28 Monday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
Welcome to another week.
These are the child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
25 Friday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has released its latest decisions about child welfare complaints.
This week the release features a whopping 64 complaints which include several allegations about the conduct of social workers during child protection investigations, non-recent abuse in care and councils accused of getting police officers to listen in on families’ phone calls.
The watchdog issues this notice with every set of complaints it publishes:
“Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.”
Below are summaries and links to complaints about child protection, children’s social care and councils:
Man with a significant conviction challenges council’s decision to inform his partner’s ex-partner about the conviction, council discretion where child welfare concerns exist
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to inform Mr X’s partner’s ex-partner about an historic conviction. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.
Allegations against the council for blocking the court-ordered return of children to a mother
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s action concerning Mrs X’s grandchildren. The contact and residence of children has been and can only be decided by a court. Matters from 2019 or earlier are late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now.
Allegations of non-recent abuse in care, abuse by an after-care support worker causing long term mental health problems
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his complaints about historic abuse while in care. We found there was fault. The Council agreed to consider the complaint Mr X raised in 2020 through the statutory children’s complaints process and make a payment to Mr X of £200 to recognise his time and trouble in bringing the complaint.
Allegations that children’s social care asked the police to listen to a women’s telephone calls and used the police to prevent her from accessing support, and that the council sent emails about her to other parents
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Children’s Social Care involvement with Miss X. That is because her substantive complaint relates to actions of the Police which are outside of our jurisdiction. Other parts of her complaint are either premature, late or have been considered through the children’s statutory complaints procedure, therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Advocate providing a free service in children services complaints accuses the council of implementing a policy not to record conversations
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not recording conversations as he has not been caused any personal injustice.
Mother alleged fault in the child protection actions of social workers which caused her children distress as they were not taken seriously and she was blamed instead
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the child protection actions of social workers between 2013 and 2016. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.
Council accused of including inaccurate information in Section 7 and Section 47 reports it produced in 2018 that were subsequently presented to the courts during care proceedings for her grandchildren
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council included inaccurate information in reports it produced for the courts. This is because we cannot investigate matters that have been subject to court proceedings. Furthermore, the complaint is made late.
Complaint by a father that the council failed to look into his allegations that the mother was blocking contact and had domestically abused him, children did not want contact with the father
Summary: Mr X complains the Council, the police and his child’s school failed to properly deal with his safeguarding concerns about his child’s welfare. Mr X says the matter has caused him significant distress, financial loss and his child continues to be at risk of significant harm. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s safeguarding concerns.
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Social services involvement with a family
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the complainant and her family in 2014. This is because the events happened too long ago and I see no reason why the complaint could not have been raised sooner.
Social services involvement with a family
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement with him and his three children, all of whom are subject to a child protection plan. He said the Council has treated him unfairly and this has caused him stress and upset. There was fault in the Council’s actions when it failed to properly assess Mr D’s friend Ms W prior to approving her as a carer for Mr D’s children. This caused stress and inconvenience to Mr X. The Council has carried out a review of its guidance to ensure this does not happen again in future. This is a suitable remedy to address any injustice Mr X experienced.
Hospital wrongly diagnoses daughter with a personality disorder and autism, council fails to put proper support in place
Summary: We found fault by the Council, CCG and Private Hospital with regards to how they planned aftercare for a young person following her discharge from hospital after a period of detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. These organisations have agreed to apologise and the Private Hospital will also pay the complainant a financial remedy. We found no fault by the Private Hospital in terms of the consideration it gave to the young person’s diagnosis during her admission.
Allegations of false statements made by council staff
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint made against Children’s Services. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing unremedied injustice to the complainant.
Grandmother’s complaint about social workers producing incorrect information, a lack of support, failure to keep appropriate records and a failure to complete an adequate viability assessment
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions before during and after he began caring for his grandchildren. He says the Council’s remedy for these fault is inadequate. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. The Council has agreed financial remedies and a fresh review of the Council’s decisions in the period before the children moved to stay with Mr X.
