The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has released its latest batch of decisions about child welfare complaints it received.
We’re adding summaries and links to those complaints which we think might be of interest to our readers:
London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
“Mr B complains about the Council’s failure to act after he raised concerns about his son’s behaviour. He says this led to his son self-harming and being arrested. The Council has already accepted fault and offered remedies. Because of this, there is no remaining injustice significant enough to justify our involvement, and we have discontinued our investigation.”
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
“Mr C says the Council was at fault for the way in which it investigated safeguarding concerns involving his wife’s children. He says the Council caused him and his family injustice in the form of distress by being inconsiderate and intrusive. Mr C complained using the statutory complaints procedure which involves an independent investigation and review panel. This process found the Council to be at fault for numerous failures in the investigation. The Council’s complaints procedure was too slow but the Ombudsman considers the findings of that process to be fair. We have recommended a remedy for the injustice caused.”
“Ms X complained her family were not well supported by the Council as kinship carers, leading to the children being removed from their care. The Ombudsman does not normally re-investigate complaints that have been independently considered through the children’s statutory complaints procedure and we find this case has correctly followed the steps. However we find fault with the Council for initially refusing to progress Ms X’s complaint to Stage 3. This caused injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial remedy.”
” We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s social work intervention with her family in 2011. Ms X complains late and could have complained sooner.”
“Mr X complains the Council neglected his daughter B’s teeth for five months while she was on a child protection plan. We found fault because the Council did not properly update or record decisions about B’s teeth before removing the matter from the child protection plan, so Mr X was not kept updated. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case so have completed our investigation.”
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council
“Ms X complained that the Council failed to support her when she was having difficulty in managing her teenage daughter’s challenging behaviours and she felt forced to agree for her to be placed in the care of the Council. We do not find fault on this aspect of the complaint. The Council has accepted fault in other matters and has apologised. We have recommended a small payment to support the apologies provided.”
Cheshire West & Chester Council
“Mrs F has complained about a Trust and Council in relation to a child protection case involving her niece, Miss G’s child. I found fault with the Trust in obtaining an x-ray report from an unsuitably qualified radiologist. However, this fault did not lead to the injustice Mrs F has claimed and the Trust is making service improvements. In addition, I do not find fault with the Council’s actions.”
Researching Reform 