Judge critical of social services as he blocks council care order

By The Press Association2nd September 2014News EnglandChild Protection, Families, Local Authorities, News England

A family court judge has blocked a local authority’s attempt to take a baby into care after criticising a social worker.

Judge Iain Hamilton (pictured) dismissed Manchester City Council’s application for a care order following a hearing in Manchester.

The judge said the baby at the centre of the case – a 12-month-old boy who was placed in foster care when a week old – should be returned to his mother.

He said he had “real issues” about the role played in the proceedings by “inexperienced” social worker Shyam Baker.

And he said he was “troubled” by the role of Mr Baker’s manager.

Judge Hamilton said the case was “worrying and troubling” and not one which reflected well on the participants or “the system”.

The judge said neither the baby nor his parents could be identified.

But he named Manchester City Council and Mr Baker in a written ruling.

He said a copy of his judgment would be sent to the council’s assistant director of children’s services so that “issues raised” and criticism of some social work practice could be considered.

The judge said the baby had been taken from his mother’s care a few days after being born and placed with foster carers pending decisions on his long-term future.

Judge Hamilton said the council wanted the little boy to be made the subject of a care order and placed with a relative.

Both the mother and father – who said they were no longer “in a relationship” – wanted the baby to be returned to the care of his mother.

The judge said the council had raised concerns about the father’s “extensive criminal history”.

And Mr Baker – and a court-appointed children’s guardian – had been “very troubled” about how the mother and father might “conduct their relationship” in future, he said.

Judge Hamilton said both the mother and father had criminal records.

The mother, who was in her 20s, had been convicted of robbery and racially threatening and abusive behaviour when a teenager.

He said the father, who was in his 30s, had convictions for offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, disorderly behaviour, driving offences, benefit fraud, possession of cannabis with intent to supply and harassment of a former partner. He said the father had been given a prison sentence and two suspended prison sentences.

The judge said the issue was how the father’s convictions had been “interpreted and relied on” by the council.

And he said there were “real issues” about a reliance on police “intelligence”.

Judge Hamilton said, in a ruling published following a hearing in August, that the baby had “never suffered any harm” in his parents’ care.

“If he has suffered any harm to date, it is the loss of the relationship with his mother during the first year of his life due to the fact that he was removed from her care when he was a week old,” said the judge.

“He has been in foster care for the subsequent 12 months throughout these very protracted proceedings.”

Judge Hamilton, who was told that Mr Baker had been a qualified social worker since 2012, said there was no suggestion that the council had not acted in good faith.

“The question, however, arises as to whether a more experienced social worker would have acted with greater circumspection,”said the judge.

“None of the information provided by the police as disclosed to this court and the parties appeared to establish that (the father) was a direct risk to a child.”

He added: “There was no evidence before the court to suggest ill-treatment or neglect of (the baby) or any impairment of his development. There was no identification of any failing in parental care to which any alleged harm could be attributable.”

The judge said Mr Baker had described “worrying” police intelligence, which included “concerns about firearms offences, money laundering and drugs”.

Mr Baker had considered the information he was given by police “sufficient”, had not considered that police might have “over egged the issues”, and had said the “assessment of risk” had been discussed with a department head.

But the judge said the “intelligence” had not been produced to the court or the couple.

“There are real issues in this case about the children’s services reliance on police ‘intelligence’ as a basis for the actions taken by the social worker and others,” said the judge.

“The ‘intelligence’ referred to has never been produced to this court or the parties and it is unclear as to exactly what information has been given by the police to the social worker or others within children’s services.”

Judge Hamilton said Mr Baker had been troubled by having no clear understanding of how the mother and the father might conduct their relationship in the future.

“I entirely agree that the father as demonstrated by him in his evidence is a very unprepossessing, and unappealing character,” said the judge.

“Having said that there is no reliable evidence before this court to indicate that he has ever harmed any child or posed any risk of significant harm to a child.”

He said how the couple’s relationship might be conducted was a matter for them and added: “It is not for this court or others to judge or interfere with parental relationships unless it can be properly established that there is an identifiable risk of harm for the child or children.”

Judge Hamilton said: “I have found this to be both a worrying and troubling case especially in the light of its outcome for a child who has never suffered any harm in his life other than the removal from his mother’s care for what is now a fraction under a full 12 month period. It is not a case which reflects well on the participants or indeed the system.”

The judge went on: “There are I think real issues about this social worker and his role in these proceedings which largely emanate from his lack of experience. The view I formed of him was that he was an inexperienced but highly intelligent and articulate young man who was committed to trying to promote and safeguard the welfare of (the baby) in circumstances which he found to be extremely challenging.

“He unfortunately appeared to me to have a lack of understanding and awareness of how to communicate with the mother in particular at a level which was basic enough to enable her to engage effectively. There were times in his evidence where he became very confused and resorted to saying things he was unable to properly substantiate. That was regrettable since it undermined his reliability so far as this court was concerned.

“I should also add that I am troubled by the role of the social worker’s manager in relation to steps taken within the proceedings. It was clear from the social worker’s evidence that many of the decisions made had not been his but those of his manager.”