This is a guest blog post by Noel Arnold. Noel is a partner at Philcox Gray & Co in London and sits on the Law Society’s Children Law Sub-committee and the Association of Lawyers for Children’s Executive Committee. The views expressed here are his own and do not purport to reflect the views of any other organisation or individual. Follow Noel on Twitter: @Children_Law.
Use of Independent Social Workers in Care Proceedings
I was fortunate to have been invited recently to the launch event of the publication of an important piece of research and one that is said to be the first of its kind. ‘The Contribution of Experts in Care Proceedings: Evaluation of Independent Social Work Reports in Care Proceedings’ is said to be a first because the role and value of independent social work (ISW) assessments and reports has not been the specific remit of any research project to date. Its aims were to first focus on the work of ISWs and the second to examine the impact of the work of ISWs on courts. In this blog piece ‘ISW’ will refer to independent social work, ‘ISWr to independent social worker and ‘ISWs’ to its plural.
The research team from the University of Oxford was headed by leading senior research fellow Dr Julia Brophy. If you can’t find time to read the entire research report, I can recommend the excellent Executive Summary. In essence the research was undertaken because of a number of concerns expressed from various quarters and over some time, but most recently in the interim report of the Family Justice Review. That report stated at paragraph 4.228 that:
“The Review has heard claims that family courts in public law proceedings are commissioning too many reports from Independent Social Workers. We are clear that Independent Social Workers should only be employed to provide new information to the court, not as a way of replacing the assessments that should have been submitted by the social worker or the guardian.”
Many felt that such comments were misleading as to the reasons why ISWs were instructed in care proceedings. Nagalro in its response to the consultation stated:
“The assumption in the review that the contribution of Independent Social Work expert witnesses duplicates that provided by local authority social workers is highly questionable, as there is a regrettable lack of research evidence on the ISW contribution to family proceedings…”
So now we have the research on ISWs and it tells us this (amongst other things):
- “The reasons why an ISW was instructed to assess a parent where there was evidence of a previous assessment by a local authority was because that assessment had not included this parent, or parent and a new partner; this was the reason in 43% of cases. In these circumstances the ISW does not ‘duplicate’ the local authority assessment, but adds information”
- “In 35% of cases a previous local authority assessment was contested by parents but most (27%) were contested on grounds of content; in just 4 cases (8%) parents contested a local authority assessment on grounds of lack of independence or human rights claims”
- “Findings do not therefore support views that ISW assessments routinely duplicate local authority assessments, adding nothing new. These were not like-for-like assessments: new people, changed/new circumstances were the driving forces”
- “The findings indicate that the independence and the skills of the ISW, and time to fully assess complex parents with a history of non-cooperation or engagement with local authorities are key benefits to the court of ISW assessments”
I agree with and welcome the report’s findings, which largely reflect my own experience of ISW assessments in care proceedings. However, as I listened to the presentations and discussions at the launch event I was interested in what could flow from the research. The findings of the research will likely be endorsed by many ISW practitioner and representative groups but in the words of Carrie Bradshaw, “Later that day, I got to thinking…” could there be even wider use of ISWs in care proceedings or should there be?
Care proceedings are about the best interests of the subject children. Their welfare is deemed to be the most important factor and the family court has to make often difficult and finely balanced decisions. Care proceedings are not formulaic and there is certainly no one rule (or even several rules) which can apply to every case. That is because the cases are so highly fact specific. One cannot look at the facts and easily predict an outcome as the circumstances may change: new family members put themselves forward to provide alternative care, breakdown in foster care placements during the currency of proceedings and parents may be able to demonstrate capacity to change and insight into concerns such that children can be returned to their parents’ care.
