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:

  • London Borough of Bexley (21 002 050)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 14-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to properly consider a child protection concern he raised and, in investigating that referral, failed to properly involve him and produced a biased report. There is no fault by the Council.

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 084)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 09-Dec-2021

    Summary: the Council was at fault in its handling of Ms B's complaint under the children's complaints procedure because it failed to offer her a review panel at stage 3 of that process. It also failed to provide her with copies of her social care records which it agreed to after stage 2 of that procedure. These failings caused her injustice. The Council will take the action recommended to acknowledge and remedy this injustice.

  • Kent County Council (21 011 676)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 09-Dec-2021

    Summary: Miss X complained to the Ombudsman after the Council refused to investigate her complaint it had failed to safeguard her grandchild. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has now agreed to investigate.

  • London Borough of Merton (21 001 651)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 09-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate safeguarding concerns raised by himself and others about his daughters' mother. His daughters were subsequently abused by their mother's partner. He feels this could have been prevented if the referrals had been taken more seriously. He states he was made to feel like a nuisance by the Council and this attitude has continued in respect of his complaints, causing him distress. Some of his complaints were made late. The Council is at fault in respect of its complaint handling and has caused injustice, for which it has agreed an apology and financial remedy. It is also at fault in its record keeping, but this did not cause injustice.

  • Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 002 612)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 07-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains that Council's decision to escalate its child protection investigation was wrong and that it delayed in holding a meeting and cancelled another. He says the Council also breached his confidentiality, threatened him, and did not handle his complaint correctly. The Council is at fault in its complaint handling only, has caused injustice and has agreed a financial remedy.

  • Cumbria County Council (20 013 250)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 01-Dec-2021

    Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying considering a complaint at stage two of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two investigation without further delay and will offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused her.

  • Sunderland City Council (21 002 343)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 01-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to follow Child Protection procedures, wrongly shared information with his children and was biased toward his children's mother. As a result, Mr C said he and his children experienced distress due to their loss of contact. The Council agreed it was at fault on parts of Mr C's complaint and apologised. We found its apology was not enough to remedy the injustice caused to Mr C and his children. The Council should make payment to Mr C to acknowledge the distress its faults caused.

  • Surrey County Council (20 006 020)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 30-Nov-2021

    Summary: The Council is at fault as there is evidence to show it was not even handed towards Mr X during a child protection enquiry, there were inaccuracies in its children and families assessment, it failed to amend minutes of a child protection conference as agreed and its advice regarding contact between Mr X and his son lacked clarity. The Council also wrongly refused to consider Mr X's complaint. These faults caused distress and frustration to Mr X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mr X and making a payment of £500.

  • Hampshire County Council (21 001 237)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 29-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about delay and failings in the way the Council dealt with his complaint about children's services. We found fault by the Council including excessive delay and failure to complete the complaints process and a failure to explain what improvements it has made to its procedures. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B a total of £900 and provide details of any procedural improvements.

  • Leicestershire County Council (21 008 828)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 25-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council's children's service department is not properly involving him and keeping him informed about actions relating to his children. We have discontinued investigation because the Council is currently investigating under Stage two of the statutory complaints procedure as defined by the Children's Act 1989.