Ombudsman criticises Hull Council over child protection

There were serious failures by Kingston upon Hull City Council in the way it responded to child protection referrals of two children.

There were serious failures by Kingston upon Hull City Council in the way it responded to child protection referrals of two children, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex. In her report, issued today (9 August 2011) she says: “In the context of child protection, these failures could have had very serious consequences.” The children’s aunt was caused significant uncertainty about the safety and wellbeing of her nephew and niece, and felt she had no alternative but to take them in.

The aunt and social workers from a neighbouring authority reported to the Council that the aunt’s nephew (aged 14) and niece (aged 11) were at risk living with their mother and her mentally ill, violent partner. The children’s aunt complained that the Council:

  • failed to respond to the reports
  • left her no alternative but to take the children in without any financial or other support, and
  • failed to deal with her complaints.

The Council responded to the first child protection referral that it recorded by visiting the children at home to do an assessment. The nephew was at home but the niece was living at her aunt’s. The assessment did not include any information from the mental health worker of the mother’s partner. It concluded that the children should remain at their mother’s with support – but it never provided that support.

The niece lived with her aunt from the first referral but the nephew remained with his mother and her partner.

A few weeks later the neighbouring authority made a formal referral to the Council about an entirely different concern. Hull recorded this referral but has no records of how it allocated the case. Eight weeks after the referral a trainee social worker began but did not complete an assessment. She did not fulfil an undertaking to visit the children’s home when further concerns about the nephew were raised with her and did not establish the basis on which the niece was living with her aunt. The same trainee social worker denies that she met with the aunt and a social worker from the neighbouring authority. They, however, give consistent, credible accounts of the meeting and the neighbouring social worker made a file note of it.

After inspecting the Council’s files, the Ombudsman’s investigator commented to a Council officer that material she would have expected to see had not been recorded. Shortly afterwards the Council sent what it said was the diary note of another trainee social worker of a later meeting. This diary note recorded people as being present that the trainee social worker said she has never met. The Ombudsman concludes that the note was not made by the second trainee social worker.

Approximately six months after the first referral, the nephew was threatened with a knife by his mother’s partner. The neighbouring authority made another child protection referral to the Council but there was no response. The nephew then also moved in with his aunt and she made a formal complaint to the Council.

At all three stages of the complaints procedure, the Council failed to address the main point in the aunt’s complaint which was the failure to respond to the child protection concerns. After she complained to the Ombudsman, the Council agreed to undertake a new investigation of the child protection issues and the Ombudsman did not pursue the complaint. However, the Council then failed to look at the child protection issues and merely revisited the issues considered the first time.

The Ombudsman then investigated and found maladministration by Hull City Council in:

  • not making an adequate assessment of the children after the first referral that it recorded
  • delaying eight weeks before beginning an assessment after the second referral (about a different concern) and failing to complete that assessment
  • failing to record and respond to the child protection concerns raised during the incomplete assessment
  • failing to establish the basis on which the niece was living with her aunt
  • failing to record and respond to the child protection referral after the nephew was threatened with a knife by his mother’s partner
  • failing to address the serious concerns raised by the aunt’s complaint at any of the three stages of the complaints process and then failing again after being given a second opportunity to investigate
  • producing as evidence to the Ombudsman a note that was not present on the files when inspected by the investigator, that did not accord with the account of the person alleged to have made it, and that lacks credibility.

The Council has assured the Ombudsman that it has updated its procedures for record keeping and accepted the recommendations that it should:

  • pay the children’s aunt £7,665 – which is 25 per cent of what she would have received as a ‘kinship carer allowance’ for the time that the children lived with her
  • instigate a review to establish whether the failures identified by the investigation could still occur today
  • investigate how the diary note came into being, and
  • ensure that people it appoints to investigate complaints are competent, and instigate a review to establish whether the failures to address a complaint could still occur today.

Report ref no 09 011 205

Article date: 09 August 2011

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