Professionals involved in care proceedings generally try to reduce the tension and hostility in order to conduct them in a less adversarial manner than other forms of civil actions. I agree that this must be correct however, I think sometimes that we forget that care proceedings are still litigation. By virtue of the nature of the proceedings there is an Applicant and there are Respondents and in most cases at least one of these is pitted against the Applicant. Why is that? Because the Local Authority application has made an application for a care order. What does a care order do? If made, it vests Parental Responsibility in the Local Authority and allows them to remove and accommodate the child where it sees fit (usually foster care). Naturally, parents don’t like the idea of their child being removed from their care and so they do see themselves as having to ‘fight’ against the Local Authority to prevent that happening. At a very basic level the core structure of care proceedings renders them adversaries.
Local Authorities apply for care orders because they are concerned for a child’s safety, welfare, development – or all three. Those concerns are directed to those who are caring for the child (usually the parents) and may involve allegations that the parents have caused the child a serious injury, abused the child, neglected the child or do not have the capacity to provide good enough parenting. In some cases there are no general concerns about a parent’s basic parenting capacity but rather the concerns might be about other things, such as the parent being able to show that s/he can remain free from substance misuse; avoid violent or harmful adult relationships; discipline a child in an appropriate way. There are many more examples of specific concerns/difficulties. In these cases the parent must try to persuade the court that the Local Authority has got it wrong: either the concern does not exist, has been exaggerated and so does not meet the threshold for local authority intervention or for orders to be made in respect of the child, or the parent has to show that s/he has addressed the concern to such an extent that it is no longer a valid concern.
Commonly there will be multiple issues and some concerns as to general parenting ability. The Local Authority has a duty to undertake a Core Assessment, that should comply with the ‘Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families’. One of the key dimensions to be addressed is parenting capacity. A core assessment has to be filed with the court with the Local Authority’s application for a care order. It is reported that in 40% of care proceedings, the proceedings commence without a core assessment being filed. It is usually the social worker allocated to the child who will complete the core assessment and so it is s/he who is informing the court of the parent’s difficulties in providing good parenting to the child.
Although a Local Authority may make an application without having a fixed view of the orders it will be seeking or the plan it will ultimately be recommending it is (anecdotally) increasingly common for Local Authorities to issue care proceedings only at the point where interim removal is sought. Whilst assessment reports should be balanced and deal with positives and challenges before conclusions are drawn, it must be remembered that in these cases Local Authorities are seeking to remove children from the care of the parents, or otherwise to justify the orders sought. Logically it must follow that the Local Authority assessment of parenting capacity is likely to illustrate difficulties and conclude negatively: if the parent’s care of the child was good enough, there is less likely to be a need for court proceedings.
There is lots of talk about how Local Authority social workers are expert and are best placed to make judgments about the child’s needs and the parents’ capacity to meet those needs as they work on the ground with the child and family. It is said that the court has the expertise of the social worker on these issues and so unless “the information is not already available through other sources” there should be no instruction of another expert to report on the same issues. [paragraph 42 of the Government’s response to the Family Justice Review]. It is probably fair to say that the social worker will know the child and family well and will be in a good position to assess and make conclusions about parenting capacity but these amount to one professional’s view and it is the parent’s inalienable right to disagree with the social worker’s view and to suggest that the social worker has got it wrong. That is litigation. That is what happens when a Local Authority seeks to remove a child from a parent and the parent does not want that to happen.
There may be understandable reasons for the parent not being willing to accept the assessment of the social worker as to parenting capacity. Parents will often see the social worker as the servant of the Local Authority which seeks to separate their child from them, and therefore as presenting an unbalanced view or one which supports the Local Authority’s application. The social worker may have only very recently become involved and so may have gathered information more from the social work files than any direct work/engagement with the parents. Or the social worker may have been involved for such a long time during multiple child protection case conferences (spanning years) and the parent believes that the social worker has not (through those social worker processes) supported, guided or assisted the parents to overcome any alleged difficulties. For all of these reasons, it may be fair for a parent to question the validity and strength of a parenting assessment presented to the court as professional evidence on behalf of the Applicant Local Authority which may seek an order endorsing removal of child from parent. Of course a parent may simply lack the insight to be able to acknowledge justified criticisms of their parenting or behaviour.
