Council’s ‘catalogue of errors’ laid bare after judge’s ruling on child case published

Social services bosses at a London council who were criticised over the way they handled a case involving the care of a child have failed in a bid to keep a family court judge’s ruling under wraps.

Recorder Corraine Sadd has published a ruling in which she complains of a “catalogue of errors” by Newham Council after analysing the child’s case at private hearings in the East London Family Court based in Canary Wharf.

Lawyers representing Newham bosses had argued that her ruling should not be made public because publication would increase the risk of the child being identified and lessen confidence in the council.

But the judge decided otherwise and said publication was in the public interest.

She has barred publication of material which would identify the child but said the council was a public body which should be named and held accountable.

The judge explains in her ruling, which has been published on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (Bailii) website, how social workers had raised concern about the child more than two years ago.

They were concerned that the child’s mother, who was in her teens when she gave birth, was vulnerable.

Recorder Sadd said she had approved a plan which would result in the child leaving the mother’s care and living with a couple under a “special guardianship” arrangement.

But she listed a number of concerns about the council’s handling of the case.

The judge said bosses had failed to comply with her orders, which caused delay, and appeared to have given her inaccurate information.

She also said she had been concerned about the “support” provided to the child’s mother.

The judge said the mother was “young and vulnerable” and must have been put under “intolerable strain”.

She said court time and public money had been wasted.

A council boss had been “unable to offer an explanation for Newham’s failures” but had apologised and told the judge that “a full inquiry would take place”.

Barristers Catherine Piskolti, who represented the mother, and Alistair Banks, who represented the child, had asked the judge to publish her ruling and name the council.

But barrister Paul Pavlou, who represented Newham, said publication would not be in the public interest.

“His essential case is as follows,” said Recorder Sadd, in her ruling.

“Publication increases the risk of the family (and) child … being identified.”

She added: “Publication will only seek to lessen the confidence of the public in Newham which may cause repercussions in other cases.”

The judge said she had decided that the ruling should be published and Newham named.

“Publication is in the public interest as this case clearly demonstrates the delay and costs caused by non-compliance with court directions and sends a clear signal that the court deprecates such failures, in the hope that publication of such judgments may contribute towards a change in local authority practice,” she said.

“There is no compelling reason why Newham should not be named … Newham is a public body which should have public accountability and the catalogue of errors in this case is such that it should be held accountable both to the mother and also to the public.”

She said the anonymity of the child could be “protected”.

_{Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2018, All Rights Reserved.}