• About
    • Privacy Policy
  • GSW
  • Guide To Making A Subject Access Request
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates
  • Voice of the Child Podcasts

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Monthly Archives: August 2022

Family Court Toolkit for Parents and Children

31 Wednesday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

We thought we’d share a little toolkit for families experiencing child protection proceedings through the family courts in England and Wales, as we do from time to time.

While the Researching Reform (RR) site is filled with these resources, sometimes it’s handy not to have to fish around for things.

Below are a few links we think may be of use to families and children:

  • The Children and Families Truth Commission, which RR is a member of, and which is the first parent-led commission in the UK looking at the child protection system, offers a range of guides for families including:
    • Children and Their Families Have Rights – all your rights and how to enforce them in a bitesize booklet
    • The Commission’s Guides page, which includes guides on how to make a Subject Access Request, and a booklet on how to make the most of supervised contact if you have had to agree to this form of contact, all written by family court experienced parents
  • Finding free or affordable legal help – a useful summary by the Citizens Advice Bureau
  • Contact with children in care: what parents should know – an RR post on how to secure your contact and how to make sure contact is not unjustly reduced or stopped
  • British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII)- a database with every published family law case, ideal for parents researching their own cases and putting arguments together in court
  • Modern law reports and legal cases – The British Library has since been awarded funding to offer cases and law in the same way BAILII has done.

Are you looking for a specific kind of resource or help? Let us know in the comments section and we will add them to this post for you.

Cartoon from The Addams Family: An Evilution by Charles Addams

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The latest

30 Tuesday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ Leave a comment

Welcome to another, slightly shorter, week.

These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

  • I was in my 60s when I found my biological family
  • Jerry Sadowitz was the only public figure brave enough to call out Jimmy Savile for child abuse
  • Man sentenced to maximum penalty of 120 years for multiple counts of sexual abuse

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The buzz

26 Friday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

  • Watchdog slams Shropshire Council over way it responds to complaints
  • Lewisham Council’s chief executive is paid more than the Prime Minister
  • Structural change in children’s services ‘no panacea’ for councils’ problems, research finds

Many thanks to Tummum for the first two items.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Cerebra and the University of Leeds launch FII (Fabricated or Induced Illness) Survey

25 Thursday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ Leave a comment

Cerebra, a national charity which helps children with brain conditions and offers support to their families, and the University of Leeds have launched a survey to find out how many parent carers of disabled children have experienced allegations of Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII).

FII is defined by the NHS as “a rare form of child abuse, in which a parent or carer exaggerates or deliberately causes symptoms of illness in the child.”

This form of child abuse is considered to be controversial, with some experts suggesting it does no exist at all. Other experts suggest it is very hard to detect and can often be misdiagnosed, particularly when genuinely concerned parents appear forceful or insistent that there is an issue after a medical professional has incorrectly decided there are no concerns.

The introduction to the survey says:

“Cerebra is concerned about reports from families with disabled children which suggest that a significant number have been accused by practitioners of creating or exaggerating their child’s difficulties when trying to get help to meet their child’s needs. Instances of this kind are often referred to as ‘Fabricated or Induced Illness’ (FII) or, sometimes, as ‘Perplexing Presentations’ (PP).

We want to understand how many parent carers of disabled children have experienced allegations of this kind, when / how these happened and what the consequences were for the family.”

The survey’s front page also asks families not to provide any personal identifying details in this survey, such as your name or address. The survey will be analysed by the Legal Entitlements and Problem-solving (LEaP) Project Research Team under the supervision of Professor Luke Clements, Cerebra Professor of Social Justice at the School of Law, the University of Leeds.

The survey has 10 questions and you have until 31 August to submit your answers.
The findings of this research are set to be published in the Spring of 2023.

If you have any questions, you can send them to Derek Tilley at: derekt@cerebra.org.uk

You can access the survey here.

Many thanks to Rachel Adam Smith and Paul Brian Tovey for alerting us to this survey.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Adoptee launches pilot survey for people adopted around the world

24 Wednesday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

A global survey which aims to understand adoptees and their lives better has been launched.

The pilot questionnaire, which launched today, was created by adult adoptee Paul Brian Tovey. Tovey is also the founder of Adult Adoptee Adoption-Annulment Global, a movement which aims to secure an automatic legal right for adoptees to revert back to their birth identities.

Currently in countries like the UK, adoptees who wish to take back their birth names and have that change legally recognised must go to the high court and lodge a submission. This is an incredibly expensive process with a very high legal bar in place, all of which means adoptees are rarely able to secure such legal changes.

