Council accuses grandmother of 'child pornography' over nappy rash photos it asked for

Leicestershire County Council has been ordered to apologise and pay compensation

The woman, named only as Ms Y, was 'shocked' at the allegation (File photo) (Getty)

A local council accused a grandmother of producing “child pornography” after she took photographs of her granddaughter’s nappy rash, as instructed by social workers looking into the child's welfare.

Leicestershire County Council (LCC) was ordered to apologise and pay compensation to the unnamed woman after a watchdog identified a string of failures in its handling of the investigation.

The grandmother, referred to as Ms Y in the Local Government Ombudsman’s (LGO) report, was “shocked” to be labelled a potential child abuser and suffered “distress” following the local authority’s allegation.

Ms Y had made a number of complaints to the council about how it was caring for her infant granddaughter after the mother had neglected to look after her, the ombudsman said. Its report found the council had failed to update a safety plan written for the child, B, or ensure it was followed by her mother, Miss X.

B was born in November 2016 and was placed on a child protection plan in March 2017 on the grounds of neglect, the ombudsman said. Miss X had failed to take her for health checks and professionals voiced concerns she was unable to prioritise her baby’s needs above her own.

The grandmother, Ms Y, looks after B two or three nights a week and is considered a “safety factor”. A social worker told Ms Y that if she did not report her concerns about the baby’s welfare that status would be put at risk, meaning, in the LGO’s words, that she was effectively “compelled” to provide evidence.

LCC asked Ms Y to take photographs and document B’s skin problems including her nappy rash, the ombudsman’s report said – but when she did so “the social worker refused to look at the pictures on the grounds they could be considered ‘child pornography’”, and the council even, allegedly, suggested to B’s doctor that Ms Y ought not to have taken them, it added.

The ombudsman was scathing about this response, saying: “The council asked Ms Y to document concerns and should have considered the photographs appropriately.

“It had asked Ms Y to document the evidence and it is unclear what evidence other than photographs she could have shown.”

LCC was ordered to pay Ms Y a total of £500 for distress caused by the suggestion she “might be considered a perpetrator of child sexual abuse”, and the “time and trouble” involved in obtaining her evidence.

The LGO found the council had also failed to:

• Take into account photographs of unknown men at Miss X’s house including one with drug paraphernalia
• Investigate an allegation Miss X had given B milk to which she was allergic
• Consider a police call-out to Miss X’s house last May when “drug-taking [was] going on in the garden” and Ms Y kept B with her for six nights

An LCC spokesman said: “We take complaints about safeguarding very seriously. We have made improvements to our procedures and agreed with the ombudsman to make a small financial settlement to the complainant.”