A recent judgment in the Family Court highlights the ongoing use of private investigators by local authorities to spy on parents involved in care proceedings, despite serious concerns that councils are using security firms to sidestep the current legal restrictions in place.
The latest case highlighting the practice was published this month, and involves a council which hired a private investigator to covertly film parents the council believed were lying about their relationship status.
The parents are now looking to file a civil claim for what they allege is a breach of their human rights after the Family judge ruled that the evidence was admissible, and that a separate complaint would need to be made within a different tier of the Family Court, or outside of the court itself.
Judge Moradifar observed that whilst the evidence may have been illegally obtained, it was possible for him to admit the video recording for the purpose of the family proceedings.
The parents went on to argue that the council’s use of the investigator was “misjudged and deeply unfortunate” and that the surveillance itself was not fair, reasonable or proportionate. They further alleged that the council had failed to comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and had also breached their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Local Authorities and other public bodies hiring private investigators has risen sharply in the last decade, despite policy suggesting that investigators should only be used for the most serious crimes.
According to Big Brother Watch, more than £3.9 million was spent by public bodies hiring private investigators in 2011-2012.
In 2013, Former Communities secretary Eric Pickles commented on the use of private detectives, warning that, “Such powers can only be used for serious crimes, and require a magistrates’ warrant. It is totally unacceptable if councils are trying to sidestep these important new checks and they should be held to account for acting outside the law.”
A Freedom Of Information Request made in 2012 about Devon County Council’s use of private investigators revealed that the council had spent a substantial amount on covert surveillance of families in care proceedings. The breakdown was outlined as follows:
2008/09
£12,947.79
2009/10
£12,534.37
2010/11
£15,688.44
2011/12
£20,857.70
2012/13
£13,275.01
This area is in urgent need of reform, and guidelines in the interim should be issued for local authorities on how and when they can use private detectives.
What do you think? Should public bodies be allowed to spy on parents in family court proceedings?
Researching Reform 
I can just imagine the kick the social workers get when their detective shows them a video of “a mum and dad” having sex in their bedroom!” Disgusting isn’t it so take the kids away ! Send them instead to a same sex couple as an example of multiculturism
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually Ian, the video evidence in this case was pathetic.. all it showed was the father going into the home and coming out again after 5 minutes – and no confirmation that the mother was actually inside at the time…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like “Sherlock” did not do a very good job at all ! Not even a cheap thrill !What a waste of taxpayers cash……….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Even Columbo would have thought of “just one more thing”.
yes very poor value for money.
most of these guys couldnt find a piglet on a Pig Farm.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
Snoopers beware.
LikeLike
It would be useful to know the circumstances that gave cause for such methods to be used.
For example: A father may have sexually abused the children or been convicted of paedophile offences, and the Council has agreed that the father should leave the home, rather than the children be removed, and the mother has agreed that he would not be allowed to enter the home or approach the children?. (This was recommended post-Cleveland 1987 to avoid the need to remove children from their homes where they had been sexually abused).
Is it reasonable for a Council to arrange such surveillance to ensure the father and mother adhered to the agreement and the children were protected?.
Even when social workers visit daily they would not have the powers to search the home to see if the father was present. It does happen that some mothers are convinced fathers are innocent despite the evidence, or place their own needs before their children’s rights to safety.
LikeLike
It shows the money to be made from private fostering and adoption the latter a minimum of £30,000 per adoption maximum is unlimited.
It shows the determination to harvest and increase this industry, when no real support is offered to the family and the ‘risk’ does not need to be proved or even justified.
And if the LA were such protection zealots, we would not have had 1500 rapes in Rotherham alone over 15 years .
Nor, LAs last year trying to get a statute through that would have exempted them from liability for breach of their duty to protect children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“no real support is offered to the family and the ‘risk’ does not need to be proved or even justified.”
absolutely right. they never offer support even when it has been recommended by a Psych’ in the court. and when you consider parents with no previous history at all that tells you things are gravely wrong.
when you said “maximum is unlimited” for Adoption has anyone heard whats the highest amount charged to Adopt a Baby.
in one City in the Northeast a Foi response from the DFE showed that 70 babies under the age of 1yr old were taken from their parents in the year to Mar 2016. thats alarming numbers.
