Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral because he has since taken the matter of his child’s safeguarding to court.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20 000 314)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 24-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr and Mrs E complained about the Council’s application of child protection procedures to their family. They say the Council failed to properly consider their views which lead to their daughter being placed on a child protection plan. We find the Council was at fault because it delayed sending Mr and Mrs E a copy of the initial child protection conference minutes. It also had to re-arrange the initial child protection conference when not all professionals could attend. In addition to the remedy it offered, the Council has agreed to our recommendations to implement service improvements to prevent reoccurrence of the identified fault.

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