One of the things that frustrates us the most about current social work practice is the bloody minded way in which professionals refuse to correct records when mistakes are made. But this latest case is not without its funny moments.
An ongoing child protection complaint involving a mother who has been routinely denied access to her children’s records, has taken a bizarre turn.
Trying desperately to access information held by the local authority in question, and having made several complaints about the way she and her family have been treated by the council, the mother decided to enlist the help of complaints ombudsman, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC).
The case was accepted, and so the professional for the HCPC made a telephone call to the relevant social worker at the council to collect details about the child protection professional the mother had lodged a complaint against. The council then wrote to the mother about the conversation.
Stay with us. This is where it gets silly.
In the letter, the local authority social worker tells the mother she is lying about the ongoing investigation, and then accuses her of impersonating the HCPC professional:
The mother, confused and a little upset by the accusation, decides to email the HCPC professional to ask her to confirm the investigation and that it was the HCPC who called, and not her. The HCPC professional then sends the mother a reply:
Without any confirmation that it was in fact an HCPC professional who called, the mother may now be faced with an uncooperative council at best, and at worst, a bias which may affect the outcome of her complaint.
So, what can we take away from this story (other than the importance of correcting errors when they’re made)? Well, as it’s a Friday, we think it might be appropriate to point out the obvious difficulty the social worker had in identifying an HCPC professional, and to offer the mother a glass of wine and tell her that she’ll live to fight another day.
Wishing you all a lovely weekend,
Researching Reform
Researching Reform 
I have this issue too. The l.a fail to correct factual and other errors. When I informed that the reports they used for court contained said errors they reply I should have challenged these in court… my solicitor and barrister refused to.
Like the above mentioned lady… the l.a have said that as the case has gone to court and finished they will no longer correct any mistakes.
So a lot of these things are taken as true.
Fed to the court… where legal reps fail to challenge them and parents loose children..
Apparently I have neglected my youngest 2 children and that is written as a finding of fact. I have to state that neglect was never mentioned in the paperwork until the final application from the l.a for adoption.
I lost my children.
Quite a lot of the paperwork submitted by the l.a should never have been submitted as it was already flagged as factually incorrect.
How do l.a”s get away with this?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your comment, I’m so sorry to hear that, it’s quite common. For legal reasons I’ve had to edit your name, so I hope you’ll forgive the changes.
LikeLike
I’m sorry to hear this. As a social worker myself, this is horrifying to hear. There are some bad social workers such as this person but there are also a lot of good ones. You should contact your state board of professions and submit a formal complaint. You can also contact our professional organization, NASW to submit a complaint. All complaints to the board have to be reviewed and this “social worker” could lose their lisence or have to be re-trained. Good luck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How do l.a”s get away with this?”
they get away with it because the Police, the govt and everywhere else dont want to deal with it.
this means they are like a Mafia out of Control and the public are suffering as a result.
LikeLiked by 1 person
if true governments say there are approx less then 100,000 kids in care then how do the foster and adoption agencies and there are 100s of them all making millions of pounds a year, and remember many judges have shares in the agencies
LikeLike
“many judges have shares in the agencies”
Maggie is there any proof that this is the case and if so where is it and who are they ? this would shurely be a breach of the justice system and a conflict of interests. it would not be legal.
LikeLike
https://victims-unite.net/2012/05/21/lord-falconer-secret-family-courts-flatmate-of-tony-blair-adoption-targets/
LikeLike
i tried to access your facebook link from the website but all i got was
“This page isn’t available
The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.”
LikeLike
You couldn’t make it up. . . . .
LikeLike
However SS and SW’s frequently do and that’s how they are managing to get the children removed and @ 1 referral per every 49 seconds, that must be some amount of false reporting and deliberate errors! Shocking professional misconduct or is just all part of the job?
LikeLike
its Shocking professional misconduct, And part of the job!
LikeLike
She was after hcpc registration not car registration too lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
As 96% of care applications are now apparently successful, we appear to have a secret inquisitorial system, costing a lot of public money for judge, CAFCASS guardian their lawyer, LA their lawyer and if legal aid to parents rare but possible, experts for what ?
As child protection is now effectively privatised and huge profits are being made by corporate fostering and adoption
And, what is the terrible affect of care and adoption on the ever increasing number of children removed from distraught families for ever, when EU says removal legally must be a last resort. ,
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
Impunity is dysfunctional! Another instance of lemming logic ignoring the obvious, the hidden costs of which are too high, not least for the welfare of the children affected and at taxpayers expense to boot.
LikeLike
yes this sounds all very familiar. LAs telling parents they cant look into complaints because it was addressed by the court. their biggest trick is to tell parents they cant look into complaints against a Social worker while court proceedings are ongoing. this is very clever because they know once the court has ended its too late and parents may have lost their children to Adoption or long term F/care.
its a loophole that should never have been allowed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The same is applicable to welfare applications in the Court of Protection under MCA to remove adults to state profit care in their’best interests”
Again inquisitorial, again in secret, again allegations of LA need not be proved, again O FFICAL SOLICITOR, like Cafcass guardian represents the subject of application and again all LA complaints are halted by court proceedings.
And, in any event, the LA complaints are effectively internal, at best to finish up with an Ombudsman who can’t challenge court decisions…………….
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
We all make mistakes, but some are real howlers.
LikeLike
Pingback: Question it! | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE
it would be interesting to know how many people have had issues with a stage 2 investigator during the 3 stage complaints procedure.
any suspicions etc.
LikeLike
Has anyone seen this disgraceful story.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/06/06/social-worker-struck-lie-causes-children-removed-care/
LikeLiked by 1 person