Judge blames serious social work practice failings in toddler case

By The Press Association17th February 2015News EnglandChild Protection, Childrens Services, Foster Care, News England

Senior managers at a local authority have been criticised by the most senior family court judge in England and Wales over the way they handled a case involving a toddler who had been placed in foster care at birth.

Sir James Munby said the approach taken by Darlington Borough Council had been almost a textbook example of how not to pursue a care case.

He was “very critical” of the council’s analysis, handling of the case and its conduct of the litigation. He complained of “serious failings in social work practice” and said senior management were to blame.

Sir James, president of the Family Division of the High Court, has made his complaints in a written ruling after analysing the case at a family court hearing in Middlesbrough.

The 13-month-old boy’s father, who is in his mid-20s, had wanted to care for him, said Sir James. The toddler’s mother had not put herself forward as a carer – and had supported the father’s application.

But social services staff said the youngster should be adopted – and had raised concerns about his father’s morality.

They were concerned because he had at one stage had some involvement with the “racist” English Defence League and because when 17 he had once had sex with a 13-year-old girl – and accepted a police caution.

A social worker said the nature of the values and beliefs of the English Defence League were “immoral”. And she had said the nature of the “offences” the man had committed against the 13-year-old girl when 17 were “immoral”.

Sir James said the concerns were “quite extraordinary”.

He said the council had “conspicuously” failed to show that the toddler would be at risk of harm or neglect in the care of his father.

And he ruled that the little boy should be returned to his father.

“The city fathers of Darlington and Darlington’s director of social services are not guardians of morality,” said Sir James. “Nor is this court.”

He added: “The justification for state intervention is harm to children, not parental immorality.”

Sir James, who did not identify the family involved, made a series of criticisms of the council.

“Various aspects of the case have caused me great concern,” he said. “The present case is an object lesson in, almost a textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.”

The judge added: “I am very critical of the local authority’s analysis, its handling of the case and its conduct of the litigation.”

He said there had been “significant failings in social work practice, in case analysis and in case management” and went on: “There are lessons here to be learned, not just by this local authority and its staff but also by practitioners more generally.”

Sir James said the allocated social worker had been “plainly both inexperienced and too inexperienced for a case of this complexity”.

He said her work had been “seriously flawed”. And he said a second social worker seemed neither to have “explored nor analysed” in any detail the underlying factual basis of the council’s case.

“In a significant number of very material respects the local authority has simply failed to prove the factual underpinning of its case,” said Sir James.

“The local authority was too willing to believe the worst of the father, which led to it being unduly dismissive of what he was saying.”

He added: “The local authority failed to link the facts it relied upon with its assertions that (the toddler) was at risk.

Sir James said he had “quite deliberately” not identified either of the two social workers or a team manager.

But he said he had deliberately identified Darlington Borough Council.

“There is, in principle, every reason why public authorities and their employees should be named, not least when there have been failings as serious as those chronicled here,” said Sir James.

“But in the case of local authorities there is a problem which has to be acknowledged.”

He added: “Ultimate responsibility for such failings often lies much higher up the hierarchy, with those who, if experience is anything to go by, are almost invariably completely invisible in court. The present case is a good example.”

Sir James asked why the social workers and a team manager should be “pilloried” when the council’s legal department, which reviewed and “presumably passed” the “exceedingly unsatisfactory assessments” remained “like senior management, anonymous beneath the radar?”

He said it might be thought that “anonymous and unidentified senior management” should “never have put someone so inexperienced in charge of such a demanding case”.

“It is Darlington Borough Council and its senior management that are to blame, not only social workers and a team manager, ” said Sir James.

“It would be unjust to the social workers and the team manager to name and shame them when others are not similarly exposed.”

Sir James said he had reached conclusions about the toddler’s father after going through the council’s concerns in detail.

“The father is immature and can sometimes act irresponsibly,” said Sir James.

“In some instances, though not to the extent alleged by the local authority, the father has minimised or played down matters which were properly of concern to the local authority. He has not always been open and honest with professionals…

“To an extent the father is lacking in insight regarding (the toddler’s) needs and minimises some aspects of his character and behaviours which may bear adversely on (the toddler).

“On occasions the father drinks to excess. On occasions he has taken cannabis. There have been episodes of domestic discord between the father, his mother and his step-father, involving the police and, on occasions, actual violence.”

But the judge said he had found the man to be a “truthful and, for the most part, reliable historian”.

And he added: “What does this amount to? Does it suffice to establish a real possibility that (the toddler) will suffer significant harm? Even if it does, has the local authority established that (the toddler’s) welfare requires that he be adopted, that ‘nothing else will do’?

“In my judgement, the answer to each of these latter two questions is no.”

Sir James suggested that similar concerns might be raised about many men.

“It is an undoubted fact of life that many youths and young men have sexual intercourse with under-age girls. But if such behaviour were to be treated without more as grounds for care proceedings years later, the system would be overwhelmed,” said Sir James.

“Some 17-year-old men who have sexual intercourse with 13-year-old girls may have significantly distorted views about sex and children, and therefore pose a risk to their own children of whatever age or gender, but that is not automatically true of all such men.”

His analysis of the concerns about the man’s links with the English Defence League was similar.

“The mere fact, if fact it be, that the father was a member, probably only for a short time, of the English Defence League is neither here nor there, whatever one may think of its beliefs and policies,” said Sir James.

“It is concerning to see the local authority again harping on about the allegedly ‘immoral’ aspects of the father’s behaviour.”

He added: “I cannot accept that the father presents the kind of risk to (the toddler) which gives rise to a real possibility of (the toddler) suffering significant harm, let alone the degree of risk which would have to be demonstrated to justify a plan for adoption.

“I say that taking full account of all the father’s faults … and giving appropriate weight to the degree of commitment to (the toddler) the father has demonstrated.”

And the judge warned against “social engineering”.

“I can accept that the father may not be the best of parents, he may be a less than suitable role model, but that is not enough to justify a care order let alone adoption,” he said

“We must guard against the risk of social engineering, and that, in my judgment is what, in truth, I would be doing if I was to remove (the toddler) permanently from his father’s care.”