In times gone by parents may have been able to expect that the Children’s Guardian (CG) will undertake some direct social work with the family to assist the CG in formulating his/her own view as a social work professional, about what the Local Authority has said about parenting capacity and other matters that the court will adjudicate on. It is well recognised that CGs no longer have the time, support and managerial sanction to work with the family in the way that they perhaps used to. So where does this leave the parent? The parent can try and continue demonstrating through meetings with the social worker that their parenting capacity has improved or was originally misjudged, the parent can attend a parenting course if the Local Authority facilitates this and that may well assist the parent’s case (although it is not an assessment as such), and the parent can attend contact with the child where supervised notes of contact are produced and may show good interactions. All of those suggestions have evidential limitations for obvious reasons.
The Local Authority and child as parties hold their own in-house social work expertise. The parent cannot of course write his/her own parenting assessment from a social work practice perspective and even if s/he could, it would lack both independence and impartiality. Without an ISW assessment, the parent has, in my view, a great mountain to climb in order to put his/her case regarding parenting capacity. The beauty of an ISW instruction is that it is usually a joint instruction (even if not jointly funded) and the ISW is instructed as an expert witness to the court and is to be independent (in process and reporting) from the parties, including the party who is instructing the ISW or the lawyer who is the ‘lead’ for the instruction. The parent cannot guarantee that the ISW will say something in his/her favour or reach a conclusion different to the Local Authority social worker. What the parent can be assured of is that a detailed independent assessment will be undertaken and that will be presented to the court by someone who does not work for the Applicant in the litigation. This means that it is all the more possible that a negative ISW assessment report will be easier for a parent to take on board, and the parent may be more able to take a step back, take perspective and possibly consider alternative care options in positive way which was not possible before, free from the distracting concerns about Local Authority bias or the fear that Local Authority evidence will be constructed as a means to justify a pre-determined end (removal). If a parent can be given confidence in the process and can be taken along with the Local Authority so much the better for avoiding delay and for the family – including the child.
I suppose what I am ultimately suggesting is that more routine use could be made of ISWs for the benefit of care proceedings. When I think about other forms of litigation it is common for independent reports to be produced in pursuance of a client’s case against state intervention/interference. For example in immigration/asylum appeals, the Appellant will usually present his/her own expert ‘country’ evidence and assessments from medical and mental health professionals as to the impact of torture. In special educational needs appeals before the tribunal system, the parent may instruct his/her own educational psychologist, speech and language therapist or occupational therapist to produce reports to present to the tribunal a more detailed and notably independent assessment as to the child’s special educational needs. These may suggest that the child’s needs require more/better provision than that originally offered by the Local Authority in the statement of special educational needs provided to the child.
There are obvious resource issues but in my view, the family justice system should support fairness between the parties by more readily allowing ISW assessments which invariably assist the court’s own decision-making as they are detailed works. ISW assessments have the cloak of independence and so are more likely to be acceptable to a parent even where a conclusion is not what that parent really wants to hear.
Noel, Of course what is also happening is a drive against the over-use of psychological evidence – and I wonder if you think that it may be that an increased use of ISWs would go hand in hand with a pulling back from the current (over?)reliance on psychological evidence? It seems to me that is something that is worth considering – it would certainly be cheaper, would enhance parental confidence in the independence of the system and would perform the function that many “psychological” assessments currently do (I’m thinking of the ones which read rather like glorified social work reports and where you struggle to find the actual psychology).
I tend to find that what happens in a lot of cases is that the Independent Social Worker basically revamps the speel that the Local Authority have stated in their reports and they then also get a Psychologist whom will go along with the same speel of excrement that the Local Authorities have put but will say that you have a Personality Disorder just because you have the Testicular Fortitude to disagree with the powers that be,
The Independent Social Worker and Psychologists are not “Independent” as it is claimed because they already have preconceived ideas before meeting the parents because of them been sent the various Court Paraphernalia such as Pre-Birth Assessment and what has already been said by the Courts but it only ever comes from the Local Authorities point of view and not what the parents are about at all.
