Child protection


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Haringey (25 002 280)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 28-Oct-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to accommodate Y. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data protection complaints, and we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council ending child protection plans.

  • Staffordshire County Council (25 003 216)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 28-Oct-2025

    Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about matters related to the care arrangements of her child. This is because it concerns matters that have formed part of court proceedings.

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 006 185)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 27-Oct-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate most of Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint about how the Council responded to a safeguarding referral because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We cannot investigate how Ms Y’s educational establishment made the referral because the Council is not responsible for the matters complained about.

  • Buckinghamshire Council (25 008 435)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 23-Oct-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the allocated social worker on his child’s case. We cannot consider complaints about matters which are, or have been, subject to court proceedings. There is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint about the social worker further until the proceedings have concluded.

  • Norfolk County Council (25 006 342)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 22-Oct-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about contact from children’s services. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

  • Kent County Council (25 000 562)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 21-Oct-2025

    Summary: The Council was largely not at fault for the support it offered to Miss X while her daughter, Y, was subject to a child protection plan. It was also not at fault for considering other family options before arranging a foster placement for Y. However, it was at fault for failing to handle Miss X’s requests for financial support properly. It has agreed to apologise to Miss X, and will take steps to improve its service.

  • London Borough of Barnet (25 004 711)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about alleged harassment and the Council’s handling of her complaints. There is insufficient evidence of fault, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome and the Information Commissioner’ Office is better placed to consider a complaint about rectification of records.

  • Luton Borough Council (25 007 589)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2025

    Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s reports for Family Court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

  • Torbay Council (25 007 701)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2025

    Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to recent court proceedings for her child because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

  • Milton Keynes Council (25 009 726)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2025

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard a child and breached Miss X’s data protection rights. This is because Miss X is not a suitable representative for the child involved and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider her complaint about a data breach.

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.

Privacy settings