Judge blames Somerset council social work for ‘systemic failure’

Somerset County Council has come under fire from a judge over the way staff dealt with a severely disabled 19-year-old woman who was not allowed to return home after bruising was spotted on her chest when she was in a respite care placement.

Judge Nicholas Marston said there had been a “systemic failure” by the council.

The judge was “very critical” and said social services staff had failed to respect the human rights of the woman and her family.

He suggested that social workers had not carried out a “proper investigation” into the cause of the bruising.

And he said there was “no question” that the woman had been “removed unlawfully” from her family.

The woman’s mother had told how she had “lost confidence” in the council’s ability to act in accordance with her daughter’s best interests and human rights.

And she had complained that local authority intervention had been “both ill-informed and unjustified”.

Judge Marston said he could “completely understand why”. He said a senior social work manager had apologised on behalf of the council.

Detail of the case has emerged in a written ruling by the judge after a hearing in the Court of Protection – which analyses issues involving sick and vulnerable people – in Bristol.

The judge said the woman could not be identified.

Judge Marston said the woman’s mother had initially spotted bruising on her daughter’s chest – shortly before she was going into scheduled respite care – and had contacted a doctor and told staff at the respite care placement.

Staff had subsequently spotted more bruising and the woman had been examined at a hospital.

A paediatrician had suggested the bruising might have been caused by “blows”. He said if the injuries had been self-inflicted he would have expected any incident of “self-harm” to have been witnessed.

Social workers had decided that the woman could not return home as a result of a medical report concluding that it was “highly likely” that the woman had received a “significant injury from someone or something other than herself”.

But, the judge said, members of staff at a specialist school the woman attended had seen her “hitting herself on the sternum area” a day before her mother spotted bruising.

He said that information would have been “easily discoverable” if social workers had carried out a “proper investigation”.

Judge Marston also made a series of other criticisms.

He said the council had not asked a Court of Protection judge to make decisions at a time when there was a “clear dispute” about what was in the woman’s best interests.

Staff had “suspended” the woman’s contact with her disabled older brother without carrying out a formal best interests assessment and without consulting her family.

The woman had not been allowed contact with her younger siblings for “reasons of administrative efficiency”. She had been prescribed anti-psychotic medication without her family being consulted.

And, the judge said, the woman had been placed in an “unsuitable” property after social workers decided that she could not go home.

He said conditions were “clearly not appropriate” and that should have been “stunningly obvious” to any social worker with any knowledge of the woman.

Judge Marston said his findings illustrated a “blatant disregard” for the process of relevant legislation.

He said workers “on the ground” did not know what the process was and no-one “higher up” seemed to have correctly advised them.

“I have been very critical of the local authority,” said Judge Marston. “This was a systemic failure by the local authority and it will only be put right with a system-wide effort.”

He said: “There is no question here that (the woman) was removed unlawfully from her family … The local authority had a duty to investigate the bruising but I find that a competently conducted investigation would have swiftly come to the conclusion that no or no sufficient evidence existed to be able to conclude (the woman’s) safety was at risk by returning her home. “

And he explained: “On the issue of thinking about things from (the woman’s) point of view there was, so far as I can see, never any consideration of how she might be affected by removal from her home.”

The judge said it seemed that social workers had decided “what the picture was” and then made the “facts fit the picture”.

He said the woman should return home – and said her family and social services staff should “re-build the relationship” for her benefit.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2014, All Rights Reserved.