The so called Guardian are only caring about what they are paid at the end of the day not what the “Best Interests” of the child as it is suppose to be, if they were really doing their job properly then they would not be “Not fit for purpose” and also they would not be removing as many babies and children under 4 years old for false hoods and would also in a lot of cases actually be on the parents side as in a lot of cases that would be “In The Child’s Best Interests” which is what section 1.1 CA 1989 is about, so that in its own right is enough to bring the whole of CAFCASS to its knees.
If you want my opinion which I am past caring if people don’t any more, I think that the whole of the Family Sectors needs to be overalled and the needs of the children come first like is written into law instead of the bent views of the professionals and what they want to happen to the child for their financial incentives et al, also if there is to be assessments then the Independent Social Worker and Psychologist et al should only be given the name’s of the parents and the children and that is it, no questions, no history, sweet FA so then they cant have a preconceived idea in their mind’s nor can they decide to be on anyone’s side because then they don’t have any info!
Thanks as always,.
Colby.
Thanks Noel for this thoughtful post which raises several issues. One is whether we should have a plethora of experts for parties in what is (arguably) more an inquisitorial than adversarial system. Another is whether ISWs are plugging gaps that Cafcass has created by circumscribing the guardian role. Lucy suggests there may be an over reliance on psychologists, when assessment of parenting and capacity for change are social work skills. It is very valuable work to bring these into debate. Practitioners who put the effort into blogs like this and research studies that provide evidence of what works are badly needed to save what is still effective in the family justice system, while acknowledging that reform is needed.
I wonder what would happen in Court if the parents who are deemed defective appointed their own Independent Character Witneses.
I agree completely with Julie – the explosion of experts in proceedings appears to me to have some connection to the watering down of the Guardian’s role, and to be fair, also to the quiet and informal decision of Local Authorities that there’s not much point committing forty hours of scarce social work time in doing an assessment that the Court won’t give any weight to only to have to do it again.
Most of the questions we ask psychologists are questions that an old-school Guardian and social worker whose evidence would be not accepted uncriticially but not automatically written off as biased and worthless, could answer, but the system inherently makes it easier and more likely to result in an opinion that is listened to to just get an independent person to give an answer.
I’d quite like to see psychologists taken out of all but the cases that genuinely require a psychological component, and use the savings in that to fund proper old-school Guardians who have time to investigate and challenge social work thinking and also to put funds in for treatment. We spend all of our money in care proceedings in getting a diagnosis and bickering about it, and none on treatment.
“I tend to find that what happens in a lot of cases is that the Independent Social Worker basically revamps the speel that the Local Authority have stated in their reports and they then also get a Psychologist whom will go along with the same speel …….
The Independent Social Worker and Psycholog- ists are not “Independent” as it is claimed because they already have preconceived ideas before meeting the parents because of them been sent the various Court Paraphernalia such as Pre-Birth Assessment and what has already been said by the Courts but it only ever comes from the Local Authorities point of view and not what the parents are about at all”
Unhappily this is true, the ISW is NOT independent, because there is a conflict of interest, the self-employed ISW wwill find commissions drying up if the go against the SS dept., to say nothing of being influenced by a highly biased “bundle”
They are frequently used to back up and endorse plans for Forced Adoption, an SGO with very limited contact by the parents or claims of lack of Attachment by the child to the parents.
If the Guardian no longer has the time for independent assessment, then what you get is a series of experts who back up the SS dept’s arguments and claims and their plans go through.
This is frequently so bad it becomes the Passion of Mrs. Smith (the mother), like the scenes from Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, carrying their cross and put up on the cross, whilst in this case the FC judge, legals, Guardian and SW’s all sing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”, as it is presented as a marvellous solution for the child against the aweful mother.
