Judge under fire for refusing to name council she criticised over care proceedings

A family court judge is under fire after refusing to name a council she had criticised over the way social services staff dealt with the father of a four-year-old girl at the centre of care proceedings.

Judge Heather Anderson said the council had admitted breaching the human rights of the man – who has a learning difficulty and is separated from the girl’s mother.

Staff had not consulted him when temporarily placing the girl – who had lived with her mother – with foster carers after concerns about her being neglected emerged.

He had not been asked if he could care for his daughter and had not been asked if he could suggest other possible carers, pending decisions about her long-term future.

Social services bosses had accepted that conduct had been incompatible with the man’s right to a fair trial and his right to respect for family life.

They had admitted failing to consult the man when the youngster was placed into foster care, they had admitted failing to identify him as a “father with parental responsibility” and they had admitted failing to “recognise and correct” errors.

But Judge Anderson said she would not name the council or social workers involved because it would not “serve any useful purpose” to attribute failings to “specific individuals”.

She said social workers and their legal advisers worked under “huge pressure”.

A former MP who campaigns for improvements in the family justice system today said the judge was wrong not to name the council.

Liberal Democrat John Hemming, who chairs the campaign group Justice for Families, said the public had a right to know.

Detail of the case has emerged in a written ruling by the judge following a private family court hearing in Leeds.

Judge Anderson said the youngster had temporarily been placed with foster carers in late 2014. Decisions on the girl’s long-term future had been made following a hearing in August 2015.

The judge said she had decided that the youngster should be placed for adoption.

Judge Anderson said the man had attended a special school, could not read and had never worked.

The judge said the youngster had enjoyed “regular contact” with him when living with her mother.

Social workers had intervened after concerns had been raised about “injuries” the girl had suffered and about “on-going neglect”.
Judge Anderson said it was “clear” that the council had “acted in a way” which was incompatible with the man’s rights to a fair hearing and to respect for family life.

But she said at the start of her ruling: “I have not named the local authority and will not name any of the social workers or the other professionals involved in the case.

“This is because although I will be critical of the local authority’s conduct it will not serve any useful purpose for me to attribute the omissions and failings which I will identify to specific individuals.”

She added: “Social workers and their legal advisers work under huge pressure, much of it imposed by the requirements of the court.”

Judge Anderson said everyone involved had learned lessons.

“There is no suggestion of any bad faith on the part of any of the professionals in this case,” said the judge.

“An early error was not noticed by a variety of professionals who are all working under a great deal of pressure.”

She added: “I anticipate that the local authority will wish to share this judgment with the other local authorities … as part of the work they do to share good practice and to learn from errors. They have my permission to share the judgment for this purpose.”

And she went on: “I also wish to make it clear that, fortunately, although there has been delay, the ultimate outcome for (the girl) has not been compromised because of the errors in the case.”

Mr Hemming was critical, saying: “The taxpayer funds this local authority, voters have elected the councillors responsible for it and the public has a right to know who it is.

“Many families will no doubt be involved with this council’s social services department. They have a right to know if something has gone wrong.

“They may have similar concerns about the way they have been treated. Voters may want to elect new councillors as a result of what’s gone wrong.

“This council may have been criticised before. Unless we know where things have gone wrong they cannot be put right.”

He added: “It is simply not good enough to keep the name of the council secret because social workers and their legal advisers work under ‘huge pressure’.

“This council is a public authority, its staff are public employees and members of the public have a right to know what is done in their name.”

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2016, All Rights Reserved.