A scandal involving unregistered and unqualified child protection employees using informal job titles to avoid detection inside the UK’s family courts has been uncovered.
A potentially enormous loop-hole appears to exist which allows men and women to work in child protection without any kind of registration or monitoring, at all.
Researching Reform was contacted by a service user who recently wrote to The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), which regulates child welfare professionals, to raise concerns about a social worker at Staffordshire County Council.
The council is no stranger to controversy. Branded a ‘shambles’ after accidentally leaking personal information about children in its care, one of its social workers was also banned from working in child protection altogether after advising a vulnerable child to self harm. The local authority is fielding several more complaints and is currently under investigation.
The service user in this case needed the social worker’s full title and registration number to make a complaint, so she contacted Staffordshire County Council to get those details. The council replied that the social worker was a Senior Practitioner for Families First, a programme which aims to support vulnerable families, particularly those suffering from acute poverty.
As the service user was not able to find any registration details for the social worker, she went back to the council and asked if the social worker should be registered as a matter of course. The council said, yes, so the service user tried looking online again to confirm she was in fact registered.
It soon became apparent that she was not.
Frustrated at not being able to make a formal complaint without the social worker’s registration number, the service user then contacted the HCPC to complain not only about the social worker’s conduct but about the missing registration information.
The HCPC’s response is alarming:
Researching Reform then decided to reach out to the HCPC on Twitter. We asked them for policy information on unregistered users and which bodies if any monitored their activities. They sent us a series of tweets and Direct Messages, none of which answered our questions.
Protected titles are job titles which fall under the jurisdiction of a regulation body, allowing the body to keep tabs on professionals and ensure they are held accountable in the event of wrongdoing. If a person chooses to represent themselves using a title which is not recognised as protected, they are then effectively able to practice unregulated.
The title of Senior Practitioner is not a protected title, so the social worker in the case above is not required by law to be registered. This means she can practice as a social worker without any kind of regulation. It also leaves service users unable to file a formal complaint with an independent reviewing body, should there be concerns about the social worker’s conduct.
This loophole is already well known in the context of practicing psychologists, where unqualified individuals roam free, dispensing advice completely unwatched by any regulation authority – advice which is often accepted by Family Courts, without any legitimate confirmation of qualifications or experience.
The dangers of allowing this kind of unregulated activity are huge. The case of the social worker above, who has been able to avoid registration and regulation just by calling herself a Senior Practitioner, is one such example.
Families First work is highly sophisticated work, and the role of a senior practitioner is hugely demanding, requiring a high level of experience as a social worker, so any poor decision making or incompetence could change the life of a child forever.
It could lead to that child’s death.
So what can service users do if they’re concerned about a child protection officer?
Some relief exists in the Health And Social Work Professions Order 2001, under article 39(1) which reads:
Offences 39.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person commits an offence if with intent to deceive (whether expressly or by implication)— (a) he falsely represents himself to be registered in the register, or a particular part of it or to be the subject of any entry in the register; (b) he uses a title referred to in article 6(2) to which he is not entitled; (c) he falsely represents himself to possess qualifications in a relevant profession.
But what happens if the person you want to complain about hasn’t lied about their position or qualifications? In the case of negligent care and advice, the options seem bleak. The HCPC suggests complaining to that person’s superiors, however an internal review is unlikely to be impartial. With no independent body to call on and little information about the individual on offer, the room for wrongdoing to occur and go undetected is vast.
It’s time the government closed this loophole.
Very many thanks to Jane Doe for alerting us to this development.
nojusticeforparents said:
brilliant you should follow on with the data protection leak of the fc’s lmao xxxx When injustice becomes law rebellion becomes duty. Thomas Jefferson Lawful Rebellion
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ian Josephs said:
No surprises there then !!!!
LikeLiked by 5 people
Roger Crawford said:
Maggie Tuttle raised similar questions quite a while ago, but got nowhere. The details you have found, Natasha, is a scandal – no less – and should be sent forthwith to an investigative journalist like Sue Reid. I have no doubt that thousands of injustices have occurred as a result of these practices, and thousands more children put seriously at risk. The stock answer is ‘lessons will be learned’ after each tragedy, but obviously they never are. Perhaps a full-page spread in a popular Daily might help change things.
As with Grenfell, we really need a public inquiry into the conduct of social services, and if necessary a class action to obtain one.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Ian Josephs said:
Lessons will be learned…….. But what lessons? Who will learn them? What changes will be made as a result?
Noone asks these questions because probably everyone knows the would never never get answered !