The survey follows an earlier poll Tovey launched last year with adult adoptee Suzanne Davies, which looked at adoptee experiences in the UK. The questionnaire gathered 95 responses from UK adoptees.

The latest survey is made up of 47 questions, and is completely anonymous.

The introduction to the survey says:

“It’s our pro bono job to set that into motion and set Adoptee-voices free. This survey will be painful we think. We cannot alter any policies though/increase awareness without evidence of unmet needs/pain. That is sad but also true. Some of you will be happy Adoptees, some will not ..We wish you all the best in doing the survey and we care for you in our hearts.”

The questions can be accessed here.

Many thanks to Paul for alerting us to the survey.

Painting by Paul Brian Tovey

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The latest

23 Tuesday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

  • Welsh Government consulting on eliminating profit-making provision for children in care
  • Consultation launched on improving children’s social services (Wales)
  • Danish adoptees call for S. Korea to probe adoption issues (Denmark)

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

In the news

22 Monday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

Welcome to another week.

These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

  • Judge overturns his own child return order after new evidence of father’s threats emerge
  • Dorset Council Exposed Woman To Risk Of Abuse From Father
  • Grooming scandal town Rotherham to become the UK’s first ever Children’s Capital of Culture

Many thanks to Tummum for sharing the first two items with Researching Reform.

Photo by Mateus Henrique on Pexels.com

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Law suit filed by 18 students alleges exorcisms and violent discipline at private school

16 Tuesday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ Leave a comment

Saskatoon’s Christian Centre Academy in Canada is the subject of a class action filed by 18 students who allege they were violently disciplined and endured exorcisms as children at the school.

One student said he suffered a violent exorcism ritual for being gay and was called  “evil” and “an abomination,” by the head of the school.

The lawsuit includes appalling allegations of sexual abuse, paddling, coercion, traumatising rituals and the use of solitary confinement.

CBC News was given a copy of an 85-page, eight-lesson manual used at the school, called The Child Training Seminar, written by the father of the current pastor, which promotes the use of corporal punishment. It also says anyone who opposes corporal punishment has been “influenced by the devil” and should be ignored.

The book is referenced in a lawsuit by two former students who are seeking $25 million in damages.

The full CBC article can be accessed here.

Many thanks to Professor Joan Durrant for sharing this development.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

In the news

15 Monday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ Leave a comment

Welcome to another week.

These are the child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

  • She Never Hurt Her Kids. So Why Is a Mother Serving More Time Than the Man Who Abused Her Daughter?
  • Cost of living: Woman ‘trapped’ with abusive husband due to soaring energy prices
  • London Borough of Redbridge first London authority to receive accreditation for domestic violence intervention

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The latest child welfare complaints published by the Ombudsman

11 Thursday Aug 2022

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ Leave a comment

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has published the latest round of complaints submitted by parents and carers to the body, and its decisions about those complaints. They touch on children’s social care, local authority handling of child protection cases and the provision of education and educational support.

Children and Education

Please note: decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available.

Hampshire County Council (21 004 383)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable school transport for his son, Z.

Kent County Council (21 004 350)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure a school place for her son, Child Y, as required by his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for him when he was not attending school for over a year. This meant Child Y missed out on educational provision and support as required by his Plan. We found the Council to be at fault. To remedy the personal injustice to Miss X and Child Y, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to them. It has also agreed to make improvements to its service.

Hampshire County Council (21 009 171)

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council not following relevant law and guidance when is assessed her daughter for an Education, Health and Care plan. She also said it did not follow the annual review procedure and failed to secure the provision named in the plan as well as alternative educational provision. There was fault with how the Council produced S’s Education Health and Care plan, and how it arranged the support she needed. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to Ms X and reviews its procedures.

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 013 145)

Summary: Ms B complained there was delay by the Council in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan (EHC plan) for her daughter, X. She also complained that the provision named in the plan was not suitable and the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for X while she was unable to attend school. She said that as a result X missed education and it caused stress to the whole family. There was fault by the Council which it will remedy by making a payment to Ms B and taking the action set out at the end of this statement.

Oxfordshire County Council (21 013 539)

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it did not organise alternative education when D was medically unable to attend school. D had an Education, Health and Care plan and did not receive the provisions in it for three months. The Council has apologised and should make a payment towards D’s lost education.

Swindon Borough Council (21 017 660)

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to transport his son to college for eleven days as outlined in his son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mr X says he needed to transport his son to college during this time but the Council only paid £0.30 per mile and not £0.55 per mile. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay Mr X’s travel expenses at £0.55 per mile.