Nottinghamshire County Council
Conduct of council’s children’s services with the complainants family after a safeguarding referral was received
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s children’s services dealt with the complainants family after a safeguarding referral was received. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complaint could not have been brought to the attention of the Ombudsman sooner.
Allegation that council failed to take action to keep the mother’s daughter safe
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to proceed with a stage 3 review of her complaint.
Poor social work practice, s.7 report
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers. These matters are not separable from matters heard in court or could have been brought before the court.
Father complained the council was bullying and negligent to him and his son during child protection proceedings.
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to Mr X and his son during child protection proceedings. This is because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.
Conduct of social workers during child in need and child protection investigations
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers. The complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now.
Father’s allegations about the council’s treatment of him in supervising his daughter in the care of his grandchild
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s treatment of him in supervising his daughter in the care of his grandchild. This would be unlikely to find further fault or achieve a greater remedy or different outcome.
Poor social work practice, failure to advise the family correctly, intimidation by social workers, inaccurate child protection reports
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions as part of its child protection enquiries. Mrs X complained a social worker told her husband to leave the house without explaining this course of action was voluntary. She also complained the social worker included inaccurate information in their assessment and acted in an intimidating way towards her. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress to her and her husband. We found some fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.
Allegations about an inaccurate assessment report
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a children services inaccurate assessment report. We cannot achieve the outcome she seeks, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council
Father’s complaint about social services’ assistance for his children, lack of support, adequacy of a child in need plan for his children and problems with respite care
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the statutory children’s complaint process. It is unlikely we could achieve more than the Council has offered.
Father’s complaint about actions of the council’s children’s services since the instigation of his divorce proceedings and failure to secure contact with his children
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council’s children services assisted the complainant with securing contact with his children. This is because these matters are currently considered by court. We cannot investigate other matters raised by the complainant as they are too closely linked to the court proceedings.
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
Father complained that the council was at fault in the production of a court report for divorce proceedings
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a report the Council completed for the Court. This is because, by law, the content and production of such reports falls outside our jurisdiction.
24 Thursday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
Important child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
22 Tuesday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
Fostered children in England made 1,585 allegations of abuse against their foster carers from 2020 to 2021, the latest government data has revealed.
A further 1,015 complaints about suspected child abuse perpetrated by foster carers were made by “other sources” according to Ofsted’s “Fostering in England” release published in November. The sources were not identified in the release.
The majority of complaints (61%) were made by children in foster care.
The data, which has been buried right at the bottom of the release, found that most complaints were made against local authority (LA) foster carers, with slightly fewer complaints levied at carers working for independent fostering agencies (IFA).
Of the 2,600 allegations recorded, 1,480 complaints were made against LA foster carers, while 1,100 complaints of child abuse were raised against independent foster carers. The remaining 20 allegations of abuse do not appear to be accounted for in the release.
Within local authority complaints, 51% of child abuse allegations were resolved with no further action; 19% were monitored for an agreed period; and 31% were referred to a fostering panel for review over ongoing concerns.
Outcomes of investigations into IFA foster carer allegations were similar to local authority complaints: 58% of child abuse allegations were resolved with no further action; 11% were monitored for an agreed period; and 31% were referred to a fostering panel for review over ongoing concerns.
Physical abuse was the most reported form of violence against children, with 53% of all allegations against foster carers relating to physical violence. Allegations of sexual abuse accounted for 8% of registered complaints.
Equally significant in the release was a recorded spike in the number of individuals looking to foster children in England.
The release recorded an all-time-high for the number of fostering inquiries by households in the UK. In the year ending 31 March 2021, there were 160,635 initial enquiries from prospective fostering households, representing a 55% increase since 2014 to 2015 (103,355). The release noted that by far the most inquiries were made to IFAs – making up 79% of all applications to foster children – where financial compensation for fostering is typically greater.