LikeLiked by 3 people
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLiked by 1 person
brunwinbooks said:
What have I been investigating for a number of years now, bogus social workers, hcpc no wonder the lie. NHS I believe its the same nurses, doctors, dentist, no qualified. Only thing I’ve come across is to fiddle what you Can out of the UK tax payer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
maureenjenner said:
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
An eyeopener for those of us who believe our lives run along authenticated lines of law and order.
LikeLiked by 2 people
alan Brunwin. brunwinbooks. brunwin poetry. said:
Maureen I though that before 2013, since then investigated so many , I don’t trust any government organization now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Unqualified & Undetectable – The Child Protection Workers Running Wild Inside England’s Family Courts | Jusice for Families
Dr. Manhattan. said:
“This means she can practice as a social worker without any kind of regulation. It also leaves service users unable to file a formal complaint with an independent reviewing body, should there be concerns about the social worker’s conduct..
.
The Senior Practitioner Loophole. this Rotten system seems to get Deeper and Darker as more comes to the surface.
i would suspect this crafty little idea came for the Legal Dept of a Local Authority. they are very good at scheming up ideas to protect staff from allegations of wrongdoing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
maureenjenner said:
I have found similar eyeopeners when it comes to those labelled ‘carers’ of the elderly with early dementia.
The picture is patchy and made worse because of bureaucratic laziness. Too many remain unaccountable and seem not to care as they tell you, ‘That’s not within my remit.’
Wealthy victims of unscrupulous families, satisfied to fob off their unfortunate mother or father who, having signed powers of attorney are bullied and made to submit to degrading measures of being told what they can and cannot do; where they can or cannot go – as well as with whom they can go anywhere or do anything.
How degrading is it to park an old car – scheduled for scrap, outside the front door of a father who has been buying and selling motors all his life and built up a multi-million business – now inherited by his children, just because though he no longer drives, he wants to see his car with his number plate where it has always been?
We no longer have general practices where individuals matter and who fail to keep checks on vulnerable people; hospitals who fail to follow up after scans so four months later, patients are no wiser about their conditions than they were before.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brunwinbooks said:
In my fight with the Houdini Sutton council, its been convenient to them using this in my eyes illegal way to get round laws in children’s Services. 2011 social workers told to write false reports on victim families to secure children into their care dealer system. I have not forgot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[Name Withheld] said:
the social worker who kidnapped my eldest 2 wasn’t registered at the time, she even fabricated reports and assessments. [edited] “I was fairly confident that I knew what you would say in your comments. I have, therefore, put a brief comment in which I felt reflected what you would have said and stated that you have not seen the Assessments yet.” we never saw any paperwork before the kangaroo court hearing, our solicitors wouldn’t show any evidence to support us and prove she was lying. my solicitor said “it’s not that kind of court”, and my wife’s solicitor claimed my wife agrees to the adoptions, which she never. one of the magistrates even shouted “shut up” when we spoke up and pointed out the lies and asked “are they allowed to lie in court? i thought it was a crime”. and to this date we’ve never had an assessment.
it was her bullshit that led to the forced adoption of our eldest 2 daughters, and because of that, it led to the kidnap of our other children. they used her fabricated reports and assessments to kidnap our other children at birth. they had nothing new in their court bundle.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Natasha said:
Thank you for your comment, and I’m genuinely sorry to hear about what happened. I have had to edit your post for legal reasons, for which I apologise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dr. Manhattan. said:
All i can say is Join the Club.
false case files and lying social workers are the Norm in child protection.
more pressure needs to be put on Govt to look at pressing the courts to reverse Adoption orders if corruption is proven.
they cant be allowed to keep telling parents that Adoption orders are final and cant be overturned.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
As the late President Roosevelt once said in relation to the Pearl Harbor counter attack on Japan.
“Do not tell me it can’t be done!”
