THREE social workers are facing allegations they failed to protect children from serious harm.

Senior social worker Diane Constance Cleasby, from Burnley, is accused of failing to order an investigation when it was believed a youngster had been sexually abused by a sibling, the Health and Care Professions Council has been told.

She is further alleged to have not carried out an assessment under Section 47 of the Children Act – covering children thought to be at risk of serious harm – or put in place safeguarding measures for the child.

Cleasby, who headed the integrated support and assessment team for Lancashire County Council, is also said to have given incorrect advice to the referral and assessment team after a referral claiming computers containing child pornography had been seized from a family home. She is also accused of not carrying out a check in another case, failing to seek legal advice in another and child protection failures with a third case.

Her case is being considered alongside Nighat Rafiq, from the Blackburn area, who worked for the county council as a social worker for eight years up to October 2012.

In one case Rafiq, now self-employed, is said, after being given a referral concerning a child who had ‘finger-tip bruising’, to have failed to visit the youngster or make proper enquiries of a foster carer.

Another matter sees her accused of failing to make an appropriate assessment of an unborn child’s case, identifying potential serious risks after birth and failing to complete an adequate family support plan or instigate child protection measures.

Her third charge, from August 2011, claims she failed to make a proper record of a home visit to a possible at-risk child, or report the outcome to a social worker.

Laura Ann Yates, who worked in Central Lancashire, faces charges relating to not doing a proper assessment for two children and not calling a child protection conference.

For another at-risk child in June 2011 she is said to have sent a family support officer to check out a home, before failing to carry out a Section 47 check. ates’ third case is that she failed to act on concerns expressed by a family support officer.

Investigators allege all three are guilty of misconduct or lack of competence.

All three could face suspensions or being struck off if a panel finds the charges proved.