The Local Government Obudsman – which is now calling itself the Local Government And Social Care Ombudsman – has just released the latest set of complaints lodged with the organisation, which show a large volume of complaints against social workers in child welfare cases.
The allegations include dishonest behaviour by social workers, unjust treatment of families, as well as errors and deliberate lying in child welfare and child protection hearings and court reports.
The Ombudsman has also released two reports about the way councils have treated Special Guardians. The first is entitled, “Ombudsman finds council’s special guardian policy left scores of families out of pocket,” whilst the second is called, “Ombudsman challenges councils to ensure appropriate support provided for special guardians.”
We’re adding summaries of the complaints below, many of which were not resolved by the Ombudsman, either due to the case not being within their jurisdiction or because the action required was not something they could carry out.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and a Section 7 Report prepared by the Council’s children’s services department. This is because the issues have been the subject of court proceedings and are out of our jurisdiction.
The complainant says that a social worker for the Council:
- Is refusing to allow contact between Mr F’s mother and his daughter;
- Has contacted his probation officer and revoked permission for Mr F’s contact letters;
- Has shared Mr F’s probation file with his mother, without his consent, as part of a Section 7 Report compiled for court;
- Has compiled a biased and inaccurate Section 7 Report; and
- Has refused to consider Mr F’s concerns regarding his daughter’s stepfather.
- Mr F also complains that the Council has refused to investigate this complaint on the grounds that there are on-going court proceedings regarding care and contact of his daughter.
Nottinghamshire County Council
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to malicious child protection allegations made against the complainant. This is because we cannot achieve the outcomes that the complainant seeks.
The complainant says that the Council:
- Has handled poorly safeguarding procedures following an allegation about the care provided by her for their grandchildren;
- Should have taken into consideration the history of malicious and untrue allegations instigated by the children’s paternal grandparents;
- Has refused to remove the allegation from her file; and
- Has not fully complied with a Subject Access Request made by the her and her husband.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a Section 47 child protection investigation. This is because there is nothing further that he could add to the Council’s investigation and response.
The complainant says that the Council:
- Inappropriately interviewed his daughter, D, for whom he has parental responsibility, without his consent;
- Did not provide him with sufficient information about why she was interviewed; and;
- Delayed in responding to his complaint.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint alleging a social worker lied in a court report. This is because it has been used in court proceedings.
The complainant says social workers lied in a report and told lies in court.
Nottinghamshire County Council
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint alleging a social worker lied in a report written for court. This is because it has been used in court proceedings.
The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mrs X, says social workers told lies in a report relied on in court.
Summary: The Council provided Mrs X’s abusive husband with information about her whereabouts. However, there was evidence Mrs X had invited him to her home and so she was not caused an injustice by the Council’s actions. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the Council’s decision to start care proceedings as this was dealt with by the court.
Mrs X complains that the Council has removed her child from her care. She says the Council has refused to move contact visits even though she has difficulties travelling to see her child. Mrs X says the Council refused to postpone a court hearing when she was hospitalised but agreed to postpone the hearing because a psychiatrist was ill.
Mrs X says the Council told her abusive ex-husband where she was living putting her at risk.
We cannot investigate Mrs M’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about the accuracy of a report its children services team produced for a Court.
The complainant says the Council failed to reply properly to a complaint she made about its reports given to a Court.
If nothing else, the above cases show a clear need for a body of some kind to be able to address these issues swiftly, and ensure that they do not affect the outcomes of cases.
Well social workers have to fill in their scorecards showing how many kids they have snatched each month so naturally they lie and scheme to keep their jobs and pay their mortgages !
But lies in court =perjury which is a POLICE matter provided it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt and nothing to do with the Omsbudsman !