“If the Guardian no longer has the time for independent assessment,then what you get is a series of experts who back up the SS dept’s arguments and claims and their plans go through”
Well not always Dick…..there are 2 recent cases reported on the Family Law Week website that clearly indicate Judges can go to incredible lengths to get at the truths of a case particularly in very complex cases involving detailed medical evidence….these are….LB of Islington v Al Alas and Wray [2012] EWHC 865 (Fam)
And now
A County Council v M and F [2011] EWHC 1804 (Fam) heard by Mr Justice Mostyn.
What is interesting to me in both cases are the comments made by senior judges about the role and performance of the Children’s Guardian…the thrust of both being that they provided no help to the court as the judges expected them to do.
Mr Justice Mostyn writes in A C.C. v M and F he says…..
“To that end the Children’s Guardian has considered the oral evidence heard, the written evidence submitted and the expert opinion received in the context of the LA’s Schedule of Findings.”
“I was surprised to read that. Given that the outcome of this hearing could have a most far-reaching effect on her clients D and S2 I would have thought that I would be offered at least a steer as to what findings I should make. But no, I was firmly told that this is not the practice, and with my slender experience of this kind of work I am not in a position to argue. That said, approaching the matter with an open mind uncluttered by years of experience of this kind of work I would have thought that at the very least the role of the Guardian and those representing her should be akin to Counsel to a Statutory Inquiry, assisting the court in exploring complex scientific evidence and making suggestions to the court as to what findings should properly and tenably be made. The practice of sitting with an assessor has fallen into disuse (notwithstanding that the procedure for appointing an assessor has recently been reiterated in FPR 2010 r25.14), and thus the role of the representative of the Guardian in a case such as this cannot be overstated”.
and in the highly publically reported case of….LB of Islington v Al Alas and Wray the judge says…..
The Children’s Guardian took no part in this hearing. Those were her instruction to her solicitor, Mr Sharma. He hinted at one of the early directions hearings that there had been difficulty in securing funding from the LSC for instructing counsel. In the light of the fact that he proposed to take no part in the forensic process Mr Sharma did not attend after the third day of the hearing, other than to hear specific witnesses on the instruction of the Children’s Guardian.
The role of the Children’s Guardian can include drawing to the court’s attention to all relevant matters to assist in the fact finding exercise [see Lancashire v DE [2010] 196 at para 19].
In my judgment in cases as complex as this that remains a valuable role for the Children’s Guardian to have. With the benefit of hindsight it is perhaps a role that should have been give more robust encouragement in this case at a case management hearing”.
So we can start to see the impact of the introduction of the “proportionate and safe minimum” rules that Cafcass imposes on its practitioners….which in effect reduces their contribution to the court to a point of near invisibility….
I am aware that these are only 2 cases amongst many but additional feedback of this kind has also been leaking out from local Family Courts…and the question that needs answering is if the guardians role has been reduced to the point of invisibility by the Cafcass executive….what good is it….and what are we paying for.
I know.
Senior judges are beginning to be more inquiring as to the evidence and that of the Guardian and what role they have (or haven’t) played.
Even to saying that in this case they do not consider themselves bound by the unofficial rule to go with the Guardian’s recommendatons.
Clearly the word has gone out.
But unhappily most Guardians see themselves as “second violin” to the SS Dept’s lead, even to the extent of failing to inquire into the most blantant unlikely statements, especialy in Forced Adoption cases.
Many behave WORSE than the LA staff.
As in this judgement the Guardian is supposed to be the counsel for the children and the reason they were introduced from America all those years ago.
As said “what good is it and what are we paying for?”
Again there is the problem of Conflict of Interest – the self-employed Guardians make a considerable income in fees, and may well subsidise other things they do, so will not wnat to do anything other than keep the LA sweet.
my wife and i are trying to get custody of our grandson who is in care at the moment,we had an independant report done on us and 90/ of it he has made up??? he has made it sound that because im 60 years old im not going to be around long enough to give him the proper care untill he is old enough to do so for himself.please tell me we can fight this in the courts we DONT want our grandson adopted.
