Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection and safeguarding procedures. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Trust has already taken action to remedy the complaint about its actions and investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains about flaws in child protection and safeguarding by Newcastle City Council (the Council) and The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Mr A sent a lot of complaint issues to us about this. While I have considered all of these, I have summarised his complaint under the broad issues below. Mr A’s complaints include that:
• the Trust did not follow correct child protection processes or get enough information to reach decisions about injuries to a child they had recently fostered (child B);
• the Trust did not communicate with the family during the child protection investigations;
• the Council has refused to change the outcome of a safeguarding investigation from “unsubstantiated” to “unfounded” despite the Trust’s report stating injuries were “likely accidental”;
• the Council treated them differently to others involved in child B’s care;
• the Council refuses to recognise the harm done to Mr A and his family and consider restorative justice; and
• the Council is in denial about its failures.
2. Mr A says the failings meant his employer suspended him and the Council suspended him and his wife as foster carers. He says his family have suffered distress due to unfounded allegations and this has also damaged his professional reputation.
3. As an outcome to his complaint, Mr A says he wants restorative justice. He wants addendums added to records to state injuries were likely accidental and to change the outcome of safeguarding investigations to “unfounded”.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA).
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. If we are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the bodies that are the subject of the complaint, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant, the Trust and the Council.
8. I considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Trust complaint

9. The Trust’s complaint responses accepted there was fault with how child protection processes had worked and with communication between agencies. It accepted it did not include Mr A and his wife in the child protection assessment as it would have expected.
10. The Trust confirmed it has updated its Child Protection Medical Assessment standards in line with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health best practice guidance. It also said it was developing Trust policy to highlight the importance of seeking first-hand information. The Trust discussed this with Mr A in a complaint resolution meeting and noted he said the draft policies it was developing have reassured him.
11. One of Mr A’s main concerns about the failure to follow procedures was that the Trust had insufficient information to inform its views about child B’s injuries and the causes of these.
12. The Trust noted the social worker had not provided key information when its paediatrician’s child protection assessment started. The first medical report noted some bruising and that potential causes for these injuries should be explored with those who have been providing care. The paediatrician later attended a multi‑agency strategy meeting where they discussed this further. It noted child B had fallen off a bike at nursery and the family had suggested this as a possible explanation. The paediatrician considered a lot of force would have been needed to cause the bruising seen on child B and that it would have been a significant event a carer was likely to remember. The final report from the paediatrician noted it was “possible the bruises had been caused as a result of the described events”.
13. The Trust has explained the paediatrician was aware of the different accidental explanations Mr A provided before completing the report. The paediatrician concluded there were possible accidental explanations for the bruising seen. However, they also highlighted features of the physical findings that raised concern, as the bruising was significant.
14. I am satisfied the paediatrician was aware of the possible explanations at the point they completed the report and shared it with those conducting safeguarding enquiries. The report concluded there was possible accidental explanations for the injuries, but some concern remained because of the unusual site for accidental bruising. I consider we are unlikely to add to this or provide any more clarification about the cause of child B’s injury. While all information was not available to begin with, the paediatrician sought further information and included this within the final report.

Council complaint

15. The Council dealt with Mr A’s complaints about it under the statutory children complaints procedure. This included an independent investigation and report with independent oversight (stage 2), followed by a stage 3 review panel.
16. We would not reinvestigate a complaint that has been through the statutory complaints procedure unless there is evidence of fault or omission in the Council’s consideration under this process.
17. I have reviewed the stage 2 investigation report and stage 3 panel review findings. Although some decisions changed at stage 3, this did not alter the findings. I consider all issues were thoroughly and independently considered. Where indicated, the independent investigation referenced relevant guidance or legislation to support the findings. I do not consider the evidence suggests the statutory complaints procedure was flawed.
18. As we are unlikely to find fault with the way the complaint was investigated, it is unlikely an investigation by us would lead to a different outcome.
19. One of Mr A’s main concerns is that he feels the safeguarding report implicates him and his wife because the decision was “unsubstantiated” and not “unfounded”. The Council has a duty to safeguard children and investigate concerns when they are raised. It has also explained the reasons for recording an “unsubstantiated” decision.
20. Having reviewed the safeguarding investigation report, this does not state or allege they caused child B harm. The decision about what to record following a safeguarding investigation is one for the Council. We cannot tell a council to substitute one decision for another. The complaints process found no fault in how the safeguarding investigation had been undertaken, and explained why the decision was recorded as such. Therefore we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr A is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr A’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint under the statutory children complaints procedure. In addition, an investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome with the Trust or Council complaints.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman