Child protection


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wiltshire Council (18 019 549)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 16-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's handling of a referral from the school about his son's behaviour. There is no fault in the Council's handling of the referral or the way in which it considered the evidence it obtained about Mr B and his son.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 000 536)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 16-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complains about the actions of the Council after her teenage son left home and stayed at addresses she did not consider safe or appropriate. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council in respect of the matters complained of.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (19 000 434)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 14-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr C reported what he, and a social worker from a different area, identified as emotional abuse on his children by their mother. He says he was told the Council would contact him in order to get more information after he reported this but it did not, which caused him distress. The Council was at fault for failing to follow statutory guidance by not telling him what action it would take and by not signposting him to the Ombudsman.

  • London Borough of Barnet (19 001 728)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 11-Oct-2019

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the actions it took to protect Miss B's daughter from harm. Its assessments of risk were evidence-based and conducted in consultation with practitioners from other agencies. It followed national guidance and regional procedures, and responded to developments over the course of the child protection plan. When it decided the risk to Miss B's daughter had reduced, it ended its involvement. There is no evidence to support Miss B's complaints.

  • Lancashire County Council (18 016 940)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 08-Oct-2019

    Summary: The complainant alleges that the Council failed to provide sufficient support to her as a foster carer and subsequently recorded that she had been emotionally abusive to a foster child in her care. The Ombudsman asked the Council to refer the matter to the Local Authority Designated Officer for consideration. This has now been done. The Ombudsman finds that the Council failed to follow due process and that there is insufficient evidence to justify its finding that the complainant's actions amounted to 'emotional abuse'. The Council has agreed the Ombudsman's recommendations to resolve the complaint.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 016 810)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 07-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to act on his concerns about his son's care by his ex-partner, leaving the child at risk. The records show the Council met its duties under the Children Act 1989.

  • West Sussex County Council (19 003 740)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 07-Oct-2019

    Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs B's complaint. It is unlikely we could add to the Council's own findings, or achieve the outcome Mrs B wants. If she wants to pursue her complaint, other bodies are better-placed to consider the data protection and staff conduct issues she has raised.

  • Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (18 017 733)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 07-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr B says the Council refused to allow him contact with his grandchildren, failed to take action when one of its social workers assaulted him, banned him from Council buildings and discriminated against him by placing restrictions on his contact with Council officers. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr B's contact with his grandchildren, the complaint about the social worker or his attendance at Council buildings. The Council's communications with Mr B about restrictions placed on him was confused and its policy is not clear but there is no evidence of discrimination. An apology, a revised letter to Mr B about the restrictions placed on him and a review of the Council's policy is satisfactory remedy.

  • London Borough of Camden (18 009 318)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 07-Oct-2019

    Summary: the Council failed to properly respond and consider Mr F's complaints in August 2018 but that there is no fault in the substantive issues raised in relation to the Council's role in his contact with his children or its contact with another council. The Council should apologise for its poor handling of his complaints in August.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 001 884)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 30-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of a safeguarding concern. He says the Council did not take any action despite knowing his son was present during the assault. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council's decision.