Great-grandad falsely accused of having criminal record by social worker and of being unfit to care for children
FAMILY’S UPSET DOCUMENTED IN COMPLAINT REPORT TO OMBUDSMAN
SOCIAL services caused a family “significant upset” when a staff member falsely accused a child’s greatgrandad of having a criminal record. The exchange was revealed in an anonymised report about a complaint made to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO).
A family raised several issues with the LGO over the way they say they were treated by Leicestershire County Council. They said a social worker incorrectly accused Mr B – the complainant – of having an extensive criminal record and being unfit to care for any child.
They also took issue with the fact that a senior manager from the council failed to keep to their commitment to personally investigate and respond to their complaints.
It started when council staff were looking at concerns following an injury to Mr B’s now 18-month-old great-granddaughter.
In October 2018, when the girl was eight months old, her mum and dad – Miss C and Mr E – took her to hospital following a fall. She was found to have a fractured thigh bone.
The hospital made a safeguarding referral to the council about the girl’s injury, which it believed might have been non-accidental.
The council was already working with Miss C since her daughter was born, as she had previously been in care as a child. The council believed the girl’s mum had some learning difficulties and that her dad had health conditions which might affect their ability to care for their daughter.
Child protection inquiries started two days after the girl was admitted to hospital and the council decided she should be placed in foster care when discharged from hospital.
Mr B contacted the council about the interaction social workers were having with his granddaughter, Miss C, after the girl was admitted to hospital.
He was unhappy with the way in which a social worker had spoken to Miss C at the hospital.
The social worker was introducing the foster carer who would be looking after the little girl. During the meeting, Miss C claimed the social worker had said “this is what a real mother looks like”, something the social worker denied.
Mr B had also been in contact with the council to discuss the option of him and his wife caring for their great-granddaughter when she left hospital.
He said the social worker he spoke to about this had told him he was unfit to care for children because of his lengthy criminal record, but Mr B does not have any criminal convictions.
He said he was “very hurt” and “offended” by the comments.
In response to his complaint, a manager at the council wrote to Mr B at the end of November 2018.
In the letter, they apologised for the error in saying Mr B had a criminal record and explained that the social worker had mistaken Mr B for another relative in the extended family.
The manager added that they had spoken to the social worker who had introduced the foster carer to Miss C.
The social worker had noted that Miss C was very emotional at the time and said that when they tried to reassure her that the foster carer would take good care of her daughter, they believe that Miss C may have misconstrued this as a criticism of her.
The manager also tried to reassure Mr B that the council’s preference was for the little girl to be placed back with her family provided their assessments determined this was the best way of meeting her needs.
Mr B remained unhappy with the way the family were being treated so wrote to the council’s chief executive in November 2018.
As a result a meeting with the director of children and family services was arranged.
Mr B says the director agreed to personally investigate the issues he raised about the council’s handling of his great-granddaughter’s case and the previous adoption of Mr B’s two other grandchildren.
Mr B said that the director and assistant director made notes during the meeting but the LGO said in the report that “it appears the council has not retained these”, something the investigating officer described as “disappointing”.
Mr B approached the LGO because he remained unhappy with the council’s handling of his concerns and felt his complaints had still not been appropriately addressed.
A Leicestershire County Council spokesman said: “We take complaints very seriously. Equally, our role as a safeguarding authority is a top priority and we ensure that concerns are fully investigated.
“We apologised to the family at the time of the case. We also acknowledge the Ombudsman’s comments that we dealt with the complaints in a thorough and sensitive manner.”
The council took the matter to court and care proceedings concluded last month. The court decided the little girl should not return to the care of her parents and should instead be permanently placed with one of her mother’s relatives.