A new case involving Hertfordshire council confirms that social workers at the local authority manipulated evidence in order to place children into care without any proof of harm. With an ever growing number of family cases involving councils producing incorrect or fabricated evidence, questions around commercial interests inside the sector must now be asked.
The judge overseeing the case thought that the lead social worker allocated to the family had good intentions, and that evidence based anomalies were just down to poor practice, however facts emerging after the judgment was made public, offer a different view.
The case centers around allegations involving a family with four children. The council tried to place the children in foster care or within adoptive placements after injuries were catalogued, and a threat by the mother to stab one of the children with a knife was revealed. The council also noted that the family home was untidy, and that the mother had a history of losing her temper, and refused to discuss issues around sexual abuse with her children.
The mother admitted making the threat, and her partner admitted tapping the children on the head, but both disputed other claims made by the council. The mother also felt it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to talk about child sexual abuse with her children.
The judgment offers some deeply troubling insights into the council’s handling of the case. It reveals a strategy used by social workers to piece together the evidence with a view to creating a narrative which painted the family in the worst possible light. One way in which the social workers did this, was by lumping the children’s injuries together without acknowledging the origins of those injuries. Judge Wilding found, for example, that most of the injuries noted by the social workers had happened at school, and that all of the injuries observed were accidental. Of significant importance is what happens next.
The council then lies about findings made within a medical report.
While a child protection medical undertaken never once references any injury as being non-accidental, the council claimed otherwise. Here’s the section from the judgment:
“In 2010 a number of referrals to children services were made regarding emotional sexual and physical abuse”. In addition, the ADM [Agency Decision Maker] recorded that “following D’s six-week check where he was found to have a considerable graze on his foot “;”M was unable to give an explanation and the medical confirmed it was a non-accidental injury “. It is plain when one reads the child protection medical that Dr Moore, whilst concerned mother was not aware that D had sustained an injury which was regarded as a “significant abrasion”, it was still nevertheless described as a “relatively minor injury “. At no time was it said that it was a non-accidental injury.”
The council then tries to use this lie to push its application for removing the children from their parents.
Another important piece of information revealed not in the judgment, but by the BBC when it covered the story on 27th October, tells us that it was social services bosses who had wanted to place the children for adoption or with foster carers. Judge Wilding makes an important observation in his judgment which links in with the BBC’s claim. After noting that the local authority eventually accepted that none of the injuries on the children had been deliberately inflicted, and that there was no risk of sexual abuse, he says this:
“There was, in my judgement, throughout the local authority’s evidence a pervasive failure to accurately state the correct position by reference to the primary evidence, there was also, in my judgement, a tendency to only look at the negatives in respect of this family and not the positives and to wrongly infer from the evidence that something was a “concern “or to put it another way a risk when it was not. In addition, there was a tendency for inaccuracy in stating what other professionals had said.”
Let’s go back to the social services bosses at Hertfordshire council for a moment. Why would council bosses have a vested interest in placing four children up for adoption or foster placements? The answer isn’t that hard to find. Adoption in the UK is financially incentivised, which means that as long as councils are hitting targets and placing children with adoptive families, the money keeps coming in. The fostering sector also offers the promise of lucrative payouts, so as councils feel the impact of austerity and pre Brexit fallout, they are pressing on services which continue to generate revenue. In 2018, removing children from their parents is big business.
Judge Wilding returned the children in the case to their parents, but not before they had to experience the strange and ugly world of child protection. That ordeal may well leave scars they will have to carry for the rest of their lives.
It would be right to mention that errors do feature in many of the injustices that play out inside the child protection sector, but there is a competing malice which sometimes goes hand in hand with its lesser companion, poor practice. Judge Wilding may not have had the courage to call out the dishonesty in this case for the breach in law that it represents, but the increasing number of judgments highlighting negligence and wilful wrongdoing in family cases has caught the attention of the public, and they’re not letting go.
Removing children from their parents to put them up for adoption can be done forcibly in the UK. This means that the government can take children away from their parents without their consent, making it much easier to remove children without proper consideration. We already know that non consensual adoption, or forced adoption as it is sometimes called, is bad for birth families and children. Most countries around the world today use consensual adoption practices, which are much more humane. If you believe the UK should end its forced adoption policy, please consider signing our petition.
Shonagh Mc Aulay said:
Brava. And the previous article.
