Council Apologises for Stating Child Had Sexually Transmitted Disease
Child protection plan launch without medical confirmation
Ealing Council repeatedly recorded the child had an STI
August 27, 2026
Ealing Council launched a child protection plan after mistakenly noting that a child had a sexually transmitted infection (STI).
A report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman states the child’s mother brought them to see a GP after noticing lesions in their private area, after which a doctor said, “it is unusual to happen at this age group, and commented it could happen via sexual activity”. Crucially, the doctor did not rule definitively that it happened via sexual activity and called for a specialist to rule out sexual abuse.
Three days later, Ealing Council wrote in a separate document that the lesions were due to an STI. The family had seen a private paediatrician who raised no concerns, but referred the child to a dermatologist.
The dermatologist gave a “suggestive” diagnosis of a common viral infection at an appointment three days later. In subsequent meetings, Ealing Council repeatedly stated that the child had a sexually transmitted infection despite there being no diagnosis of such.
The council then referred the child, named as Y in the report, for a child protection medical the following day. The service declined the referral, arguing that there was no evidence of sexual abuse.
The council then visited Y and their siblings a week later. Y did not raise any concerns, but their sibling did raise a separate concern according to the council.
Thereafter, the council held further meetings, this time noting that the lesions could be sexually transmitted, although most professionals argued that the threshold was not met for a child protection plan. This was because there was “no evidence of sexual abuse” or a formal diagnosis of an STI.
At the end of June 2024, the NHS considered the case and said it did not have safeguarding concerns. The family sent the report to the council, asking for the reports to be amended because they contained factual inaccuracies.
The child’s father, referred to as Mr X, complained to the council about the inaccuracies. However, Ealing Council insisted that there were no inaccuracies. The complaint was then escalated, and the council eventually apologised for “grammatical errors” in the assessment.
In response to Ombudsman enquiries the council stated that the GP made the initial referral on the telephone, then a written referral. The local authority said they differed slightly, but both raised concerns of a risk of sexual abuse.
The council said it made decisions regarding possible sexual abuse and the concerns raised by Y’s sibling. At no point in the case recording or the written referral did it say Y definitely had a sexually transmitted infection.
However, the council wrote this in a document three days after the referral, and in later reports and assessments. This was not an accurate reflection of the referral, so the Ombudsman ruled this as a fault.
Ealing Council paid Mr X £500 and has apologised for inaccurately recording the GP referral and delaying a response to his complaints. The council has also placed a letter on the case files detailing the errors, and sent the letter to related professionals.
Ealing Council was contacted for comment but did not respond by the time of publication.
Philip James Lynch - Local Democracy Reporter
Like Reading Articles Like This? Help Us Produce More This site remains committed to providing local community news and public interest journalism. Articles such as the one above are integral to what we do. We aim to feature as much as possible on local societies, charities based in the area, fundraising efforts by residents, community-based initiatives and even helping people find missing pets. We’ve always done that and won’t be changing, in fact we’d like to do more. However, the readership that these stories generates is often below that needed to cover the cost of producing them. Our financial resources are limited and the local media environment is intensely competitive so there is a constraint on what we can do. We are therefore asking our readers to consider offering financial support to these efforts. Any money given will help support community and public interest news and the expansion of our coverage in this area. A suggested monthly payment is £8 but we would be grateful for any amount for instance if you think this site offers the equivalent value of a subscription to a daily printed newspaper you may wish to consider £20 per month. If neither of these amounts is suitable for you then contact info@neighbournet.com and we can set up an alternative. All payments are made through a secure web site. One-off donations are also appreciated. Choose The Amount You Wish To Contribute. If you do support us in this way we’d be interested to hear what kind of articles you would like to see more of on the site – send your suggestions to the editor. For businesses we offer the chance to be a corporate sponsor of community content on the site. For £30 plus VAT per month you will be the designated sponsor of at least one article a month with your logo appearing if supplied. If there is a specific community group or initiative you’d like to support we can make sure your sponsorship is featured on related content for a one off payment of £50 plus VAT. All payments are made through a secure web site. |