Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust

4. Ms N complains about aspects of care and treatment from Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) during her granddaughter G’s birth, in 2004.

5. Specifically, she said that the Trust: • withheld information about the birth and did not accurately record what happened • did not inform the family that a 2015 MRI showed G’s brain damage occurred during her birth.

6. Ms N feels like she and the rest of her family have lived a lie for the last 21 years. Her granddaughter was placed in care, as there were suspicions that G’s parents had caused her injuries.

7. Ms N is looking for service improvements.

8. Ms N’s granddaughter G was born premature at 29 weeks, on 24 June 2004 via emergency caesarean-section. This is a surgical operation to deliver a baby through an incision in the abdomen and womb. G’s mother had a placental abruption (when the placenta separates from the inner wall of the uterus before birth) and lost two litres of blood, causing multiple organ failure. G has severe brain damage caused by injuries suffered during the birth.

9. The Trust recorded the birth as routine despite the numerous issues. Ms N was aware of issues around the birth at the time. The Trust told her not to question medical professionals as this could affect her potential custody of her granddaughter.

10. The Trust discussed the results of these tests with the family, at a clinic on 17 September 2015. The Trust sent a letter summarising this, to Ms N.

11. Ms N told us she has not seen this letter or discussed the results with the Trust. She told us she became aware of the results of the MRI following a discussion with adult medical services in March/April 2022. She did not complain to the Trust until 1 June 2025.

12. The Trust responded the next day and confirmed it would not be investigating the complaint as it was out of time. Ms L brought her complaint to us on 4 June 2025.

15. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so. We have discussed this with Ms N to understand the reasons why she could not do so. We have also considered the time the organisation has taken to respond to Ms N.

16. Ms N told us she had concerns about G’s birth in August 2004. She said the Trust discouraged her from complaining at the time. She told us the Trust said raising complaints could lead to her losing custody of her granddaughter.

17. As Ms N had concerns about her granddaughter’s birth in August 2004, to be within the 12-month time consideration she should have brought her concerns to us by August 2005, at the latest. She brought her complaint to us in June 2025. This part of her complaint is approximately 21 years out of time.

18. Ms N said she only had knowledge of the MRI results after speaking with adult medical services in March/April 2022. The Trust disputes this and claims the MRI results were discussed with the family at a clinic appointment in September 2015.

19. We have seen a letter from the clinical appointment from 2015, which recorded discussions from the family appointment. This document said staff discussed the origin of G’s brain injury at the appointment. The letter specifically references an MRI scan in July 2015, finding a brain injury.

20. The letter also shows a copy was sent to Ms N. We are satisfied Ms N was aware G’s 2015 MRI scan showed she had brain damage from her birth. As this appointment was in September 2015, Ms L should have brought her complaint to us by September 2016, to be within the 12-month time consideration. She brought her complaint to us in June 2025. This part of her complaint is approximately ten years outside our time consideration.

21. We have spoken with Ms N to understand the reasons why she did not raise her complaint sooner. She told us the Trust told her not to question her granddaughter’s treatment when she was born in 2004. She said she the Trust told her this could lead to G being taken into care.

22. Whilst Ms N may have had concerns about this, she could have reached out to independent parties such as the Ombudsman or sought independent legal advice at the time to see if making a complaint was feasible. It does not seem a reasonable reason to delay complaining for almost 21 years.

23. She also said the reason she did not complain following the 2015 MRI was due to the Trust not informing her of the results.

24. Ms N complained to the Trust on 1 June 2025. At this time the parts of her complaint were almost 21 years and 10 years out of time respectively.

25. On 2 June, the Trust told her, due to the time that passed since the events, it would not consider her complaint. Local resolution took one day to complete.

26. We are not satisfied that the reasons Ms N has provided for the delay, are enough for us to put our time limit to one side. Therefore, we will not be considering the complaint further. We acknowledge Ms N has been through a challenging time caring for Leonie.

27. We understand how difficult it can be to make a complaint. We would like to thank Ms N for bringing her concerns to us.

1. We have carefully considered Ms N’s complaint about Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). We were sorry to hear about the issues surrounding the birth of her granddaughter, G.

2. We appreciate this was a very distressing time for Ms N and her family. We are grateful for the time and effort Ms N spent bringing the complaint to our attention

3. After reviewing the relevant information, we have decided the complaint falls outside of our time limit. We have seen no good reason for us to put our time limit aside to consider it further.