LikeLike
In 2011 there were on average 670 care orders a month, now the figure in 1600 and there is no evidence that this has aided child protection.
In addition are all those by consent were parents think they have to give up their children, S20 removals and on leaving care at 16 many, girls in care are told they must give up their babies, as part of a care pathway agreement with LA.
It has made billions in profit for the industry including the experts and lawyers.
When they started taking foreign EU nation children the EU got interested.
Yet, we let them get away with it . Without even the need to show,it is in a child’s best interests nor have any definitive figures on adoption breakdowns.
The fact LAs, wanted statutory exemption from liability, shows they anticipated that those taken into care, would/could sue the LAs at 18, for breach of the Human Rights as they have done.
What sort of country do we live in, that allows profits to be made out of the root cutting of children and shows programmes like ‘Long Lost Families’ to show how important birth ties are.
UK and Portugal are the only countries that allow forced adoption per se.
This country is intent on destroying relationships, particularly those of the family.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Finola you seem to know quite a lot.
what you said about Parent Alienation was interesting. do you have more info on how they operate that nasty little line of business ?
and whats the legality of it. are they allowed to do it in the best interests of the child ?
LikeLike
Google my name and read my NLJ articles and also SJ. Suffice it to say Blair etc new there was a need for children and exploited it legally remember adoption was Cameron Flag ship AND its getting worse and worse. Similar with the autistic/LD/Mental making huge profits. Clearly parents are alienated as they are removed both under MCA in COP and in care courts.
LikeLike
I read in the media years ago that one lady had 12 removed. She said she kept having them in the hope that the LA might let her keep one .
Children/babies in care are now the only children/babies available for adoption, and twenty years ago LAs by law were put in charge of the process, which has now been privatised and most Church /faith adoption agencies have been destroyed.
There is also a huge conflict of interests, as most of these private and sometime charitable agencies like CORAM, are also employed to assess the parents but receive far more money if the children are adopted.
And fostering to adopt means children are fostered by those who want to adopt them so parents don’t stand a chance particularly in our inquisitorial secret care courts where all experts are instructed jointly by LA and Cafcass.
Ever earlier intervention is the mantra and Social Workers are told to concentrate particularly on the under 4s, as these are easier to adopt.
As you say these children are adopted by parents, who have not had children and so how can their parental skills or relationship be assessed.
And the damage of being raised by strangers, and sometimes taken back into care, is not even considered.
LikeLike
THE CASH RACKET EXPOSED !
The sad thing is that the sort of parents who really mistreat,assault,or neglect their children rarely go to court to try and keep them ! That sort of person will usually give courts a very wide berth !
No ,the “SS” take children from nice happy law abiding families whose parents love them enough to go through months and sometimes years of debilitating court sessions .Surely most of these caring parents should win in court? But nearly all of them of them lose as the stats below prove.
JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 26)
In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.
Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?
Judicial and Court statistics 2011 – Gov.uk
Stats from BAAF:-
Placements 75% (52,050) of children looked after on 31st March 2015 were living with foster carers 9% (6,570) were living in secure units, children’s homes or hostels 5% (3,510) were placed with their parents 5% (3,320) were placed for adoption 3% (2,280) were with another placement in the community 3% (1,750) were placed in residential schools or other residential settings Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children 2,630 unaccompanied asylum seeking children were looked after on 31st March 2015 – See more at: http://www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/for-what-reasons-do-other-countries-allow-adoption-without-consent/#comment-62844
The cost of residential care (dept of education)
iii.Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk
Using the data collected and approach adopted this year we estimate that the average cost of residential care provision per child per week is around £2,900 !!
i.www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04470.pdf = VERY COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS COMPILED FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY
ii.Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk
iii.Child protection register statistics: England: 2011 – 2015 – nspcc
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/…/child–protection-register-statistics-engl…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35064228
iv.Explanation of stats above is that approx 5000 children go missing from care but on average each child runs away (very often back to parents) at least 3 times hence 17,000 reports of missing children !
v.http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents (maggie mellon vice chair british association of social workers)
vi.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35088794 Record numbers of UK babies taken at birth !!
