Summary
Miss C complained that the partnership did not properly safeguard her children following an incident that involved her youngest child (Child A) being assaulted by an older child (Child B) during the summer holidays while under the care of a child care facility, specifically, that Child A came into contact with Child B some months later outside of Child A's school. In addition, her oldest child (Child C) also came into contact with Child B when they moved to secondary school.
In response to the complaint, the partnership explained that at that time, a resolution was reached in that a new route was negotiated to avoid Child A coming into contact with Child B. In addition, with regard to the concerns raised after Child C came into contact with Child B at secondary school, Child B was transferred to a different establishment.
We took independent advice from a social worker. Whilst we considered that there were some aspects of the support offered to Miss C around the time of the assault that could have been better, we did not consider that the partnership acted unreasonably. We found that it was not possible to ensure that there would never be contact in the community unless there was an order directing someone not to frequent a particular area or venue. We also considered that it would have been preferable if the partnership had considered that Child C might attend the same secondary school as Child B as part of their planning. However, given the time that had passed, and that there was no ongoing contact with social work, we considered this was not unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201800545 as a PDF (24.12 KB) Updated: July 24, 2019