Child protection


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Suffolk County Council (20 005 345)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 22-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's Common Assessment Framework report and plan. Mr B says the Council's actions caused him and his children distress. The Council was at fault for not considering Mr B's complaint under the statutory complaint procedure. The Council has agreed to do so without further delay.

  • Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 002 538)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 22-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to address concerns he raised regarding his ex-partner's behaviour towards their children. He also complained the Council did not uphold all his complaint points at Stage 3 panel. He said the Council's actions led to his children being removed from his care. The Council was at fault when it failed to carry out the Stage 2 investigation in line with statutory requirements. This fault has not caused Mr X a significant injustice.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (19 020 898)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 15-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision to put his son on a child protection plan and about its failure to follow correct appeal processes. The Council is not at fault.

  • Kent County Council (19 011 105)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 12-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate his reports of domestic abuse/neglect involving the mother of his children. He also says the officers who handled the matter and his subsequent complaint were racially biased against him. There was fault in the Council's investigation of Mr X's complaint of racial bias. The Council agreed a financial remedy to address the injustice suffered by Mr X.

  • Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 842)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 12-Feb-2021

    Summary: the complainant complained the Council failed to properly investigate a safeguarding referral resulting in him spending time away from his family damaging family relationships. The Council accepts it acted with fault and offered an apology and payment of £250. We found the Council acted with fault and recommended an increased remedy of £750.

  • Buckinghamshire Council (20 004 920)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 11-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council upheld some of Mr B's complaint that it failed to provide reports before conferences. It also failed to address the concerns Mr B raised about inaccuracies in some reports and minutes. This caused Mr B avoidable distress. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice caused to Mr B.

  • Swindon Borough Council (19 016 947)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 09-Feb-2021

    Summary: We cannot investigate many of the points Mr C raised in his complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about his grandson, because the matters have been considered in court. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with supervision of contact between the Mr C's grandchild and his parents.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 015 077)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 08-Feb-2021

    Summary: Ms V says the Council failed to act appropriately to stop her children having contact with their father, who was a domestic violence perpetrator. She said this caused her, and the children, a great deal of distress. There is no evidence of Council fault.

  • Wiltshire Council (19 007 443)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 05-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's handling of his request to care for his sibling, Child A, and for not keeping him informed of its actions while Child A was on a child protection plan. The Council could have done more to keep Mr X informed but was not at fault for not progressing his request to care for Child A. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and reviews its procedures for keeping wider family members informed.

  • City of York Council (20 005 860)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 05-Feb-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault for its record-keeping after receiving information about the welfare of Mr B's son. Because of this, it is unable to provide evidence that it properly dealt with the information. The Council has apologised to Mr B and has offered £500 to recognise his, and his son's, distress. This is a suitable remedy.

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.