vii.Follow the dollar” as they say in New York and there you will usually find the answer ! Only one in 400 care applications is refused by the courts (judicial statistics) Ever Wonder why?1:- Thousands of worthy citizens such as ,social workers,barristers,solicitors,,court appointed experts,judges,cafcass types,fosterers,directors of charities (Barnardos?) and adoption and fostering agencies,directors and owners of special schools,and care homes providing “secure accommodation” etc etc all make a very good living out of it all . The more kids in care the more cash there is to be shared around ! No conspiracies necessary ;just “Birds of a Feather flock together” ! (rather like our MPs fiddling their expenses)
All bureaucracies grow as fast as they are permitted to do so and the care system is positively encouraged to expand by its eager participants ! Social workers have scorecards to show who can achieve adoptions (mostly forced) in the least possible time !2:-Fostering and adoption agencies make millions in profits as for example the “National fostering and adoption agency” founded by two social workers and then sold on to a highly commercial company for $130,million +! Since then I believe it has been resold again at a huge second profit !3:-Care homes,special schools and similar enterprises charge Councils three or four times the cost of sending Prince Harry to Eton but offer none of the facilities or expertise found at Eton and similar schools so profits in these awful abuse ridden dumps are often enormous !Why should local authorities seek to take more children into care when it costs them so much money? That is a question often posed by social workers on the defensive.
Well since when did civil servants care how much money they spend if they benefit as individuals with high salaries, all at the taxpayers expense,?Sadly the numbers of kids in care will increase until the public concience is aroused (as it was to abolish slavery,and later kids working in mines and up chimneys);
Stop punishment without crime,abolish gagging orders, and bring back” free speech” so that parents and children can say what they like to press and public and to each other without being labelled as criminals for doing so.
This will come about some day but meanwhile children and parents needlessly suffer.
If there is no physical or sexual violence involved wouldn’t it be better spending some of this money helping law abiding parents to keep their children at home?
Despite all these wonderful descriptions of overpaid foster carers, 10,000 children went “missing” from care, as you will see from the article below:
lordslog
Joint Inquiry into Children Who Go Missing from Care
Extract (point 9):
In June 2012, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the APPG for Looked-after Children and Care Leavers published the report of their joint inquiry into children who go missing from care.
The report argued that the Government was under-reporting the number of children going missing from care. While the official figure for 2011 was 930, the report argues that, according to police data, an estimated 10,000 individual children went missing. The report cited that this high number was symptomatic of a care system which was far from being fit for purpose and in need of an urgent rethink.
Foster children go ‘missing’ from care 17,000 times
•10 December 2015
•From the section England
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for all this valuable new information which shows the situation has become ever more dire and no one is doing anything except make even more money by ripping families apart and abusing children and wrecking lives in the guise of child protection.
I will add this link of the profit made by fostering companies from corporate watch
Best Wishes Finola.
https://corporatewatch.org/news/2015/dec/15/foster-care-business
Foster Care Associates
Owned by: Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees through Ideapark Ltd
Income from foster care in 2014**: £127.2m
Payouts to owner in 2014: £7m
Highest paid director salary and other benefits: £406,000
National Fostering Agency (includes the Foster Care Agency)
Owned by: Stirling Square Capital Partners (previously Graphite Capital until April 2015)
Income from foster care in 2014*: £94.5m
Payouts to owners in 2014: £14.4m to Graphite Capital
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £318,112
.
Acorn Care and Education (includes Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering)
Owned by: Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan
Income from foster care in 2014*: £73.1m
Payouts to owners: £13m accrued in 2014
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £266,420
back.
Partnerships in Children’s Services (includes Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House)
Owned by: Sovereign Capital
Income from foster care in 2014*: £29.8m
Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.9m
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: not shown in accounts
we have not heard back.
Swiis Foster Care
Owned by: Dev Dadral and family
Income from foster care in 2014: £29.4m
Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.5m (from the wider Swiis group, see below)
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £169,000
Capstone Foster Care
Owned by: Different individuals and companies (see below)
Income from foster care in 2015: £21.1m
Payouts to owners in 2015: £406,000
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £185,000
Compass Fostering (includes The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering)
Owned by: August Equity
Income from foster care in 2015: £25.9m
Payouts to owners in 2015: £3.1m accrued
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £131,000
caretech
Owners: shares are publicly-listed – Farouq and Haroon Sheikh biggest shareholders with 20%
Income from foster care in 2014: £12m
Payouts to owners in 2014: £240,000 in 2014
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £324,000
LikeLike
is there any evidence that Social workers and other Pros have invested in Fostering and Adoption and getting a slice of the pie ?