There has been no robust research in this area, but Researching Reform remains deeply concerned that the country’s growing poverty rate is steering people towards the fostering sector because it offers substantial financial packages for carers.
Researching Reform remains troubled by cases we are alerted to, of individuals fostering disabled children in particular to claim financial assistance intended for the child but which is used for other purposes. We have been made aware that some individuals take the view that such children are “easy to look after” because “they sit in a wheelchair or are immobile” for most of the day.
While we have every sympathy for families living under the poverty line, children in care should never be exploited.
Cases of child abuse and maltreatment are not exclusive to the fostering sector. Earlier research has shown that large numbers of children in residential care have also been subjected to abuse. This is far from acceptable for Britain’s so-called child protection sector.
To the children who have suffered – it must have taken an enormous amount of courage to complain about abuse at the hands of your carers, and Researching Reform stands with you.
Many thanks to Dana for alerting us to the release.
Additional reading:
21 Monday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
Welcome to another week.
These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
18 Friday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has released its latest round of decisions about child welfare complaints the watchdog received.
The ombudsman also publishes this notice with each set of complaints it shares:
“Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.”
Below are summaries and links to those complaints which we think will be of interest to our readers:
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Services provided during a child protection plan
“There was fault by the Council in that it delayed in its consideration of Ms C’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The consideration of the complaint was thorough and agreed action was taken on some of the upheld complaints but the Council will now take further action to remedy some parts of the complaint for which no remedy was previously offered.”
Allegations that a social worker lied in court, treated the family badly and refused to implement a judge’s orders
“We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. These matters are not separable from those that were or could have been raised in court. Mr X has a right to return to court it would be reasonable to use.”
Children’s social care services ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’
“The Council was at fault in delaying the consideration of Mrs B’s complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. It has agreed to begin Stage 2 and to offer to make a payment to Mrs B.”
Council wrongly decides to conduct a child protection investigation
“Ms X complains about the Council’s decision-making in relation to a child protection investigation that she says was not justified. The Council is at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her a financial remedy.”
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Council wrongly interferes in family affairs and imposes contact arrangements on the family
“Mr X complains that the Council failed to safeguard his children from their mother, facilitated his child’s removal from him and wrongly advised him to lie to his son. He also complains that his complaint was not handled adequately. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy.”
17 Thursday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
The latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
16 Wednesday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
An interesting family law case published on 4 February looks at “declarations of parentage” and instances where the family court make them — and invite the General Register Office to alter birth certificates.
This case may be of interest to adult adoptees currently campaigning for the right to alter their own birth certificates.
The case involved a woman named Ruth who discovered when she was 15 years old that her mother’s husband was not her real father. The mother, who was Jewish, had become pregnant by an Irish man who was Catholic when she was 18, but he did not want to marry her.
These developments took place from 1959 onwards, at a time when having children out of marriage was seen as taboo and single mothers were forced to give their children up for adoption. So the mother found a man willing to marry her quickly and stand in as Ruth’s father.
The mother told Judge Mostyn in court that her husband had been abusive and unfaithful during the marriage.
The case centred around Ruth’s application to amend her birth certificate so that she could swap her step-father’s name for her biological father’s name.
The family court does not have any power to force the Registrar-General for Births and Deaths to change the certificate, so Mostyn approves a declaration of parentage and asks the registrar to consider the order. This is what Section 55A(4)(b) of the Family Law Act 1986 says:
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person may apply to the High Court [F2or the family court] for a declaration as to whether or not a person named in the application is or was the parent of another person so named.
(2)A court shall have jurisdiction to entertain an application under subsection (1) above if, and only if, either of the persons named in it for the purposes of that subsection—
(a)is domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application, or
(b)has been habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of one year ending with that date, or
(c)died before that date and either—
(i)was at death domiciled in England and Wales, or
(ii)had been habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of one year ending with the date of death.
(3)Except in a case falling within subsection (4) below, the court shall refuse to hear an application under subsection (1) above unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient personal interest in the determination of the application (but this is subject to section 27 of the M1Child Support Act 1991).