Peter, Age in itself is not a bar to an order being made in favour of grandparents, but it is a relevant factor. You are entitled to be heard before the court makes a decision. Are you already a party or intervenor? I’m guessing that you may be already if an independent report has been done, but if not you should consider asking the court for this status. I would suggest that if you haven’t already you should seek legal advice and even if you do not qualify for legal aid try and fund some one off advice even if you cannot pay for representation at a hearing. Make sure you know the date of the final hearing and make sure that the other lawyers and parties in the case know that you are wishing to challenge the report and that you will be coming – write to the court and ask for your letter to be passed to the judge. Make a list of the things that are factually inaccurate before you go into court. Consider taking a McKenzie friend into court if you are not able to take a lawyer.
could you please tell me who as the most influnce in family court because i have had a child removed since birth which was 5 weeks ago and socail services have said everything is historical but the guiden from court once the baby to come home on strick supervision whats the chances
Shane PLEASE go and see a solicitor URGENTLY. You will get legal aid and won’t need to pay. It’s important you speak to someone who can talk you through this as soon as possible. Don’t delay. Good luck.
we are trying to get our grandchild back from the Care System we have negative reports from both local authority social worker and Independant Social Worker any advice would be most welcome thank you
Elizabeth, It’s not possible or appropriate for me to give you advice through this website on the basis of your short comment – other than to say that you should seek some legal advice and do so quickly. Sorry I can’t be of more help. Lucy PS see http://lucyreed.co.uk – but I think you may be better off going to see a solicitor.
I need help are there any charities which may help fund an independent social work assessment
Not that I’m aware of Marie. Usually they are funded by legal aid or privately.
[…] Children Law Sub-Committee. He often writes on the topic of Children Law, including occasionally on Pink Tape. Noel tweets as […]
It is hard to find anyone independant because they all get taught the same nonsense. Many believe they can fill out a questionnaire and get back answers like the old teenage mags. When they get it wrong we are told that social work is not a science. Well neither is raising children and no one is perfect but almost always a child is better of at home than in the terrible (don’t) care system that usually puts children through a lifetime of emotional abuse and often some other types of abuse too. It is time the defunct family courts were just disbanded. Give parents a fair trial by jury and see how fast the need for all these expensive “experts” disappears! Parents in dictatorships get more rights and so do the poor children subjected to this terrible state abuse but you can’t keep everyone silent forever and the clamout is getting louder! It is about time Justice really was seen to be done
My mum was a child in care in the early 70’s. I was a child in care returned home and put into care again in the 90’s. The l.a tried to take my eldest at birth in 2001. We kept the child at home under placement with parents. On and off plans over the years (always when ex husband gets personally involved) then we were told they were closing the case in february 2014. L.a admitted they were meant to but never did. As it now stands I have 8 children 14, 13, 12, 12, 8, 7, 4 & 1. 2 are on section 20. 1 of those got moved out of county Easter Friday and the l.a solicitor was not aware of it. We as parents have not been officially informed and no one had any prior knowledge. The l.a finally started proceedings after threatening to issue since September 2015 (6 months) the last case conference said we had been failed. None of the work outlined in the protection plan has been done since it started June 2015. In the last year we have had 4 social work. 3 temporary social workers and after 8 business days into court proceedings (we are at day 12) we have ANOTHER social worker (who is on annual leave) and ANOTHER team manager appointed. The team manager was my siblings social worker when they were in care and we feel she may have a biased view. Out of my 6 children not in care 2 live with seperate fathers and 4 live with me.
How do we stop them taking our children? When does this nightmare end? The bundle for court is full of inaccurate information and we feel like our children are about to be stolen on a predetermined course of action
If there is inaccurate information in the bundle you need to highlight the inaccuracies to your lawyer who will point them out in your evidence and challenge them at the appropriate moment.
Ive just had an ISW report filed within court proceedings and i fully agree the ISW is far from independent as it only mirrored SS ‘speel’. The SS report was completely flawed and required an addendum and it would be assumed an ISW report would bring in to question the flaws. Unfortunately it is the case that ‘expert’ reports provided to court are based on bias core bundles provided for the assessment and not the truth. In my case the core bundle hadnt even been provided prior to or even during proceedings for the purpose of the assessment but only provided AFTER it was concluded in which she did an addendum!! The report did nothing more than mirror negatives but failed to make note of all the positives. Hence, ISW’s and SS are sharing their toilet cubicles and examining their excrement before they flush families down the toilet unfairly. I have had 2 Stage 2 investigations upheld as to the serious failings of SS and 3 LGO investigations slamming SS but that doesnt matter.
Hi Kiki, I can’t comment on your particular case other than to say I’m sorry you have not got the report you wanted (which is not much help I know), but in my experience ISWs do often produce reports which challenge the LA view – not always of course, sometimes because the ISW report is not very good either, and sometimes because actually the LA had it right the first time around.
Lucy
I’m in the same situation ……isw report has come back negative when I’m working with l.a and my kids are thriving but because sw has written rubbish and then the isw has contacted her her perception of me has now changed. Isw have no idea! [edited]
Hi Im a single mother.
Me and my ex are separated when my daughter is 2 yrs old. [edited for legal reasons]
Can you please guide me. it would be very helpful
Thanks a lot
Hi Cynthia,
I don’t provide legal advice via this blog. I have edited your comment for legal reasons.
Lucy
We had isw assessment on my doughter and moust of what she wrote was negatives and a reflection of the previous one that social worker done they gave us false hope wen we want to court social worker didint turn up or send no one so we have to come back in 2 weeks times they have promess my doughter will have her child back on her care now we a earing all different things becouse social workers don’t agree with the isw assessment they saying the return of my grandoughter to her mother is premature we don’t fell they are isw at all becouse the guardian on the first hearing at the court spent all the time with social worker in a room talking and hardley talket to us .is there any chance my doughter would have her litlle girl back on her care she’s only 3 years old o can’t describe how much pain social worker are bringing to my family it is deabolic there’s no justice in them or in court something needs to changes this peopple are rutless only here for the money they have no care compation for peopple at all they are bullies liers manipulateres they need to be stoped
Hi Elizabeth, These are things your daughter should discuss with her lawyer, who will have a much better idea than I could about what her prospects are, and what steps she should now take. Best of luck.
Lucy
I had a parental assessment done by children’s services however, the family worker who did the report at no time saw myself or my wife interacting with our child. in fact she never met our child. Is this a fair way to assess the ability of a parent? I eventually had a report from a ISW who did observe me interacting with my child and although the ISW made some recommendations, overall she commented that I would be able to care for my child in a Part Time / Full Time capacity. A positive outcome. Is it fair for a parental assessor to come up with a negative report without watching you interact with your child?
Generally a parenting assessment would involve seeing you interact with your child on a number of occasions, yes – although a significant part of it will be sessions with the parent only. I’m glad you got an ISW which showed that in fact you could care. I suppose some assessments may be being conducted a bit differently recently due to covid, but I’d anticipate that even those would involve observation by video if possible.
Our family have had a terrible experience with family court. Social services removed our grandchild from her mother using an EPO. ISW appointed with previous experience of one of the parties involved and had biased opinion from the offset. Court only used ISW recommendation to place child in care of paternal grandparents despite [edited]. Guardian’s report not even considered. Statements and reports had multiple innacuracies and outright lies with many having different versions is same events. Complaints regarding false statements ignored by court and ISW. Screening reports for us had answer to drug question that was not ours but that of [edited]. Has taken weeks to get it changed but we don’t know who has already seen it. Connected persons reports for our family persistently delayed and the decision to place the child was made before court even took place. Many other inconsistencies and false reporting by social services and ISW including incorrect names on reports. No support in court for mother from professionals/police with statements regarding historical DA and DV by child’s father towards mother. Due to pandemic court only virtual and decisions made before mother was allowed to join. Mother only has limited supervised contact and instructed on what she can and cannot talk to child about yet father given multiple days contact supervised by his mother and can say what he likes. No justice from family court when the only outcome was decided by the ISW recommendation not by the judge.