A LOCAL government watchdog has upheld Dudley Council’s decision to investigate claims a child might be harmed despite the mother saying they were ‘malicious’.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman said social workers were right to carry out an investigation after the girl’s father alleged her grandmother had threatened to harm his daughter.

At the time both parents were separated and the mother and child were living at the grandmother’s home.

Reporting his findings, the Ombudsman said: “The council was not at fault in the way it dealt with a child protection referral or the way it carried out its assessment.” 

But he did uphold the mother’s complaints that the council hadn’t responded properly to her telephone calls disputing details of the social workers’ report.

Outlining the details of the case, the Ombudsman said in September 2018 the child’s father contacted the council after he overheard an argument between the two women, when he claimed the grandmother made a threat to harm the girl.

Subsequently, police prevented both the mother and the child from returning to the house until social workers investigated the allegation. 

That investigation found the child was not in any immediate risk and referred the case for a further assessment, which her mother agreed to.

It concluded the child was receiving a good level of care and there were no concerns about her safety or needs and social workers decided to end their involvement.

But the mother complained details of the assessment were incorrect saying it left out relevant information such as the father’s alcohol and drug use and demanded the report be removed from her daughter’s records.

In response the council said it would correct the inaccuracies and spelling errors but it would not remove relevant information about her family’s history.

In her complaint to the ombudsman, the mother said social workers should not have carried out the assessment because the original claim was malicious, it also contained inaccuracies and was biased and the local authority had refused to remove it from her daughter’s file.

In addition, she there were delays in investigating complaints and responding to telephone calls and the council had disclosed her personal details to her ex-partner, all of which had caused her stress and worry.

In upholding the council’s actions, the Ombudsman said the authority was required by law to make enquiries to enable it to decide whether it should take action to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.

After establishing there was not a significantly high immediate risk it passed the referral on for a child in need assessment to take place, in line with its procedures which the mother had consented to,  adding: “The council was not at fault here.”

Referring to the mother as ‘Miss X’ the Ombudsman stated: "The council was not at fault in the way it dealt with a child protection referral or the way it carried out its assessment. 

“The council was at fault for delays in contacting Miss X and dealing with her complaint. The council has apologised for this. This remedies the injustice caused.”