(4)The excepted cases are where the declaration sought is as to whether or not—
(a)the applicant is the parent of a named person;
(b)a named person is the parent of the applicant; or
(c)a named person is the other parent of a named child of the applicant.
(5)Where an application under subsection (1) above is made and one of the persons named in it for the purposes of that subsection is a child, the court may refuse to hear the application if it considers that the determination of the application would not be in the best interests of the child.
(6)Where a court refuses to hear an application under subsection (1) above it may order that the applicant may not apply again for the same declaration without leave of the court.
(7)Where a declaration is made by a court on an application under subsection (1) above, the prescribed officer of the court shall notify the Registrar General, in such a manner and within such period as may be prescribed, of the making of that declaration.]
Mostyn also adds that it wouldn’t be against public policy to alter the certificate and would in fact be against public policy not to make the change.
There is a very good outline of the judgment on LexisNexis for subscribers, which opens with this summary:
“The Family Court made the declaration of parentage sought by the applicant (R), namely that P, who had died more than 13 years ago, was her father. The court held that the evidence amply satisfied the court that it was far more likely than not that P was R’s true father. Moreover, there was no reason why it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to make the declaration sought. If anything, it would be manifestly contrary to public policy if the court were to refuse to make the declaration sought.”
It is worth reading the judgment in full — which Mostyn has published with all the real names of the people involved — to get all of the nuances in the case. The judgment can be read for free on BAILII.
15 Tuesday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
Important child welfare items that should be right on your radar:
14 Monday Feb 2022
Posted in Researching Reform
The Parents, Families and Allies Network (PFAN) – a parent-led group which supports families going through Britain’s social care system – has published a report based on the ways the system impacts families, and the significant problems this creates.
The report, entitled, “The Way Forward” also offers solutions to these problems.
PFAN has produced a press release along with the report, which they have very kindly shared with Researching Reform, and we are adding this information below.
PFAN Press Release
Children’s Social Care: The Way Forward
Children’s social care as it operates in England is not fit for purpose. It alienates families and communities, fails to protect children, and places older children at increased risk of involvement in gangs and sexual exploitation. The Parents, Families and Allies Network (PFAN) brought together five organisations working with parents involved in different aspects of children’s social care to make suggestions for transformational change. This report is based on the experiences of parents who have lived experience of children’s social care and allies, who work in children’s social care or are social work academics.
Tammy Mayes co-chair of PFAN said:
“The parents we consulted identified the key areas for change and made their own constructive suggestions to transform children’s social care which are detailed in the report.”
Professor Andy Bilson, co-chair of PFAN said:
“We are concerned that the children’s social care system, under the pressure caused by the deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson, will restart the cycle of escalating investigations and blaming of parents which has seen one in every 16 children in England investigated before the age of five, yet no reduction in child deaths. To avoid this, transformational change is needed as well as urgent reforms.
We will need to nurture and test out a range of strategies which shift the power from government and public services to parents, children and communities. Alongside this, immediate changes are required which must be co-led by parents and children with lived experience of children’s social care.”
The report identifies detailed specific changes required urgently and some examples that show how these changes may be achieved. Key to this is the need for children’s social care and other agencies working with children to move from a culture of parent blame and child rescue to partnership and participation. The report calls for parent advocacy to be developed alongside services as a powerful way to change organisational cultures in child welfare systems and to improve support for children and families.
Examples of approaches to provide the bottom up change necessary to transform children’s social care include the organisations that have created this report along with, for example, Hilary Cottam’s work on Radical Help and the Community Paradigm’s approach to transfer power from the public service institutions to the community.
The current system lacks enough champions with the remit to develop the new ways of working that are required. The report calls for a dedicated workforce, working in partnership with families, whose job is to co-produce services with families; to promote the use of these services as alternatives to care and investigative approaches to families; and to raise public awareness of the need for change.
You can access PFAN’s report, “The Way Forward” here.
Researching Reform 