Privacy settings

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.

Child protection


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 013 188)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 24-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council was biased against him as it believed his ex-wife's allegations that he had abused his children. We will not reinvestigate Mr X's complaint as it has been properly considered through the statutory complaints process. We find the Council is at fault as it did not fully implement the recommendations of the review panel which considered Mr X's complaint at stage three of the statutory complaints process

  • Wiltshire Council (21 005 177)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 19-May-2022

    Summary: Miss M complains the Council opened up a new child protection assessment based on a malicious referral with no new evidence. She also complains about several aspects of the assessment and its outcomes. We do not uphold the complaint. The referral mentioned an escalation of behaviours, so the Council had reason to carry out an investigation. And we cannot question the merits of the outcomes of its investigation.

  • Wiltshire Council (21 007 430)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 17-May-2022

    Summary: Miss X complained, through her representative Mr Y the Council discounted her views and failed to adequately safeguard her when she made disclosures about her mother and raised concerns about her biological father. The Council was at fault for not investigating Miss X's complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. This was a missed opportunity for Miss X to have her complaint investigated with independent oversight. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X for this failure and investigate her complaint at stage two of the procedure.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 091)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 16-May-2022

    Summary: Miss P complains about the conduct of Council social workers while it maintained Child in Need Plans for her two daughters. She says the Council sought to remove her children from her care, visited her family home without her consent and acted inappropriately. At this stage, we have identified some minor fault by the Council in the way social workers visited the children without being entirely clear about Miss P's wishes. We have not identified any other fault and there are some aspects of Miss P's complaint which we cannot investigate. In any event, there is some injustice in this case and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this.

  • Southampton City Council (21 015 365)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 12-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action to protect him from abuse while he was a child. We will not continue to investigate his complaint. This is because it is not possible, so long after the relevant events, to carry out a fair investigation, reach any safe conclusions or achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X.

  • Coventry City Council (21 009 981)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 12-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not tell him about a child protection investigation concerning his son. The Council accepts it acted with fault and has offered Mr X a suitable remedy.

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (21 008 061)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 12-May-2022

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's assessment of her parenting when it decided to place her children on child protection plans. The Council was at fault for making two poorly evidenced statements about Miss X's mental health and for not sending reports in advance of child protection conferences. This caused Miss X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and place a note of the Ombudsman's concerns about the accuracy of the statements about Miss X's mental health on the children's records. The Council will also remind its staff they have to send reports to parents before child protection conferences. The Council was not at fault in the other matters Miss X complained about.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (21 017 801)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 11-May-2022

    Summary: We uphold Mrs X's complaint, about a viability assessment. The Council has agreed to let third parties know and make a payment.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (21 014 317)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 05-May-2022

    Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss B's complaint about the Council's children's services department in the 1990s. There is nothing we could achieve which would make things better for Miss B or for other people in the same situation.

  • Wokingham Borough Council (21 007 447)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 28-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained of racism, mental health discrimination, and other bias by the Council during a child protection investigation. He said the Council's faults caused harm to his child, caused him to lose his livelihood, and affected his health. The Council accepted fault about provision of an advocate, information sharing and communication prior to the Ombudsman's intervention. It has apologised for this. We are satisfied this remedy is appropriate and there is no further fault by the Council.