You couldn’t make it up, could you? Perhaps it’s the midnight hour but I feel I’m living in a Philip Pullman novel. Abducted children disappeared to the Arctic to have their souls amputated.
The last hour on the other hand was Orwell pure. Too much UN news. I fear and loathe the way these people in UN and aid sector empty words and concepts and aspirations of meaning. Publicly funded PR and corrupt alliances wherever you look. UK and others fawning on Saudi a Arabia plus NO questions from journalists during press release of latest UN rape and abuse figures. Which are a laugh anyway. Who seriously believes that serious data collection is possible at the best of times in most of these places? I’ve lived in West African countries. Joke report, joke statistics, tame journalists.
The UN in Rome is taking legal action against some very informed and independent journalists who’ve told a bit too much truth to power. They aim to bankrupt them .
.Some lonesome brilliant UN idealists battle on in the background. Philip Alston, say. To them the UN owes whatever vestiges of credibility may still remain.
Good night,
Shonagh
LikeLiked by 3 people
tummum said:
Let’s go back to the social services bosses at Hertfordshire council for a moment. Why would council bosses have a vested interest in placing four children up for adoption or foster placements? The answer isn’t that hard to find. Adoption in the UK is financially incentivised, which means that as long as councils are hitting targets and placing children with adoptive families, the money keeps coming in. The fostering sector also offers the promise of lucrative payouts, so as councils feel the impact of austerity and pre Brexit fallout, they are pressing on services which continue to generate revenue. In 2018, removing children from their parents is big business.
Judge Wilding returned the children in the case to their parents, but not before they had to experience the strange and ugly world of child protection. That ordeal may well leave scars they will have to carry for the rest of their lives.
It would be right to mention that errors do feature in many of the injustices that play out inside the child protection sector, but there is a competing malice which sometimes goes hand in hand with its lesser companion, poor practice. Judge Wilding may not have had the courage to call out the dishonesty in this case for the breach in law that it represents, but the increasing number of judgments highlighting negligence and wilful wrongdoing in family cases has caught the attention of the public, and they’re not letting go.
Removing children from their parents to put them up for adoption can be done forcibly in the UK. This means that the government can take children away from their parents without their consent, making it much easier to remove children without proper consideration. We already know that non consensual adoption, or forced adoption as it is sometimes called, is bad for birth families and children. Most countries around the world today use consensual adoption practices, which are much more humane. If you believe the UK should end its forced adoption policy, please consider signing our petition.
LikeLike
Pingback: Evidence In Family Cases: Sloppy Social Work Or Deliberate Invention? | tummum's Blog
Ian Josephs said:
Ending forced adoption would be a good start certainly but ending “Punishment without crime” would be even better! No child should ever be removed from sane LAW ABIDING parents .Removal should only happen if parent(s) have committed a serious crime against that child or other children or temporarily if they have simply been charged. That is how it used to be and that is how it should be now !
LikeLiked by 4 people
[Name Withheld] said:
Our case started when the social worker wrote a false court report regarding answers to questions my children gave her..the evidence was embellished..added extra allegations which were not true..also the school teacher wrote a false report to ss the contents infactual ..in the beginning the independant social worker said our human rights had berm broken..they admitted they didnt hsve a case so they made one up..
LikeLiked by 5 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
You say a School teacher wrote a false report for the SS. it could be possible that the report was tampered with by the SS and the teacher knows nothing about it. in other words all sorts of false information may have been added to the report.this is going on. the SS know that its highly unlikely you could approach the teacher to verify if the report was as she wrote it. thats how they are so successful at telling lies and getting away with it. What the judge uncovered in the case above is Textbook. they use it all over the country because its a tried and tested format that works very well.
LikeLiked by 4 people
alan Brunwin. brunwinbooks. brunwin poetry. said:
I know of a very similar case to yours
LikeLiked by 2 people
alan Brunwin. brunwinbooks. brunwin poetry. said:
Hertfordshire. Bolton and Sutton council. When will the conspiring to illegally take children from good parents stop. The damage done lasts a lifetime for victims, why other than money do the carryout these crimes against innocent families and yes they are crimes
LikeLiked by 4 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
What we need to see are mass prosecutions of SS managers, Social workers and Judges with Jail sentences. they should also strip assets from these Criminals under the proceeds of Crime act.
