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:

  • Liverpool City Council (21 017 299)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 05-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused

  • Birmingham City Council (21 013 618)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 03-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains about child protection intervention completed by the Council. She is unhappy with how the Council dealt with its Section 17 and Section 47 assessments. We propose to discontinue our investigation. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

  • Kent County Council (21 003 813)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 31-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's management of a child protection investigation involving his son. We find fault with the Council. The Council will apologise, implement service improvements, and pay him £200 for his distress.

  • Milton Keynes Council (21 000 360)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 31-Mar-2022

    Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to properly investigate a safeguarding referral about an incident at her son's school. She also complained that the Council has not supported or helped her to home school her son. Miss X said this caused stress, uncertainty, had a significant emotional impact on her and her son, and meant her son missed out on education. We find the Council at fault for failing to support Miss X to home educate her son. This caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council has already apologised, has agreed to make a payment to reflect the injustice caused, and has made improvements to its service. We cannot investigate Miss X's complaint about the safeguarding referral because is it outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (21 005 728)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not properly consider whether it should investigate Ms X's late complaint and it did not consider investigating the complaint through the children's services statutory complaints procedure. As a result Ms X missed the opportunity to have her complaint considered through the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by now investigating Ms X's complaint starting at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.

  • West Northamptonshire Council (21 005 839)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council appointed a social worker to work with her and her family who was unprofessional and caused her and her family distress. She also complained the Council failed to include her children's views in its decision making and did not act on her complaints regarding her children's foster care. She said this caused her and her family emotional distress. There was fault when the Council significantly delayed escalating Ms X's complaint. The Council has agreed to issue Ms X with an apology and provide a £150 goodwill award. It should also remind its staff of the importance of keeping to required timescales. There was no fault found with the Council's actions regarding its safeguarding of Ms X and her family.

  • Bracknell Forest Council (21 011 160)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council's decision to remove two children from a foster care placement. This is because the Council has investigated the complaint thoroughly under its own procedure, and we are satisfied there is nothing of substance we could add to its conclusions.

  • Kent County Council (21 008 150)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained that a Child and Family Assessment prepared by the Council contained inaccurate information about him because of which his former partner stopped his unsupervised contact with his child causing him great distress. We found the Council was at fault in that the assessment was not as balanced and accurate as it should have been. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy this.

  • Dorset Council (20 003 763)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: Dorset Council had already accepted it was at fault when it wrongly provided the complainant's partner with confidential information about her. The Council will now formally apologise and increase the payment it offered her to acknowledge the impact of this.

  • East Sussex County Council (21 004 678)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 27-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr W complains about the way the Council managed a child protection matter relating to his two children. Primarily, Mr W says his views were not taken seriously and that he was not kept properly informed about the Council's involvement with him and his family. He also says the Council's lead social worker was unsupportive of him and, at times, unprofessional. We have not identified any fault by the Council with respect to its involvement with Mr W's family. Further, we also have no jurisdiction to investigate some of the issues raised by Mr W. The complaint is not upheld.