By James Simons
A judge has criticised a council and a social worker for making “egregious” errors when investigating allegations that a boy was abused by his father.
Recorder Baker expressed shock and bemusement at a series of poor decisions that led to the boy not seeing his father for 10 months, because of a written agreement the council made with his mother.The identity of the council has deliberately been protected for legal reasons, to protect the boy’s identity, even though the council really deserve to be exposed for their serious failings.
The court heard that the boy’s parents were separated and also involved in a bitter private law dispute. Seven months after the child protection investigation, an assessment concluded that the abuse allegation could not be proven at all.Shockingly, all parties eventually agreed that the boy had not been abused by his father, after all that legal hassle.
The judge said it was “lamentable” it had taken so long and criticised flaws in the initial child protection investigation.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Quick conclusions
The investigation is believed by the eye of media.com to have been influenced by the mother, although there is no evidence to prove this. The mother’s friend had claimed to have overheard the boy talking about having massages with his father.
It seems improbable that the mother’s friend would have made the allegation wothout the mother’s consent, especially if the mother did not actively prevent it. Allegation of sexual abuse are often a convenient tool used in the midst of serious relationship problems .
Recorder Baker blasted the local authority for failing to take a balanced view when working on the case. The judge said the council was too quick to believe the allegations, and wrongly abandoned a child protection conference that would have probed the claims further.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The judge further expressed shock that the social worker failed to speak to the father when conducting the initial section 47 assessment, one he said was was hard to understand. We understand it, it is called negligence.
On top of all that, the social worker’s report was confusing and inaccurate in parts and failed to record inconsistencies in interviews with the boy, he added.
Conflicting
One conflicting aspect of the report was the suggestion that the mpother had influenced the allegation, with another suggesting there was no evidence the mother influenced the disclosures.
The social worker said in an Initial Child Protection Case Conference, that there was a “likelihood” disclosures made had been influenced by his mother. It also recorded on the same page that a case conference should not be convened “as there is currently no evidence that the mother has incited the allegations”.
Baker said: “How the above two statements can be reconciled is difficult to understand and nothing within the document explains the sudden volte face.”
The idea that the mother approved of the allegation is logically convincing since it was her friend formally made the allegation. It isn’t too hard to figure that out.
The judge also questioned how the case failed to meet the threshold for a case conference, especially as sexual abuse claims were still being investigated.
It also emerged that before the investigation was finished, the local authority offered the mother a written agreement to sign. The agreement was to say that the boy should have no contact with his father until the investigation was over. Meanwhile, the investigators who were meant to get two sides of the story, failed to do so.
Alarming
The alarming thing is that when the investigation was finished, the social workers did not inform the mother it was over, meaning that the boy’s instructions not to contact the father remained indefinite.
The shocked judge mused:: ”in other words, the mother had signed an agreement without limit of time that asked her to prevent V( the boy) and his father having a relationship on pain of the local authority taking “further action” and “legal advice” should the agreement not be adhered to,” Baker said.
The mother later used the agreement in private law proceedings, to argue that the child shouldn’t see his father.
The judge lamented the fact that when social workers closed the case, it was with the conclusion that the boy had been sexually abused, and he would be at risk from his father if he was to have contact.
“Simply to say ‘the child will not see the alleged perpetrating parent and is therefore safe’ and thereafter close the case, is an abrogation of the responsibility placed on local authorities,” he said.
“The conclusions of the section 47 and Child and Family Assessments investigations appear to be that there is a real possibility the child has been sexually abused by his father. Even if that was the only possible conclusion open to the assessor at the time (and it very clearly was not) I fail to see how the criteria for an Initial Child Protection Conference was not met.”
More balanced
The judge stressed that had a conference taken place, “it would have inevitably led to a more balanced understanding of the available evidence”.
Seven months passed in the case before the issue was resolved by a section 37 investigation. The report concluded that there was little or no evidence to substantiate any allegations of sexual abuse.
“The writer concludes that V has suffered significant harm but that harm emanates from the acrimonious dispute between the parents rather than any form of direct sexual or physical abuse,” the judgment said.
The allegations against the father were found to be untrue, but there was nothing to suggest that the allegation was initiated by the mother or that she knew it was untrue. The discovery that the allegation was false has led to contact being resumed between the boy and father.
Judge Baker reebukerd the council for establishing the agreement preventing the boy from seeing his father, only to withdraw at the earliest possibility. He said:
“The idea that it is sufficient simply to formulate an agreement with one parent that they will prevent a relationship with the alleged perpetrating parent on threat of care proceedings, and then withdraw at the earliest possible stage, without considering that there are ongoing section 17 duties, is difficult to justify,” he said.
The judge published the criticism of the local authority as there were “general matters of public interest”, which he felt could promote better practice.
The eye of media.com is in the process of an application to expose the council involved , as there is no evidence it will necessarily disclose the identity involved.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar