By Charlotte Webster-
Hertfordshire Council’s children’s services are having an urgent meeting today to address serious failings that led to false child abuse allegations and a series of inadequate decisions, following a High Court judgment in a case that questioned their “fitness for purpose”.
The meeting has been set for councillors to approve an assurance and improvement strategy across children’s social care to redress serious concerns in its practice and leadership raised by the questioning of its fitness for purpose in which social work teams pursued a plan for special guardianship orders (SGOs) for children who had made false allegations of sexual abuse against their parents.
The revelations highlighted serious failings that exposed the incompetence of Hertfordshire police and Hertforshire Council, after children did not see their parents for eight years. During that period, one child died of a serious illness. Mr Justice Keehan said this “sidelining” of the mother was most tragically illustrated when one of the children died while the mother was on her way to the hospital to see her; a decision to turn off life support was made before the mother arrived.
The case exposed multiple failings on the part of professionals, which allowed children to strangely accuse their parents of child abuse, when in fact the children were likely suffering from complex mental health issues arising from a combination of issues including neglect and a destruction of emotional attachment between the children and their siblings, and also their parents, played a role in distorting outcomes.
In a series of tragic incidences, some of the children died due to poor arrangements and guidelines from professionals, contrary to clear directions from a judge.
In a High Court judgement published last week concerning the separation of twins, Justice Keehan blasted managers for neglecting a care plan that aimed to keep the pair together, and for failing to disclose crucial information.
The judge said the children’s human rights had been breached as a result of the council’s “catalogue” of individual and systemic poor practice. The judge also slammed Hertfordshire’s “woeful” treatment of two half-sisters who suffered emotional and psychological harm as a result of chaotic care planning over a period of years.
The report severely criticised “serious and serial” failings on the part of IROs.
The judge added that the “extensive and grave” failures by the local authority went far beyond the actions of individual practitioners.
Deleted References
Among a series of findings, the judge said a manager had deleted references to the twins’ challenging behaviours from files, and that information had been withheld from prospective adopters and adoption agencies because of mismanagement.
At one stage, Hertfordshire council served notice to end BT’s placement based on “entirely misconceived” concerns about the quality of care he was receiving – when in fact the child’s behavioural issues were rooted in past trauma.
A statement by the council in response to the two judgments said it fully accepted Justice Keehan’s findings, for which it expressed “deep regret”, and that improvements were being implemented by its new leadership team.
In the case of the twins, ‘BT’ and ‘GT’, the two children – born in 2010 – were made subject to placement orders in March 2015. Their father was imprisoned the following year for multiple child abuse offences while their mother received a suspended term after pleading guilty to neglect.
Leader of the council David Hitchener said the ruling, which highlighted managers ignoring the concerns of a senior judge and the advice of a respected psychiatrist “shows the previous steps taken to make improvements in children’s services have fallen short of what is required to protect and safeguard the children of Herefordshire”.
The local authority was previously criticised in three court judgments in 2018 and received a ‘requires improvement’ rating from Ofsted that same year, when inspectors found ‘inadequate’ leadership at the authority. The council’s report for the new improvement strategy says this approach will be “different to previous promises” and will involve external review and the oversight of the authority’s incoming chief executive when he starts in May, rather than that of service directors.
The improvement board, led by a Department for Education-appointed chair, will include external partners.
Upsetting
A Department for Education (DfE) spokesperson said: “This is a deeply upsetting case. No parent or carer should ever have to experience this kind of tragedy, and we welcome the assurances from [the council] that immediate action is being taken in response to this important judgement.”
The council has appointed a new interim director of children’s services and assistant director and proposes spending an additional £5.2m on children’s services over the next two years to deliver “the required reforms”, with an estimated £1.4m going on interim staffing.
The case involved four children who became known to Herefordshire in 2010 because of their mother’s concerns about their sexualised behaviour.
Alarm
A host of issues about the family raised alarm with the local authority, including the mother’s mental health and periods of heavy drinking, and the father’s behaviour. In late 2012, after staying for a few months in a section 20 (voluntary) arrangement with the foster carers who went on to seek SGOs, the children made allegations that they had been sexually and physically abused by their birth family.
The local authority sought care orders for the children to be placed long term with the foster carers (referred to in the judgment as the XXs), alleging sexual and physical abuse by their parents, among others. Although the allegations of sexual abuse were found to be false, the children were still considered to be at risk of significant harm from their parents, and the care orders were made in 2014.
In the latest judgment, High Court judge Mr Justice Keehan set out “egregious and long-standing failures” over the past eight years, which meant the damaging impact of the children’s narrative about their past ‘abuse’ was not addressed and they had minimal indirect contact with their birth parents, and no face-to-face meetings.
He awarded the siblings £20,000 each and their adoptive parents a total of £10,000 in relation to human rights breaches, after it emerged that the council failed to oversee or challenge decisions, with the twins barely seeing one another during 2017 and early 2018 during which time they had settled with their new families.
“I do not understand how, why or when the hugely important decision was taken to so severely curtail, indeed deny, the children an ongoing relationship once they had been placed for adoption,” Justice Keehan said.
