Child protection

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (18 015 747)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 02-Sep-2019

    Summary: the Council included inaccurate information about an historical issue in child protection meetings. That did not affect the outcome of those meetings but caused Miss B distress. The Council has apologised and added an addendum to the minutes. That is satisfactory remedy.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (18 004 824)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 02-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council responded to safeguarding concerns she raised regarding her daughter's school. There is no fault in the way the Council responded to her concerns or the way the Council reviewed the action it had taken.

  • Shropshire Council (19 000 945)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 02-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with a child protection investigation. The Ombudsman finds that the Council failed to investigate Mrs X's complaint under stage two of the Children's Act 1989. This caused Mrs X some uncertainty about whether the outcome of her complaint may have been different. The Council has agreed to carry out a stage two investigation and make an apology and payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Bexley (19 000 501)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 29-Aug-2019

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for most of the actions it took to investigate concerns about the safety of Mr B's children. However, it was at fault for failing to explain to Mr B that the contact restrictions it put in place during its investigation were voluntary, because they were not supported by a court order. Mr B suffered injustice in the form of uncertainty; however, his injustice was limited because the Council's failure did not actually affect his contact with his children. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, and to take action to improve its practice in future.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (18 016 293)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 27-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not implemented the recommendations made at stage two and three of the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to complete two of the recommendations made. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X a financial remedy, and to complete the outstanding recommendation.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (18 011 510)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 21-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council's children's services department's handling of allegations made against her by relatives. Mrs B says the Council's mishandling of the matter caused her a lot of distress and affected her health. We find there was some fault by the Council and this caused Mrs B an injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B to put right this injustice. We have completed our investigation.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (18 009 360)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 21-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains at how the Council has responded to concerns raised about the welfare of his daughters. We uphold this complaint, finding some fault in two assessments it undertook. The Council also failed to follow its policy when Mr C asked if he could record a meeting. These faults caused injustice to Mr C as distress and adding to his time and trouble. The Council has agreed action to remedy the complaint, explained at the end of this statement.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 015 715)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 19-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the way the Council issued care proceedings for their son. They complain that the Council failed to respond to requests for information and that the Council handled their complaint poorly. Mr and Mrs X say this caused them extreme stress and Mr X had to take lots of time off work to attend court hearings. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for the way it administered the care proceedings process or the way it handled Mr and Mrs X's complaint. The Ombudsman will not investigate the parts of Mr and Mrs X's complaint about the Council's risk assessments and its decision to withdraw care proceedings because they are outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Ombudsman will not investigate the part of the complaint about requests for information because Mr and Mrs X have already complained to the Information Commissioner's Office.

  • Sheffield City Council (18 015 263)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 16-Aug-2019

    Summary: Mr E says the Council failed to properly assess whether his children were suffering emotional abuse from their mother. When carrying out the assessment, the Council relied on historical information about him, which a previous Ombudsman's investigation had said was wrong. There is evidence of fault in the Council using incorrect information about him and in not updating its files. The Council has agreed to make payments for time and trouble and distress, to consider whether social workers need additional guidance on emotional abuse and to share appropriate information with another council who are assessing Mr E's other two children.

  • London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (19 003 221)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 16-Aug-2019

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to follow its child protection procedure after her children were put on a Child Protection Plan. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because the Local Safeguarding Children Board has considered Ms X's complaint and made recommendations to the Council. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome.