Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust

3. Miss C complains about aspects of the care she received from the Trust between January and September 2025. Specifically, Miss C complains the Trust:

• did not inform social services about her pregnancy following her initial appointment on January 2025, which would have been indicated as she had a previous child who was permanently removed from her care and • included inaccurate information in its referral to social services, stating Miss C had said this was her first pregnancy.

4. Miss C says the Trust’s late reporting to social services caused her significant distress and worry during her pregnancy, as she was worried social services may also remove her second child from her care.

5. Miss C also believes her second child was later removed based on the incorrect statement that she had not made the Trust aware she had a previous child which had been permanently removed by social services. As a result, Miss C says she lost trust in the both the organisation and its staff.

6. As an outcome to her complaint, Miss C would like the Trust to acknowledge the failings and a consideration of a financial remedy for the distress these events caused.

7. Miss C had a child in 2022, and this child was permanently removed from her care.

8. Miss C became pregnant again in January 2025. She attended multiple hospital appointments at the Trust from 4 February, including antenatal visits, testing, and scans. Miss C says she made the Trust aware of the events surrounding her first child in 2022.

9. The Trust says it was not aware of Miss C’s first child until 2 July. At this time, the Trust alerted social services and safeguarding proceedings were started. A decision was later made to place the second child with their father. Miss C was given limited and supervised contact at this time.

Referral to child services

11. One of the things we look at when assessing a case, is whether an investigation might not be practical or come to a satisfactory conclusion. We have considered this in this case and think we should not investigate it. On balance, we are unlikely to be able to reach a robust view of the events complained about.

12. Miss C told us she was open and honest with the Trust about her previous child and that they had been removed from her care from the first appointment. Miss C says the Trust should have contacted social services following the initial appointment. She feels this would have allowed social services to put further support in place so she could keep custody of her second child. We are very sorry to hear this led Miss C to losing trust in medical staff. We recognise this was an incredibly difficult and distressing time for her.

13. Miss C’s medical records show she stated she had previously been pregnant on her first antenatal appointment on 4 February. However, her notes for that appointment also show Miss C answered no when the clinician asked if she had previous children, and if she had previous children subject to child protection plans, in foster care, adopted, or living elsewhere. This suggested that although Miss C had been pregnant previously, she had not had a child.

14. The medical records show the Trust learnt about Miss C’s previous child on 2 July. At that point, the Trust initiated a safeguarding process and made a referral to social services. The Trust and social services held a multi-disciplinary team meeting on 4 July.

15. We do not doubt Miss C attended the antenatal appointments, and she has sent us evidence of these. We are therefore left with a difference of accounts in what was discussed in these appointments. We have carefully considered the two accounts.

16. We recognise Miss C’s account that she made the Trust aware of her previous child and the events leading to their removal from her care. The Trust however says it was not made aware of this until 2 July.

17. We are sadly unlikely to be able to reach a view as to which version of the events is correct. This is because we were not present at the time of the appointments, and there is no further independent evidence or third-party account of these. In these circumstances, this becomes a matter of ‘he said/she said.’

18. We appreciate this will cause Miss C considerable distress, as she says she made the Trust aware of the previous events, and feels the Trust should have made arrangements for further support and input from social services. We recognise Miss C feels this may have changed the decisions made around her second child’s placement and her level of contact with them.

19. Decisions around safeguarding and child protection plans will take a number of different pieces of evidence into account. This includes the circumstances of the removal of Miss C’s first child, the events of the previous pregnancy, any current concerns, and also additional information from other sources, such as Miss C’s GP. Therefore, we are unlikely to be able to say that earlier reporting to social services and earlier intervention would have changed the decisions made for Miss C’s second child.

20. For these reasons we have decided to not look at this complaint further. We are sorry we have not been able to investigate Miss C’s complaint or provide her with closure for her concerns. We would like to thank her for her time and effort in bringing this complaint to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Miss C’s complaint about the way Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) dealt with her referral to social services. We recognise the significant distress and concern these events will have caused Miss C.

2. On balance, we sadly are unlikely to be able to reach a view on Miss C’s case. This is because Miss C and the Trust have a different recollection of what Miss C disclosed during appointments early in her pregnancy. We are therefore unlikely to be able to reach a view about what was discussed. For this reason, we have decided not to consider this complaint further.