Serious Failings
In a separate hearing during October, Justice Keehan found that “serial failures” in the care provided to two half-sisters, ‘A’ and ‘B’, by Herefordshire council had also breached their rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to private and family life).
The judge heard that the two girls, who had been made subject to care orders and placement orders in 2008, were never placed for adoption as was originally planned – with no explanation ever given.
The siblings were placed together in 2009 before being separated in 2013 after their foster carer opted to relocate abroad.
“I do not know the reasons why this important decision [to place the girls apart] was made, nor the evidence on which it was made,” said Justice Keehan, who noted that the girls’ chronologies were confusing and contradictory.
“A and B were never again placed together. I have no explanation as to why not,” he added. The half-sisters were subsequently sent to opposite ends of the country, and between them endured numerous placement changes that the judge said caused them serious emotional and psychological harm.
Responding to the judgments, Herefordshire council acknowledged that its standard of care fell “well below” what it should have been, and said it was arranging an external review of its IRO service.
“We know there is more to do to improve our practice and to ensure that all children and young people in our care are well-supported,” a council spokesperson said. “We strive to keep all children and young people in our care safe and give them the best possible start in life, and we will continue to do so.”
During the first set of care proceedings, in 2013, Dr Asen was instructed to assess the children and advise how they could be informed of the court’s finding that their allegations were false. He recommended long-term therapeutic help, for each child, and as a sibling group. Three years later, after the maternal grandmother had applied to court for contact with the children, he found that their experiences and false narratives had not been explored therapeutically or during life story work.
Disgraceful
Mr Justice Keehan said it was “disgraceful” that the local authority should “impugn the professional integrity” of Dr Asen “on the flimsiest of evidence”, and noted that, while it may be a social work task, the council did not carry out life story work with the children, apart from a few months in 2017.
Over an 11 month period from July 2018 to May 2019, it emerged that the council failed to send the mother minutes from review meetings, and stopped inviting her to meetings with the independent reviewing officer, while later in 2019 it authorised a change to one of the children’s schools despite her objections. Mr Justice Keehan said this “sidelining” of the mother was most tragically illustrated when one of the children died while the mother was on her way to the hospital to see her; a decision to turn off life support was made before the mother arrived.
“Very shockingly,” Mr Justice Keehan said, the local authority did nothing about this expression of concern, from a “senior and hugely experienced family judge”.
Critical Illness
Mr Justice Keehan found that children’s services had received incorrect legal advice that it could consent to life support treatment being ceased based on the medical advice, and the matter should have been brought to the High Court. The parents saying over the phone that they agreed with the doctors’ decision was found not to be informed consent. Following this case, Herefordshire now has a consent policy for looked-after children requiring serious medical treatment or the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
Care Orders
Justice Keehan directed that the children remain subject to care orders. He specified that therapeutic work be carried out with the children and a productive relationship developed between the XXs and the mother with the aim of restoring contact. Herefordshire asked for proceedings to be concluded so that the work could took place outside of court.
However, Justice Keehan stated: “Sadly, but understandably, [the children and the XXs] have lost all confidence in the local authority. Accordingly, along with the mother, they wish the court to retain oversight of the work of [the therapist] until he has filed his reports and commenced therapeutic work with the children.”
The judge continued: “I cannot after the closest possible enquiry, understand why or what motivated the local authority to fail these children, this mother and [the XXs] as appallingly and for as extended a period of time… The only matter which is clear to me is that it did not have the welfare best interests of the children at the heart of its decision-making, such as it was. This must call into question whether this local authority’s children’s services department is fit for purpose.”
Hertfordshire Council said ”its review strategy would incorporate findings from the previous court judgements and a “fundamental appraisal of our social work practice from leadership through to practitioner level”.
The council has commissioned a review of the leadership and management of its children’s social care services by two former Ofsted inspectors, which will report next month. It has also agreed that the DfE will appoint an adviser, who will chair a new improvement board for Herefordshire.
“The DfE are currently considering what action they are required to take to ensure children receive the services they deserve. The type of intervention is dependent on the severity of the situation, how long the authority has been underperforming, and the perceived capacity for improvement. We recognise that the DfE have a difficult decision to make.”
Safe
A DfE spokesperson said: “Our priority is to ensure children in Herefordshire are safe, protected from harm and that the services designed to care for them are fit for purpose. We are working closely with the council and with Ofsted to ensure that they bring in strong and effective leadership in Herefordshire’s children’s services team, and we have put support in place to raise standards through our Partners in Practice programme. We will not hesitate to take stronger intervention action if rapid improvements are not made.”
Ward said: “The attitudes, culture and professional practice demonstrated in this judgment is shocking and well below the standards we expect. Appropriate action will be taken on the conclusion of our investigations, in accordance with the council’s HR procedures, any relevant professional body requirements, and the law.
“Our social workers continue to do their best, often in very difficult circumstances, to support families and protect vulnerable children in our community. We will ensure our staff have the support they need and the confidence and commitment to report any concerns.