LikeLike
yes i agree.
have you ever seen any evidence that S/workers, psychologists, Guardians etc are getting unofficial backhanders or bonuses for winning Adoption proceedings ?
if there is a brown envelope culture there must be a way to uncover it.
LikeLike
“the “SS” take children from nice happy law abiding families whose parents love them enough to go through months and sometimes years of debilitating court sessions”
Yes Ian, i totally agree.
and i believe courts proceedings are being dragged on way beyond the 26 wks because they are all making more money out of it.
its a money making Racket for shure and without doubt Rigged so that parents can never Win.
LikeLike
What a disgusting racket it is to remove children from good decent homes. One particularly tortured family witnessed months of lies and deceit from their local council + their chums during which the parents didn’t see one of their children on contact visits for over 9 months at one point during the removal process. This child had had her name changed also, and this long separation could well have been part of the so-called “Parent Alienation Syndrome” used on removed children to brainwash them of their former memories of the previous family life they’ed led? On other contact visits regarding their other 5 removed children it was pot luck which of the 5 children – if any – were brought to contact meetings when their parents would spend hours travelling 50 miles to the other side of London for the visits and NOONE would turn up sometimes – not even the prescribed contact centre staff, let alone any of the children – the location would be locked and closed and in darkness, with the parents not being informed beforehand as they should have been, the council involved also failing to pay the travel warrants for the parents travelling to + from the contact centres for over 40 times – the parents had to pay for each journey themselves after the first initial runs and were actually bankrupt by the end of the entire 5 year child removal process which included each parent being given 7 years imprisonment on the most questionable of charges after a 45 day criminal trial – another unbelievable but true story – with a defence team you’d never heard the likes of – ever – another scandal in itself. God only knows what these 3 characters who made up this poor family’s defence team – 2 so-called “barristers” and an “assistant solicitor” are up to today – straight from the Abyss itself!
Regarding the Interim Care Orders which were renewed every 28 days for months on end: many were made without the parents being in the courtroom [which was their right] when the order was renewed. On one occasion they waited outside the courtroom all day waiting for the hearing only to be told finally, late afternoon, that the order had been made, and could they please go home because the building was closing. Unbelievable. See video: https://www.vid.me/76jW – just a tiny part of an unbelievably cruel story, courtesy of that N. London council…After 3 years in the hellholes of UK jails where most medical treatment was unbelievably denied for so long for the mother regarding her serious ailments [eg. internal bleeding for over 2 years after giving birth to her baby in a HMP Holloway cell in the early hours of 10 March 2012] almost to the day 36 months later on the 26 Nov. 2014 the 2 parents were released from prison but sent back immediately to their original Nigerian home where their recuperation, at long last, could begin – they were barred from entering this country ever again, and without a clue regarding anything to do with their 7 children, stolen by the State.
What a racket: “How Social Services are Paid Bonuses to Snatch Babies for Adoption” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-paid-bonuses-snatch-babies-adoption.html [this D. Mail article is from 2008 – has anything changed?].
LikeLike
“Parent Alienation Syndrome”
Yes i would say this is definitely happening. children being severed from their parents and siblings while the LA is on the Adoption chase.
not forgetting the PTSD the kids will be suffering.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Reblogged this on VICTIMS OF THE STATE.
LikeLike
Only in extreme situation should they be doing this but its quite clear from this information that its being abused. over 75 grand spent on Snoops spying on parents. it is very dirty. but i think most people in this country know by now the SS always did play very dirty.
they also video parents in contact rooms and lie about it.
i also believe these covert investigators are Hacking the computers of parents.
it would be nice to see some prosecutions come from this.
LikeLike
is there a way of determining if a LA has used a Pi against parents if it wasnt mentioned in court etc ?
LikeLike
That would be a good FOI request to make x
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes,
and i have a feeling what the response will be if the Transparency project are anything to go by. Silence……
LikeLike
FOI is independent 🙂 It’s very good too.
