Child protection

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Lancashire County Council (18 007 429)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 20-May-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of child protection matters concerning her grandchild. She complains about the Council's poor administration, that it included wrong information in the paperwork, and that assumptions were presented as facts. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council's actions. We have recommended the Council apologise, pay a financial remedy, and to amend the wrong information.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (18 000 071)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 09-May-2019

    Summary: Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council is at fault in refusing to arrange a review panel at stage 3 of the children's statutory complaints procedure when Mr F requested this. The Council will now arrange to consider the complaint at stage 3 of this procedure.

  • Cumbria County Council (17 015 692)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 07-May-2019

    Summary: Mr Q complains about the Council's actions following the outcome of his children services complaint. The investigations found fault with the Council's actions. Mr Q says the Council's service had not improved, did not provide a personal remedy, and did not provide a sincere apology. Mr Q also complains the Council did not investigate a second complaint. The Ombudsman finds some fault with the Council. We recommend the Council provide Mr Q with a sincere and meaningful apology, pay a financial remedy, and to review its action log to ensure targets are set.

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 010 653)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 03-May-2019

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for beginning a child protection enquiry. However, the Council failed to give Miss B enough time before a child protection meeting to prepare, failed to include NHS professionals involved with the family in the meeting and included some inaccurate information in the report for the conference. That has caused Miss B some uncertainty about whether the outcome might have been different. An apology and payment to Miss B is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Hackney (18 012 628)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 29-Apr-2019

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in raising a formal complaint about Mr and Mrs X six months after the foster placement ended and without raising the issues with them first. The Council will, within the next month, withdraw the complaints. The investigation of the complaint made by Mr and Mrs X was inadequate as it did not address itself to the core issues.

  • Surrey County Council (18 014 078)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 29-Apr-2019

    Summary: There is no fault in the Council's decision not to escalate Mr X's complaint as the matters he complains of are subject to ongoing court proceedings. The Council has offered to review his complaints once court proceedings have completed. This response follows the statutory guidance therefore we have no reason to be critical of the decision.

  • Kent County Council (17 009 877)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 23-Apr-2019

    Summary: There was no fault in the action the Council took after Mrs B alleged that school staff had physically and emotionally abused her daughter. But it failed to deal with Mrs B's complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

  • Lincolnshire County Council (18 001 252)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 18-Apr-2019

    Summary: The Council was, for the most part, not at fault in its communications with Mr B during 2017, when he had concerns about his grandchildren's welfare. It was at fault for a short delay in contacting Mr B about a referral he made, although he did not suffer any injustice from the delay. However, he did suffer an injustice from the Council's failure to clarify one of his complaints before responding. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (18 003 028)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 17-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mrs M complains the Council failed to support to her when she was caring for her daughter and grandson. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

  • Herefordshire Council (18 013 984)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 12-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council agreed to reimburse removal and storage costs for his step daughter, Mrs Y due to leaving an abusive relationship. The Council says it does not have a budget for such costs and never agreed to do this. There is no evidence to show the Council agreed to make such a payment.