LikeLiked by 2 people
Problem is when you report it to the police they say it is a matter for your barrister to raise with the judge, but barrister say’s no it is the police so you are put on the ‘merry go round’ of no one taking responsibility in my case the judge knew they where lying about a suspect’s record being ‘lost’ but let it go. Equality in the law does not exist in the eyes of family court it seems anything goes and is akin to a witch hunt against the parents.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is no doubt Parents are being set up by Social workers and its no secret social workers are colluding with family court judges via emails to unlawfully place children in care.the proof is there to see but nothing has been done about it. this is without doubt another Grenfell Scandal but on a much bigger scale. But when will it be ivestigated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is true, you are sent round in circles for years on end then you can be considered to make vexatious requests even though nothing gets investigated thoroughly enough when you believe you have just concern.The parent who asks for help and needs support, their main motive is to get the support and have their child/ren returned back to them, any who are not in their care while getting the support. But the support doesn’t tend to come or it comes years later. With children’s social workers many of them (maybe not all) theirs is to comply with (the council’s who set adoption targets as found out by transparency project;) yet it is the SW who automatically tends to get believed over the parent(s)
There seems to be no resolution with remedy, no proper transparency or clarity shown ‘in full.’ The seeds are set in motion, molehills are created from mountains and no one gets held to account properly. Each one seems to scratch the other ones back! Serious procedurals errors get whitewashed too!
I believe many miscarriages of justice have/are going on and it’s all being covered up and swept under the carpet with biased judements (the ones which are allowed to be shown public) because not all are! We have known all this for years, yet nothing changes xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
LikeLike
The Ombudsman are well known for not investigating complaints using the classic line “it does not fall within our Remit”. a Facebook page re LGO failures also Flags up the common problem of complaints being closed and that most LGO staff were former Council staff.
they are generally labelled Not fit for purpose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The allegations include dishonest behavior by social workers, unjust treatment of families, as well as errors and deliberate lying in child welfare and child protection hearings and court reports”.
This is True and Common place yet the Corruption continues with nobody Policing it. Why ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been told by many police officers they are not allowed to be involved same with the education system it is as i say the SS and the social workers are an army to controle the nation, i have never in all of my research come across no kids taken from the elite,
LikeLiked by 1 person
was Ian’s comment removed ?
LikeLike
A comment mentioning a case was removed. RR won’t publish unless we have the family’s consent in writing, or the case has been made public by orgs like BAILII.
LikeLike
Ok that sounds fare enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
THE GUARDIAN
In social care we know that women who have a child taken into care often face this predicament more than once, sometimes three or four times. We also know that on many occasions, these women were in care themselves as children. Approximately one in four birth mothers in family court proceedings will reappear with a subsequent child, and recent research suggests 58% of these mothers will have experienced sexual abuse.
More on this topicThe young mothers trapped in a cycle of having babies removed
But we also know that nearly half of women in this predicament can, at a later stage, care for a child appropriately. Improvements in their mental health and growing maturity can enable them to become successful carers. So could the whole painful process of having a child removed have been avoided?
As our family courts have contracted through the age of austerity and the number of care proceedings has increased by 27% over the last four years, the system is failing to cope.
The arithmetic is scary too. The average cost of a looked-after child in my borough is £57,000 per year. If the average length of care is 3.6 years, this means that the cost of each child in care is more than £200,000. Where children are long-term fostered or adopted, the costs are more than triple that figure.
Well fancy that ! £57,000 per year per child????????? Surely someone somewhere is doing rather well??????????????
LikeLiked by 1 person
Youtube video of Sir James Munby speeking in Dec 2017.
some very interesting responses to questions at the end. they start around 38 mins in.
LikeLike
One lady compared taking children into care to avoid future risks of harm like not buying a car because an accident would be a possibility ! An absurdity
Sir James Munby never answered that point……………
LikeLike
Same in Politics. they always try to dance round it. still Mr M did speak a few home truths about how the SS and family courts are failing families and that Society will look back in 40 yrs with shame about what they did to innocent people. Munby is a kind of Oskar Schindler. he’s trying to do good for the innocent people but at the same time not to tread on the toes of his superiors.
LikeLike