London Borough of Bromley (21 006 702)

Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s involvement in their concerns about a school. We find the Council did not manage Mr and Mrs Y’s expectations, failed to keep records of its decisions, and sometimes delayed in corresponding with Mr and Mrs Y. The apology and service improvements already undertaken by the Council are appropriate remedies and we do not recommend anything further.

Norfolk County Council (21 007 700)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed giving her access to her care files. She also complained the Council did not follow correct safeguarding processes and delayed removing her from her family’s care when she was experiencing abuse. She complained this matter caused her significant emotional harm and distress. There was fault when the Council significantly delayed providing Miss X with her care files. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology and £150 in recognition of the time and trouble she was put to by its actions. The Council should also remind its staff of the importance of responding to subject access requests within the required timescales. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint point regarding the Council’s safeguarding procedures as I do not consider it likely I can provide a worthwhile outcome for Miss X.

Bristol City Council (21 014 511)

Summary: there is no fault by the Council in relation to this complaint about actions taken by social workers during and following an assessment to consider a request for a bath in the family home.

North Northamptonshire Council (22 003 156)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a report that was considered in court. This is because the main issue Ms X raises is not separable from the matters already considered before the family court.

Middlesbrough Borough Council (22 003 665)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions. The matters complained of are not separable from matters concerning the residence of and contact with Mr X’s child. This has been subject to court proceedings and Mr X also has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use.

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (22 003 781)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions regarding the fitness of Mr X’s former partner to care for their children. The matters complained of are not separable from those that have been or could be raised during court proceedings concerning the care of the children.

Southampton City Council (22 003 985)

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to place her children in to care and related matters. This is because the issues Mrs X raises are not separable from the matters decided in the family court.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (21 012 194)

Summary: Mrs K complains the Council failed to provide her daughter (Child A), who has special educational needs, a suitable full-time education when she was out of school. We found evidence that supports that Child A was unable to attend school due to her complex needs, and the Council failed to exercise its legal duty to provide alternative education provision. This caused harm to Child A’s educational development and wellbeing and serious distress and uncertainty to Mrs K. Both Child A and Mrs K have suffered an injustice because of the fault identified and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 012 506)

Summary: There was delay by the Council in the way it reviewed an Education, Health and Care plan and a failure to provide alternative education when Y’s college placement failed. This caused loss of education, inconvenience, and distress. The Council will apologise, pay a financial remedy, and carry out service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Holy Cross & All Saints RC Primary School (22 002 818)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Kent County Council (22 003 017)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the setting named in an Education Health and Care Plan as a Tribunal decided this.

Liverpool City Council (22 003 378)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of its school admission procedure. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Staffordshire County Council (21 006 478)

Summary: Ms B says the Council’s criteria for deciding children’s disabled facilities grants is discriminatory and has delayed her access to the process. The Council has recognised its policy could be misleading and needs reviewing. We do not know whether this means it would have dealt with Ms B’s application any differently. When dealing with Ms B’s complaint the Council did not allow sufficient time for Ms B to respond and clarify the complaint summary, but this was resolved at the next stage of the complaint process. To put things right the Council will apologise to Ms B, review its policy and processes, and progress her application without delay.

London Borough of Croydon (21 012 828)

Summary: Mrs X and her husband complained the Council did not properly pay them for missed respite service when they looked after a child as foster carers. The Council was at fault as it failed to provide a respite service to Mrs X and her husband whilst they cared for the child. However, the Council offered to pay Mrs X and her husband £25,200 for the lack of respite service. It also offered to pay them £500 for the time and trouble they went through to complain to the Council. I consider this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the fault.

Buckinghamshire Council (21 005 546)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not arrange alternative provision for her son when she removed him from school. There is no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X’s son’s case. We have completed our investigation.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 008 347)

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in re-assessing her son, Y’s, special educational needs following an annual review of his Education Health and Care plan in June 2021. There were delays in deciding to re-assess, in arranging alternative provision whilst Y was out of school, and in consulting with alternative schools. The Council will apologise, make changes to its processes, and make a payment to remedy the impact of the additional time Y was without education due to the delays.

Central Bedfordshire Council (21 010 722)

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her son’s special educational provision in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. She also complained that the Council delayed issuing a final EHC plan after a review. Mrs X said this impacted her son and the wider family and caused her stress. We find the Council at fault for delay issuing the amended EHC plan. This caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the injustice caused. We do not find the Council at fault regarding special educational provision.

London Borough of Islington (22 001 481)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions when Mr X fled domestic abuse from his ex-partner in 2016. This is because the events complained of happened too long ago for us to be able to carry out a fair investigation.