LikeLiked by 2 people
nojusticeforparents said:
just from post i think this is another staffordshire case with same county manager onvolved
LikeLiked by 1 person
tummum said:
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Unqualified & Undetectable – The Child Protection Workers Running Wild Inside England’s Family Courts | tummum's Blog
nojusticeforparents said:
thanks to this article the hcpc are investigating the individual x many thanks x
LikeLiked by 4 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
interesting development.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brunwinbooks said:
I wish hcpc would investigate social worker [edited] works for [edited] council now. When he was working at the London borough of Sutton a police investigation into him found his qualifications not in order and reported him to Sutton council executive. Nothing was said or done, Sutton council just moved him to another borough, that being Merton council. Allegations of trafficking local authority children were made covered up
LikeLiked by 1 person
Natasha said:
Thank you for your comment, Brunwin Books. For legal reasons we have had to edit your post, apologies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brunwinbooks said:
I have come across corruption on a large scale, involving children’s Services also NHS trust. When I began investigating a bogus social worker that seems to be protected no matter what compelling evidence I find against him even the metropolitan police found his qualifications not in order, but he still works on and seems to be beyond all laws hcpc blatantly lied to me to cover for a bogus social worker. That’s the corruption good people are up against. Perhaps Tom brake mp should open his eyes a lot more
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dr. Manhattan. said:
i sent this to Susan Acland-Hood- Family courts.
hello,
High court Judge Justice Pauffley exposed the dreadful activities of Family court Judges and Social workers. please see below for details.
“Judges and social workers have been conspiring to remove children unjustly from their parents, a scathing High Court ruling said today.
It condemned family court judges for a ‘clandestine arrangement’ which meant that they simply rubber-stamped the demands of social workers without giving a fair hearing to the pleas of parents.
Rulings by family judges were ‘cut and pasted’ from recommendations emailed to the court by social workers, the High Court found.
“The High Court judge warned that ‘the practices I have described are not confined to this area but are widespread across the country’.
this is the link to that story Published 18 February 2014.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562249/It-never-happen-Appeal-judge-slams-cut-paste-decision-
family-court-led-social-workers-taking-baby-parents-unjustly.html#ixzz4kXy0N39a
Our question to you is why has there been no investigations or prosecutions when Family court Judges all over the country have and most likely still are breaking the law ?
This was the first response.
“Susan Acland-Hood, Chief Executive of HM Courts & Tribunals Service, has asked me to thank you for your email of 31 July. We will look into the issues you raise and reply by 29 August.
Christine Worsley | HM Courts & Tribunals Service | Customer Investigations Team | Customer Directorate
10th Floor (10.34) | 102 Petty France | London | SW1H 9AJ
e-mail: customerinvestigations@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk“.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
So they looked into it and this was their response.
“Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email of 31 July, addressed to Susan Acland-Hood as Chief Executive of HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS). It is not possible for Ms Acland-Hood to respond to all correspondence addressed to her and your email has therefore been passed to this department for reply on her behalf.
I realise you are concerned about Judge Pauffley’s comments about the family courts. However, I should explain that Ms Acland-Hood is responsible for the administration of HMCTS and it is not possible for her to comment on individual cases that have been subject to a judicial decision. This is not due to a lack of interest or concern, but is because the judiciary are independent from the administration and it is important that she does not do anything to undermine this.
The Judiciary make their decisions after reviewing all of the evidence before them and in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. Any party to a case who does not agree with the decision can challenge it by way of an appropriate appeal or application.
I do appreciate your strength of feeling and concern. However, it is not possible for HMCTS to comment on any criminal allegations made against a judge, as it is the responsibility of the police to investigate such allegations. HMCTS cannot compel the police to investigate but if the police do decide to undertake an investigation, it will then fall to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether any criminal charges are brought.
Yours sincerely,
S Wilton
Customer Investigations Officer | Customer Investigations Team”.
LikeLike
Dr. Manhattan. said:
i sent this follow up Email on 31 Aug but so far No reply.
“it is very disappointing that you have taken 4 weeks just to tell us that Susan Acland-Hood is not in any position to do anything about this kind of corruption in the Family Courts.
as for your comment re not wanting to Undermine the Judiciary, well investigating corruption has nothing to do with Undermining at all. its about making shure Judges are brought to Justice if they break the Law as pointed out by Justice Pauffley.
Also you say its the responsibility of the police to investigate such allegations.
We know from experience in the Family courts that the Police will take no action against a Judge or a Social worker Unless the court itself notifies them. We were told this by a Senior officer at Northumbria Police.
that being the case it would seem you are quite happy to turn a blind eye to the scandalous revelations of Justice Pauffly who also pointed out this corruption between Social workers and Family court judges is widespread accross the country.