LikeLiked by 4 people
alan Brunwin. brunwinbooks. brunwin poetry. said:
We all need a real police force to hear us all
LikeLiked by 4 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
“”There was, in my judgement, throughout the local authority’s evidence a pervasive failure to accurately state the correct position by reference to the primary evidence, there was also, in my judgement, a tendency to only look at the negatives in respect of this family and not the positives and to wrongly infer from the evidence that something was a “concern “or to put it another way a risk when it was not. In addition, there was a tendency for inaccuracy in stating what other professionals had said.”
Common practice.
“A new case involving Hertfordshire council confirms that social workers at the local authority manipulated evidence in order to place children into care without any proof of harm. With an ever growing number of family cases involving councils producing incorrect or fabricated evidence, questions around commercial interests inside the sector must now be asked.”
Those questions have been asked for years but nobody in Govt wanted to listen and still dont now.
LikeLiked by 3 people
[Name withheld] said:
the only assessment we ever had was created by a “senior practitioner” aka “non-registered” pretend social worker. this assessment was created without our knowledge and we’d only ever met her 3 times previous to her claiming she knew us well enough to imagine what we would have said if we had been assessed.
this is her signed letter confessing as much.
[edited]
our 2 children were kidnapped using force and threats from a social worker and a family support worker who was supporting the aggressive social worker, there was no police and no court order, but i didn’t know the law or my rights at that time. she never visited us, and we had to sit in a magistrates court and listen to the bull shit being spoon fed to the magistrates, who told us to “shut up!!” when we attempted to point out the lies which were obvious because they kept contradicting themselves.
our solicitors were useless, saying things like “you should get part of your children back” and when asking them to put forward actual evidence that proved ss were lying “it’s not that kind of court”.
then i asked the court clerk if they were allowed to lie in court and a barrister placed his hands on my shoulders and said “this is not the time” and the clerk just smiled slyly.
the imagined risk was an opinion by a cafcass guardian “emotional harm, in the future.”
since that case we’ve had a baby snatched from the womb 2 day before the due date by forced inducement. when i asked the social worker “why?” she replied “it’s because your other children were successfully adopted”. they used the same fictional assessment from the first case in that case too.
then we had another baby snatched via home invasion a few hours after a home birth. police confirmed the EPO was a forgery, but also admitted they were ordered to “back off or lose your jobs and pensions” when they wanted to take action against the criminals.
they used the same fictional assessment from the first case on this case too. and although we found an independent social worker who was willing let us record the entire assessment (i have the emails between my mckenzie friend and my wife’s solicitor) the bent judge refused, saying something about time scales.
all the cases ended in forced adoption, and there isn’t any legal to remedy the injustice or hold the criminals to account, at least not yet.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
The biggest injustice in all this is when parents try to complain to the council. the complaints team are trained to brush off complaints and dismiss any allegations. when it goes to a stage 2 investigation the council again are in full control of the outcome as the investigators are on their side and can be shown that they Secretly work for the Council during their investigations. when parents go to the LGO the complaints are usually dropped as the council will tell any Lies it has to in order to discredit the parents.they will remove information from the council records and deny any such information ever existed. when parents go to the Police they are told to make a complaint to the Council as its not something they would get involved in. this is why the SS are so successful at stealing children.there is no Scrutiny,no genuine investigations,and no Police interest in Social workers who Commit perjury in Court and Break the Law. Social workers are far more dangerous than the public could ever imagine. the thousands of children in Foster Care and Adoption are the living Proof but even their Voices are Systematically suppressed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ian Josephs said:
Do not hire a lawyer ,especially if advised to do so by “helpful social workers”!Solicitors and Barristers in the family courts are known in the trade as “Professional losers” because they work with the local authorities and gag parents in court to stop them making any useful points. They then agree to care orders and anything else the social workers want !
If you do not engage a lawyer you will automatically represent yourself and can prepare a statement in advance that you can read out loud to the judge ! You can then make all the points and all the accusations that you want.You do NOT need a solicitor or barrister who will just surrender to the “SS” !
LikeLiked by 2 people
Natasha said:
Polite Notice: advice by posters, while well meaning, does not constitute legal advice given by this site.
LikeLike
Pingback: Evidence In Family Cases: Sloppy Social Work Or Deliberate Invention? – Researching Reform – Parental Alienation
Reginald or Reggie Alaneme said:
They are stealing children, this is the state endorsing the theft of children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dr Manhattan said:
Here we are Six years further on since this post yet nothing has happened. No investigations Just silence.
LikeLike