Gloucestershire County Council (22 003 202)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about child protection action by the Council. There is not enough evidence of injustice caused by fault to warrant investigation.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 319)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to safeguard the complainant’s son. The complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now.

Dorset Council (21 015 318)

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying both the production of a child’s education, health and care plan, and also the arrangement of alternative provision while she could not attend school. Although the Council has already recognised both points of fault, it should now offer a financial remedy for the injustice this created.

West Berkshire Council (22 002 747)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the schools the Council has considered as possible placements for Ms X’s child and what it has told her about this. The matters complained of are not separable from those which carry a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. It would be reasonable for Ms X to use this right if she is dissatisfied with any school placement named by the Council.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 524)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction

Essex County Council (22 003 646)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Essex County Council (21 000 724)

Summary: Mr G complains the Council has failed to provide his daughter (Child X) with physiotherapy provision, as required by her Education and Health Care Plan. At this stage, we found the Council has fallen significantly short of providing the provision Child X is entitled to receive by law. Further, the evidence shows a fundamental lack of management and oversight by the Council in relation to securing Child X’s provision. We consider the failings identified have caused both Child X and Mr G a serious injustice. We have therefore made a number of recommendations for the Council to remedy this.

Kent County Council (21 009 688)

Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in finding Mrs X’s son a suitable school placement and provide him with the provision as outlined in his Education, Health and Care Plan. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X and her son. The Council has also agreed to make a service improvement.

Wakefield City Council (21 011 730)

Summary: There was fault with how the Council reached its decision to refuse Miss X’s request for school transport assistance. This caused Miss X a financial and medical injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy Miss X’s injustice.

Suffolk County Council (21 012 754)

Summary: Mrs F complained the Council delayed finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care plan and delayed providing him with education and specialist provision. We find the Council was at fault for the delay in providing Mrs F’s son with education and specialist provision. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Wiltshire Council (21 013 747)

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Miss Y, her child, about the way the Council has dealt with her Education, Health and Care plan and educational provision since November 2020. The Council was at fault for the delay in issuing Miss Y’s amended Education, Health and Care plan after the annual review in November 2020. This has caused Ms X distress, uncertainty and put her to avoidable time and trouble. The Council has agreed to the recommendations set out in this decision to remedy the injustice its actions caused to Ms X and Miss Y.

Oxfordshire County Council (21 010 344)

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the actions of the Council in relation to their role as foster parents. The Council was at fault when it delayed in sourcing new therapeutic support after stopping the existing support. It was also at fault when it failed to clearly explain to Mr and Mrs X the methods they could use to address the children’s behaviour. It has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X, make a symbolic payment of £300 each to acknowledge the distress this caused them and make service improvements.

Torbay Council (21 011 451)

Summary: Mr X complained about the support provided by the Council to his family. The Council has already investigated Mr X’s complaints through the statutory children’s complaints procedure and found there was fault in some of the ways it interacted with the family causing them injustice. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s complaints, or in the recommendations it made as a result to prevent a reoccurrence of those faults or the way these recommendations were actioned to remedy injustice.

London Borough of Bromley (21 013 206)

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Ms B’s concerns about her grandson’s welfare. It considered what she said and took the action it considered necessary to establish whether there was a risk to him.

Cumbria County Council (21 016 960)

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed investigating her complaints at stage 2 of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has delayed by eight months in going to stage 2. It should apologise, pay Mrs X £240 and move without further delay to stage 2.

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 072)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the reduction in a special guardianship allowance paid to him as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant this.

Leeds City Council (22 003 141)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s care of the complainant’s children. This is because the complaint relates to matters that have been, or can be, raised in court.

Hampshire County Council (22 003 267)

Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying the consideration of Mr B’s complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. It has agreed to begin Stage 2 and to offer to make a payment to Mr B.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (22 003 490)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure by the Council to take action to assist Ms X’s family when a child was being exploited. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to consider it now.

Hampshire County Council (22 003 590)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about the use of false information. This is because any injustice caused to the complainant by the Council’s actions is insufficient to warrant investigation.

London Borough of Lambeth (22 003 666)

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council is placing her children for adoption. We cannot lawfully investigate court decisions. A court has considered the case and the Council’s plan for the children.

Surrey County Council (21 006 108)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council made false statements about her and behaved unprofessionally during a multi-disciplinary meeting regarding her son Y’s educational needs, failed to provide a suitable alternative education for Y between June 2020 and February 2021 and did not provide social support Y was entitled to during summer holidays. She said the Council’s actions have resulted in financial loss and mental stress for her and her family. There was fault when the Council delayed arranging social care support for Y but this did not cause him a significant injustice.