it would seem from what you have stated on behalf of Susan Acland-Hood that this will now go unchallenged meaning hundreds of parents going through the Family courts will be subjected to a Miscarriage of justice because there is nobody looking into this.”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nojusticeforparents said:
there is alot more to this lgo investigation ico investigation to come natasha always gets the updates so keep an eye out x
LikeLiked by 1 person
brunwinbooks said:
three year investigating one council manager director. He has and is financially involved on a large scale with certain directors who run over 40 different fostering agencies . Who actually trade with the council he’s employed by. 4
Members of his family are directors as well. Is that not corruption or child trafficking on s large scale. Police report him, no as I’m not sure who I can trust now. After the [edited] affair which I feel the police should have called in the boarder agency to investigate, seeing there is no record of this man ever attending a university in the UK or Zimbabwe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
wenevergiveup2015 said:
They are running rackets in the family courts knowing they can get away it. Not many people were aware of unqualified social workers. Between HCPC & CCW (wales) we found in a case i that Sw1/2 submitted reports without even meeting the parents. Then you have a Trainee who was allowed to rely on evidence of sw2 who was removed of the case due to safeguarding issues?
The trainee was actually the one who placed a child without telling the parents/cafcass worker. Qualified the following month after giving evidence where reports were missing,… The cafcass worker submitted a report saying the child was in F/C ,However was allowed to give oral evidence saying she had learned that day by her Trusted friend the LA,the child was in placement. Even though they didn’t apply for it,which brings the question to did they act unlawfully after the child sustained injuries? Yes
Did they lie? From the very start.
And they wonder why people are living in fear,and we won’t mention section 146 (adoption act 2002 ) as it would be void and invalid. Denying and purposely knowing is criminal law .
Part 1-completed name on registration/no qualifications in adoption to foster and moves around the uk.
Part 2-has some kind of a degree in social care e.g. social worker
Domilary- which basically means hearsay that you know someone who is trustworthy. (Even if a managers in charge of family intervention and child man rights under UN convention..with no qualifications at all.
-By law they have to have a 3 year degree before even coming in on foster or adoption and they aren’t .
A statement of truth . from unqualified social workers
Expert witnesses-most don’t get that far to have one but if a cafcass/social worker in our experience -then no Not 1 expert.
THEN YOU HAVE THE BREECH-
disclosing other children in previous care cases,of other childre
n who are in Long term foster care leading to names and identity- 😔 which part of the above wouldn’t any normal person be asking serious questions? (Nothing to see here)
So a children not only torn away based on lies/nobody qualified,but has half of the looked after children by the LA on reports ,that a father supposedly fathered 🙄. That’s just a slice of it,that’s enough to give anyone mental health problems or add to them. “But social workers never lie ” now you have the foster CARERS jumping on the gravy train.
Keep up the great work xxx
LikeLiked by 3 people
alan Brunwin. brunwinbooks. brunwin poetry. said:
never give up until child stealing stops. that’s why http://www.brunwinbooks.com will help support actions a against the corrupted in social services..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dr. Manhattan. said:
it will take one hell of a dredging operation to clean up the swamp of child stealing in this country. its that big.
LikeLike
Pingback: Letter To Lord Patel: Registration Of Social Workers Must Be A Legal Duty | Researching Reform
ichinendaimoku said:
Appropriate qualifications ‘shield’ profesisonals from proper HCPC and GMC investigations as anything counts as ‘professional opinion’ – any nonsense is just ‘waved through’.
I raised a GMC Fitness to Practice complaint which got ignored at three levels of escalation:
In a different case the same Psychiatrist ‘Dr K.’ is covering up incestous abuse of a boy who has been placed with his sexually, physically and emotionally abusive father:
When I earlier raised a HCPC Fitness to Practice concern about a Clinical Psychologist it did not meet the ‘Standards of Acceptance’. Apparently it is ok to diagnose a mother as ‘delusional’ without discussing in the session (that I observed):
a, the toddler rape she claims to have witnessed and
b, the teenage pregnancy at 13/14 that succeeded from incestous rape where the baby ‘disappeared’.
Read more about the case and the (redacted) ruling on my blog:
LikeLike
Pingback: PETITION: Mandatory Registration For Anyone Doing Social Work In England | Researching Reform
Pingback: CATCHING UP WITH SCOTT LAND | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE : SUPPORTING FRESH START @FSFtruthjustice
Pingback: Main Claiming to be a Social Worker calls Tweeter a “Sick F*ck” | Researching Reform
Sandi said:
[edited] sw… ? In stoke working now. conviction for abuse ( racial) still working as sw as they only look back 5 yrs!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Alan L Brunwin said:
Being trying to exspose this for many years.
LikeLike
Dory of the family Simms said:
Rules and regulations put in place to protect the public are seemingly completely meaningless. This is alarming reading, but at the same time, very unsurprising.
The regular abuse of family’s which is funded by the unsuspecting tax-payer is simply scandalous.
LikeLike