LikeLike
what i meant was the LA will very likely ignore it like they did with the TP Foi request re Adoption targets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Child x, the eldest child removed from the perfectly decent family who were moved from Barnet’s jurisdiction to Haringey’s, we later found out had spent 3 months in intensive therapy at a clinic – a “patient” of a a well known Dr. there. This was not disclosed to anyone, least of all the parents. This child had proved a “problem” placement, rebelling against her lot – hence her stay there. In the parent’s extremely questionable criminal trail oddly it was stated months of computer records were claimed to have been lost. It was said the carer who had taken care of the child had to keep a daily diary of events pertaining to the daily life of the child’s residence with the carer – these records to be sent to the relevant council etc involved regularly to monitor things. In court it was stated months of records went missing by way of a computer glitch or similar and thus those vital records were unobtainable and lost, not that the stay in the special clinic would’ve been disclosed anyway, more than likely. It was around this time it was declared the child had taken on a new name. During these months was when this child was “worked on” to rearrange her perception of what had been in her previous life with her perfectly honourable parents., and, presumably, rid the child of her rebelliousness. Supporters only found out about this special clinic and this child’s stay there through an underground grapevine of decent folk who reported it after enquiries were made (similar to the underground resistance grapevines in WW2). The defence team were made aware of things but did nothing. This true event was just one serious irregularity in this scandalous case.
LikeLike
Secrets are the No1 formula of Local authorities.
We know of a 2yr old child who had fell and hurt his hand while in foster care. the parents who had full parental responsibility were not told by the carer or the SW. they only found out from a relation who was also in A & E at the time and seen the children in the waiting room.
Lies and Secrets thats what they do best.
LikeLike
As a PI for 57 years, now retired, I took the view that it was the duty of the Authorities to investigate al Claims/Benefits where there is an element of doubt as to veracity! PI’s are tasked to establish, collect and present evidence of facts, if a person is a beneficiary of any publicy funded facility, I would suggest that it is reasonable to expect to be checked? All too often the PI is painted as the villian, when such slurs are generally undeserved, without PI’s and their work, Justice and Due Process would be difficult to maintain as a balance and fair system
Ian (D. Withers)
ian@pilimited.com
LikeLike
Not sure why you have to spy on and then record two people (adults) having sex.
Would they get public funds for a good “performance”? Are new social workers shown these videos as part of their induction course?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The bottom line being that it is the Authority and its Officers who need to be challenged or curtailed Dint blame the Messenger!!
LikeLike
Of course investigations of a covert nature are needed in certain instances to separate the truth from non-truth regarding claims made, but when it comes to using a P.I.’s “evidence” on anyone it is not acceptable if that “evidence” is deliberately twisted and manipulated by authorities so as something seems to be shown that isn’t necessarily there. Given what is known by those removing children twisting and manipulating things seems par for their course [the case mentioned earlier reeked of it], while data gained covertly aiding or actually helping any subject of covert surveillance regarding questionable allegations made against them is not disclosed and kept far away from things. In effect, parents can be framed so easily by using this underhand surveillance bs – perhaps one of the reasons so-called authorities do it in the first place – especially to bolster a potentially weak case!
And anyway – how many cases have there been where the children have been allowed to remain in their homes when covert surveillance data has shown the authorities have been wrong to attempt to remove the children? None, I bet!
LikeLiked by 1 person
i have a feeling that LAs are feeding all sorts of negative inaccurate or even totally Falsified information to Judges without the parents knowing about it which then sways the judge against the parents. all the signs strongly point this direction. and we already know judges have been involved in clandestine meetings conspiring with workers and other LA staff.
why has this gone uninvestigated and no prosecutions as its clearly illegal.
LikeLike
Natasha
re Private investigators spying on parents for LAs.
have you heard of this sort of thing before and would you say its common and widespread ?
i had not heard anything about this till now.
LikeLike
This was news to me. But if you check the links you’ll see it happens quite a lot in care proceedings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A well kept secret of Local authority Fox Hunting techniques it would seem.
My my, what next i wonder.
Lets dredge the stinking cesspool and see what else is down there!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: UK: Councils use of PI's - Legal ???? - World Association of Professional Investigators
Pingback: Family Justice Council To Probe Covert Recordings In Family Cases | Researching Reform