Plymouth City Council (21 017 441)

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council failed to provide suitable education for her daughter (B) following her permanent exclusion from the school. She said the lack of full-time education for 18 months affected B’s academic and personal development and had detrimental impact on the whole family. We found fault with the Council’s school consultations, the lack of full-time education for B and with the Council’s Annual Review processes. The Council accepted our recommendations.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 660)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Q. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 679)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place.

Suffolk County Council (20 010 859)

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions and final response to a Review Panel’s recommendation following investigation via the statutory complaint procedure. Mr X also complains about a Council staff member he says wrongly gave the police information about his work history and recorded false allegations about him in the family’s social care notes. He complains about the Council’s delay and refusal to deal with his complaint. The Council was at fault for its failure to adhere to the Review Panel’s recommendations and carry out the agreed actions. The Council was also at fault for its delays in handling Mr X’s second complaint. This has caused Mr X distress, frustration and time and trouble chasing the Council for updates. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Warrington Council (21 008 433)

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about poor service from the Council’s children’s social care services. The Council upheld their complaints and offered a financial remedy, but Mr X and Ms Y said this was insufficient for the distress caused, the impact on their health and disruption to family life. The Council was at fault. The financial offer made after the stage two investigation was insufficient to remedy the injustice caused. However, it has since increased its financial offer and offered to arrange private therapeutic work for the family. These are appropriate actions. The Council will now offer these directly to Mr X and Ms Y.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (22 003 203)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial arrangements for children looked after by the Council. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Manchester City Council (22 003 544)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s children and family assessment, based on a late 2019 interview, contains false information and is unfair to him. There is insufficient injustice, the views in the assessment have been nullified by the outcome of a court case, and Mr X may take his concerns to other bodies.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (22 003 964)

Summary: We will not investigate how a complaint about a report used in court has been investigated. This is because we have no remit to investigate anything in connection to matters decided in court.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • The latest child welfare complaints published by the Ombudsman" data-content="https://researchingreform.net/2022/08/11/the-latest-child-welfare-complaints-published-by-the-ombudsman-4/" title="Share on Tumblr"data-posttype="link">Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 8,460 other subscribers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

August 2022
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Jul   Sep »

Children In The Vine : Stories From The Family Justice System

Categories

  • Adoption
  • All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and The Court of Protection
  • Articles
  • Big Data
  • Bills
  • Case Study
  • child abuse
  • child abuse inquiry
  • child welfare
  • Children
  • Children In The Vine
  • Circumcision
  • Civil Partnerships
  • Consultation
  • Conversations With…
  • Corporal Punishment
  • CSA
  • CSE
  • Data Pack
  • Domestic Violence
  • Encyclopaedia on Family and The Law
  • event
  • Family Law
  • Family Law Cases
  • FGM
  • FOI
  • forced adoption
  • Foster Care
  • Fudge of the Week
  • Fultemian Project
  • Huffington Post
  • Human Rights
  • IGM
  • Inquiry
  • Interesting Things
  • Interview
  • Judge of the Week
  • Judges
  • judicial bias
  • Law to lust for
  • legal aid
  • LexisNexis Family Law
  • LIP Service
  • LIPs
  • Marriage
  • McKenzie Friends
  • MGM
  • News
  • Notes
  • petition
  • Picture of the Month
  • Podcast
  • Question It
  • Random Review
  • Real Live Interviews
  • Research
  • Researching Reform
  • social services
  • social work
  • Spotlight
  • Stats
  • Terrorism
  • The Buzz
  • The Times
  • Troubled Families Programme
  • Twitter Conversations
  • Update
  • Voice of the Child
  • Voice of the Child Podcast
  • Westminster Debate
  • Who's Who Cabinet Ministers
  • Your Story

Recommended

  • Blawg Review
  • BlogCatalog
  • DaddyNatal
  • DadsHouse
  • Divorce Survivor
  • Enough Abuse UK
  • Family Law Week
  • Family Lore
  • Flawbord
  • GeekLawyer's Blog
  • Head of Legal
  • Just for Kids Law
  • Kensington Mums
  • Law Diva
  • Legal Aid Barristers
  • Lib Dem Lords
  • Lords of The Blog
  • Overlawyered
  • PAIN
  • Paul Bernal's Blog
  • Public Law Guide
  • Pupillage Blog
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs
  • Story of Mum
  • Sue Atkins, BBC Parenting Coach
  • The Barrister Blog
  • The Magistrate's Blog
  • The Not So Big Society
  • Tracey McMahon
  • UK Freedom of Information Blog
  • WardBlawg

Archives

  • Follow Following
    • Researching Reform
    • Join 814 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Researching Reform
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: