Complainant:
|
|
Dave Hook
|
Complaint recorded by:
|
|
Mark Hughes
|
Present:
|
|
Lucille LeSueur, Independent Person
|
Date complaint recorded:
|
|
2nd November 2011
|
Nature of Complaints:
The Children Services acted in a way that was prejudicial, abusive and negligent. They consequently caused significant harm to two people who were already suffering. They did not carry out their job correctly and ignored a host of regulations and guidelines. They added insult to injury by denying any fault and have made false claims against these people in official reports. The reports are erroneous and it is illegitimate that they exist on the Integrated Children System.
Background to complaints:
(This document only summarises, and should be read in conjunction with, Mr Hook’s statement of complaint dated 13 July 2011 which is included in the attachment.)
Mr Hook said that his wife and mother to his daughter, Helen (Helen), decided that she wanted a divorce and approached this in a devastatingly calculating and aggressive manner. Helen was clear that she wished to live with her father and Mr Hook said that his wife deliberately prolonged events effectively holding them hostage in the family home for one and a half years. This led to an almost unendurable and very damaging period.
Mr Hook said that his wife was continually causing serious trouble including threatening him with a knife and she would regularly call the police when he was out claiming that he had assaulted her and on one occasion even self harmed causing her nose to bleed and claiming Mr Hook hit her and subsequently Mr Hook was arrested. On investigating the matter the police concluded that there were no charges to answer. Mr Hook said that his wife made such strong allusions to sexual abuse to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) that they requested a full investigation into the family by the Social Services in Frabenshire This was 7 years ago when Helen was 10 years old.
The Social Worker conducting the investigation concluded that there was clearly nothing wrong. Mr Hook suggested that if there was "nothing wrong" then why were the Courts, the Police, CAFCASS, Social Services and the Child Protection unit all involved? Mr Hook proposed that this was both psychological and emotional abuse of him and his daughter by his wife.
Mr Hook said following several investigations the Courts awarded him residence of Helen. Mr Hook said he used to be financially secure but he was pushed from one privately rented accommodation to another, which Mr Hook said was a travesty and due to a sequence of unfortunate events things have been going downhill from then on.
|
1 of 13
|
Mr Hook said that he and his daughter are now stuck in his father’s attic, effectively penniless and Helen is not attending school because she was bullied out of school by a Head Teacher who was more concerned with an impending Ofsted inspection than the well being of the child. Mr Hook said that he would have to declare himself bankrupt very soon.
Mr Hook said that Helen suffered appendicitis and was admitted to hospital. Mr Hook said it was a female ward and they had problems with a male visitor, but they didn't make this clear to Mr Hook at the time. The situation was eventually resolved with the help of the surgeon in charge of Helen.
Mr Hook said that he suggested to the staff nurse that he go home between official visiting hours and return only for Helen's intravenous medication (when she wanted him there). Mr Hook said that he suggested phoning the ward, if it would help, to check when they were scheduled to do the medication. The staff nurse thanked him and agreed it was a good idea. However, when Mr Hook rang the same staff nurse said that he could not return and Mr Hook was concerned that Helen was expecting him. At the same time Mr Hook did not want to just turn up, therefore he rang Helen. It was this phone call when Mr Hook heard the same staff nurse lose her temper with Helen and claim that she had refused her medication.
The staff nurse contacted Children Services and raised several concerns. She reported that Helen had refused to take her medication. She also stated (amongst other things) that she had concerns about:
• Inappropriate touching
• Mr Hook lying on Helen’s bed
• Helen undressing in front of Mr Hook.
Mr Hook said that Children Services interviewed him and Helen for an hour and a half each in the hospital and completed an Initial Assessment.
The Initial Assessment concluded that Helen was a child in need and unlikely to reach or maintain a satisfactory level of health or development without the provision of services. Children Services decided to escalate the Initial Assessment to a Core Assessment and Mr Hook agreed that this was appropriate because of their circumstances.
Mr Hook was unhappy about the way the Initial Assessment document was presented to Helen, the content of the assessment document and lack of analysis. Mr Hook wrote a response to the Initial Assessment dated 6 October 2010. He also made his views and concerns known to Obelix Mahjong (who carried out the assessment) in person. Obelix Mahjong suggested he wrote down his concerns as they would be easier to address that way. Mr Hook did this in a letter dated 22 October 2010 and never received a reply. Mr Hook turned up at Obelix's office for a scheduled meeting on 22 October 2010 only to be informed that she was off sick. When no one contacted Mr Hook to apologise or to reschedule Mr Hook outlined his concerns to the manager in a letter dated 25 October 2010. Mr Hook did not receive any response from the Children Services. Eventually Mr Hook wrote to the manager on 7
February 2011 asking what was going on and he received a short reply dated
|
2 of 13
|
22 February 2011. Mr Hook was not satisfied with this response as it did not deal with the main content of his previous letters and so he wrote again on 28 February 2011 making it clear that he wished his concerns to be properly addressed and pointing out that the Core Assessment had been abruptly terminated mid-stream. Breaking the expressed confidentiality the manager sent Mr Hook a Core Assessment Report dated 14 March 2011 containing no authorisation from the Team Manager. Mr Hook wrote to the manager on 3 April 2011 expressing his dismay and saying that he would have to take this matter further through other channels. Mr Hook then wrote to the Complaints Officer on 18 April 2011 outlining his concerns and referring them to the previous communications. Mr Hook heard nothing from them. 41 days later Mr Hook contacted the Ombudsman and after some time received a response (to his letter to the Complaints Manager) dated 30
June 2011. Mr Hook was not satisfied by this response and so wrote a detailed explanation of his complaint and sent it with a letter dated 13 July 2011 and asking for the issues to be properly addressed. Mr Hook received no reply or acknowledgement. Mr Hook copied all the relevant documents to the Ombudsman at their request and wrote to five Members of Parliament about the matter including the local MP Simon Marcombe. Mr Hook received a phone call from the Complaints Manager on 27 July 2011 and a meeting was arranged. Another meeting was arranged as a Stage 1 complaint for 24 August 2011 and promises to respond were made. But there was no response. Ronald Taylor, the Director of Children's Services, wrote to the local MP in a letter dated 26
October 2011 stating that they had responded. Mr Hook wrote to the Complaints Manager on 2 October 2011 requesting a Stage 2 Independent Investigation.
SPECIFIC ISSUES TO INVESTIGATE
Complaint 1: Initial Assessment
Mr Hook complains about the Initial Assessment completed by Obelix Mahjong, Social worker. The offensive negativity of the report was glaring. It contained errors on numerous levels from simple facts to insidious insinuations. It was prejudicial in the extreme. It was divisive and manipulative in its intent. It did not investigate the matters it claimed to be investigating. There is no justification or constructive purpose for this report. It failed to comply with statutory regulations. It is illegitimate and must be removed from the records. It has caused both Helen and Mr Hook significant harm. Appropriate redress and reparation are required.
Mr Hook highlighted the following points for consideration by the Investigator (The list is not exhaustive but will serve to illustrate the depth and complexity of the problem. Each point is explained in more detail with references in the attached original complaint document dated 13 July 2011. The points appear in the same order and with the same headings as in this document.):
Deliberate attempt to upset the child
Obelix Mahjong handed the Initial Assessment Report to Helen and explained its confidentiality. When Helen left the room Obelix said "I expected it would upset her." She clearly knew how inaccurate and prejudicial the report was.
|
3 of 13
|
The lie about the doorbell
(See Mr Hook’s letter to the Manager of Children Services dated 25 October 2010 and attached copy of the note left by Obelix Mahjong on 7 October 2011)
On two occasions Obelix Mahjong claimed she could not get Mr Hook's attention and explained that she could not find a door bell. She also explained that her colleague had to be with her for these meetings and yet her colleague had used the door bell on a previous occasion. So either she was lying about the door bell or she was lying about the requirement to have her colleague with her or she was lying about her intention to have the meetings (because her colleague was not with her).
Initial Assessment not completed in the mandatory time.
Obelix Mahjong apologised for the lateness of the Initial Assessment saying that they had been too busy to complete it on time. Mr Hook would not have known that the mandatory time for completion was 7 working days had she not explained that. The reported completion date in the Initial Assessment is 15 September 2010. Petra Brookson later explained that the Initial Assessment is locked by the ICS when it is complete. The ICS records the completion date as 20/09/2010, which is three working days late. This is also significant regarding later claims of the authenticity of the Core Assessment Report.
Incomplete section: reason for initial assessment
The problem with the section entitled ‘Reason for Initial Assessment’ is explained in more detail in Mr Hook's letter to Obelix Mahjong of 22 October 2010 and all those specific complaints still stand and need addressing. This section clearly states in the heading that it should include "Views of Child/Young Person and Parent/Carers". It fails to do so.
Erroneous implication of a fair investigation
The reason given in the Initial Assessment for the investigation was "...to further investigate the concerns of nursing staff..." There are no findings presented in the report.
Incorrect telephone number
Mr Hook's telephone number on the Initial Assessment is wrong.
No diagnosis?
It is stated in the Initial Assessment Report that "Nursing staff state that Helen would not allow any medical staff to examine her, and refused x-rays and scans, so a diagnosis was not made until 05/09/2010." Mr Hook says that this is not true. It is also contradicted by another claim about Helen undressing in front of her father.
|
4 of 13
|
Striptease for the doctors?
In the Initial Assessment Report it is asserted that Sandy Shore said that Helen "...had to dress and undress in front of her father". Later it is claimed that Helen "...would not allow any medical staff to examine her". Mr Hook proposes the question "What did she have to undress for?"
Refusal of treatment?
On numerous occasions in the report Obelix Mahjong refers to Helen's refusal of treatment as if it were a fact. On one occasion she states that Helen agreed with this claim. There is some very cruel manipulation of 'fact' that is going on here. First of all the task of Children Services was to look into the claims made by the nurses. They have not looked into these claims.
Witch hunt?
In the Initial Assessment Report it is stated that Sandy Shore said that "...when staff asked Helen what religion she was she stated she was into witchcraft." In what way does this warrant a Children Services Investigation? The remark is inaccurate, illegitimate, probably in breach of confidentiality, prejudicial and simply intended to besmirch a child in a medieval kind of way. The remark should not even be in the report. But, given that it is mentioned as a reason to investigate further, where are their findings?
Vacuous claims of intent
On account of claims of "inappropriate physical contact" in the report Obelix says the relationship between Dave and Helen should be investigated further. It was neither investigated further nor were any findings reported. The only reason for mentioning the phrase in the report was to provide insidious sexual innuendo.
A misquote repeated three times
On three occasions in the Initial Assessment Report Obelix falsely states that Helen said she was a "recluse". Helen didn't say that.
Incorrect date of the only source of information
The only "source of information" provided in the report has the wrong date.
"It doesn't matter; no one reads these reports"
When Mr Hook reported some errors of fact in the Initial Assessment Report to Obelix Mahjong she dismissed his concerns by saying that it didn't matter because no one ever reads these reports.
|
5 of 13
|
Sources of information not included in Initial Assessment Report
Other than Helen (with the wrong date) there is no record of who was interviewed or contacted.
Incomplete "Involvements Contributing To Initial Assessment"
A lady who gave her name as Fi Prattle interviewed Helen and Mr Hook for three hours in the hospital. She is never mentioned in the report even though she was a substantial "Involvement Contributing To Initial Assessment".
Parental Consent error
Obelix Mahjong has lied about parental consent. Mr Hook explicitly gave his consent and, in fact, took Obelix to introduce her to Helen on the ward.
False hypothesis of separation anxiety claimed as fact
Obelix Mahjong asserts that Helen has "separation anxiety". This is a pseudo psychological statement and it has no validity in this report. The issue was discussed with Fi Prattle (who conveniently is noted as having no involvement contributing to this Initial Assessment) and it was clearly understood to be erroneous. Having reported this error to Obelix Mahjong she still managed to copy and paste it into the Core Assessment.
Helen's "attire at the hospital"
Obelix Mahjong makes the speculation "Helen's father did not seem concerned about her attire at the hospital." She neither says whether there was anything wrong in her opinion nor did she ask Mr Hook's opinion, so it seems the only intention of this remark is to denigrate Mr Hook.
Dependency?
Obelix Mahjong states that "Dave's caregiving behaviour is encouraging Helen's dependence on him which is inappropriate for a child of her age." Mr Hook says that this is an unbelievably naive remark given that he discussed the issue with Obelix and there is a history to their circumstances. Mr Hook says he probably does quite the reverse (with evidence to support that). It is simply unsubstantiated negative opinion. Part of the torrent of abuse.
Financial difficulties ignored
Under the heading "Income (please include information regarding financial difficulties)" it simply states "Dave is currently in receipt of state benefits." That is an abdication of responsibility. The heading clearly states "include information regarding financial difficulties". State "benefits" are not a financial difficulty they are a "benefit". There are, however, significant "financial difficulties" which were explained in detail and Mr Hook would be interested to know why Obelix Mahjong chose not to mention them.
|
6 of 13
|
Bad analysis of information gathered
The brief comments in the section entitled ‘Analysis of Information Gathered during the Initial Assessment’ are remarkably 'blame' orientated.
No strengths or needs
Although there is a repeated requirement to include "strengths and current needs" there are absolutely no strengths or needs noted for the parent only blame and criticism. Also, apparently, the "Attributes of parents'/carers' capacities which affect their ability to respond appropriately to the child/young persons' needs" are "Not known or declared". This is contrary to the impression that Obelix is trying to engender and untrue. There are serious financial difficulties, accommodation difficulties, emotional stress and anxiety issues and physical health which all impact on the parent's ability to materially "respond appropriately to the child".
Overview of Initial Assessment
The Initial Assessment Report was not carried out according to government guidelines or the stated intentions on the report form. Obelix Mahjong has selected what few negative remarks or attributes she could eke out of her investigation and invented a few others to blacken the image of the father. This is not only an illegitimate report as can be adequately proven from the computer records and from the blatant disregard of the stated intent on the form itself, but is also illegitimate because it is a torrent of prejudice and abuse.
Complaint 2: Core Assessment
The activities that purported to be an investigation were a shambles. If there was a plan, it was abandoned midstream. The behaviour of the social worker involved and the Children Services Directorate was unacceptable. The report was not completed in the statutory time. It did not fulfil statutory regulations. It was based on incomplete information. It abandoned the child's needs because of fear of complaints. It is worse than illegitimate because it is an abdication of responsibility and a crime against the family. The fake report must be removed from the system, the situation must be redressed and suitable reparation made.
Breach of fair procedures
Obelix Mahjong suggested four particular and equitable meetings which were agreed by all parties: a joint meeting, a single meeting with Helen, a single meeting with Mr Hook and a final joint meeting. Mr Hook says that he and Helen were willing and available for all the meetings but for various reasons Obelix missed, postponed, added and avoided meetings. The result was that one joint meeting and two individual meetings with Helen were all that occurred and no Core Assessment report was produced. After the last missed meeting by Obelix Mr Hook tried phoning and he wrote to the Children Services manager but they refused to communicate any more.
|
7 of 13
|
A 'fake' Core Assessment Report
Having suggested that the Core Assessment Report seemed fake in a letter to Damon Markham on 3 April 2011 Mr Hook then complained to the Complaints Manager on 18 April 2011 referring to '...what appears to be a hastily concocted document entitled "Core Assessment"'. About three months later, after Mr Hook complained to the Ombudsman, a response arrived from Petra Brookson, dated 30 June 2011, going to some length to 'prove' the Core Assessment was not a 'fake'. Petra Brookson, however, inadvertently confirmed that the assessment report was indeed 'concocted' and she falsely claimed the Core Assessment was "authorised on the 03.11.2010".
Core Assessment not completed in the mandatory time
The Core Assessment states it was 'initiated' on 15 September 2010 (five days earlier than the Initial Assessment was locked by the ICS and a day earlier than it was claimed to be 'authorised') and was locked by the system, with no supervisor authorisation, on 14 March 2011. That is 85 working days outside the statutory time limit of 35 days.
No supervisor authorisation on Core Assessment Report
There is no supervisor authorisation on the Core Assessment Report.
Breach of confidentiality
In Damon Markham's haste to cover their collective tracks he sent the Core Assessment to Mr Hook in direct breach of the expressed confidentiality.
Sources of information not included in Core Assessment Report
In the section to list "Date(s) Child & Family Members Seen/Interviewed" the information regarding Helen seems complete and accurate but there is no mention of any interviews with Mr Hook. However, Obelix Mahjong quotes Mr Hook on numerous occasions in the report.
Deliberate misrepresentation and misuse of official reports
Obelix Mahjong states that "An Initial Assessment was completed by Dave Scott of Sumshire Children's Services in August 2009, after her mother expressed concerns about Helen's failure to access education and the impact that living in her father's care was having on her well being." Obelix fails to mention the findings of that report. Her intention seems to be to cast doubt on Mr Hook's capacity as a parent by implication but with no evidence. The actual report by Dave Scott clearly vindicates Mr Hook and, in fact, corroborates his claim that the mother was wilfully trying to cause trouble.
The lie about our reluctance and missed appointments
On page 2 of the Core Assessment Report Obelix falsely claims "... there has been some reluctance, and missed appointments." Mr Hook provides ample evidence that
|
8 of 13
|
this was not the case and that ironically it was Obelix Mahjong who was reluctant and missed meetings. It is disgraceful and very worrying that a social worker can put such lies in a report with apparent impunity.
The lie suggesting Helen was lying
Obelix Mahjong claims "Helen had initially indicated that she would undertake some one-to-one work with the assessor as part of the Core Assessment, however in reality was reluctant to leave the family home." Mr Hook says that is a blatant lie. He says it is desperately unfair and cruel to Helen and it is a pre-emptive attempt to hide Obelix's own problems.
No response is being prepared
Obelix Mahjong states "Mr Hook has complained about the content of the Initial Assessment and a response is being prepared." A strange statement given the claim that this report was completed on 2 November 2010 and Mr Hook didn't hear from them again until 22 February 2011, nearly 4 months later. And Mr Hook has never had a response to the complaint referred to by Obelix Mahjong in her statement.
Helen is thrown out of school
Obelix Mahjong states "...the relationship between the school and Helen deteriorated, whereby Mr Hook decided to remove Helen from Biston High School." Mr Hook says this is a false representation. The relationship was improving dramatically at the school until one day when Helen was ill a Head Teacher, presumably stressed by an impending Ofsted inspection, interfered, caused significant distress to Helen, and demanded that Mr Hook take her away.
"I won't pretend I educate her"
Obelix Mahjong writes "He has however admitted that he 'won't pretend I educate her'". The use of the word 'admitted' is intended to imply guilt and this is entirely out of context. Helen was cruelly and illegitimately ejected from school and Mr Hook was threatened with jail. In order to avoid being incarcerated, thereby leaving Helen without her father, Mr Hook decided to removed her from the school and put her into Home Education. Mr Hook is clear that he is not the best person to educate Helen and says they could have seriously benefitted from some help. But, Mr Hook suggests, actual 'real' help does not seem to be on the Children Services' agenda.
Sugar coating is not an acceptable or fair representation of reality
Obelix writes "A placement at the hospital school was arranged. However Helen's request to be able to contact her father in order to leave school at any given time if she felt distressed was not felt to be appropriate by staff; therefore subsequently no placement within the school was undertaken." This remark by Obelix is simply sugar coating the event in an attempt to cast doubt on Mr Hook to save her from the difficulty of asserting that the school failed Helen through their own illegitimate behaviour.
|
9 of 13
|
False construct: "a very distressing separation from her mother"
Obelix claims that Helen suffered "what is termed a very distressing separation from her mother". Mr Hook explained at length in his letter of 22 October 2010 to Obelix Mahjong, what is wrong with this assertion, what is so damaging about it and that it is false. However Obelix then went on to copy and paste this phrase into the Core Assessment Report twice.
A telling remark
Obelix writes "As there is no contact with her mother, Helen has no positive female role models." This is a telling remark. It is not because she has no contact with her mother that she has no positive female role model. She had no positive female role model in her mother. Obelix is alluding to a fiction she wishes to maintain in her own mind and project to the reader that Helen's mother is an archetypal good mother. But all the evidence from the divorce, the CAFCASS report, the report from Dave Scott, all clearly illustrate this is not the case. This is a prime example of pure prejudice.
Complexity of negative projection does not legitimise it
Obelix uses the mechanism of negative projection to denigrate and cast doubt on Helen and Mr Hook. She states "Both Helen and Mr Hook have on more than one occasion presented to me their views that there is prejudice in society..." and continues "...with Mr Hook feeling that 'people can make pejorative suggestions, insinuations, allusions and accusations'". It is ironic that she uses this example because she unwittingly confirms Mr Hook's claim, which she is endeavouring to belittle, by the very act of trying to malign Mr Hook. The statements by the Nurse Sandy Shore (and other nurses unknown) that caused the initial investigation were derogatory and damning and yet they have never been investigated or commented upon. This is blatantly prejudicial.
Subjective versus objective
Obelix claims to be surprised at Helen's 'eagerness' to speak with her given how she has interpreted what Mr Hook has said. This does not causes Obelix to question her subjective interpretation but rather bolsters her prejudicial view that everything Mr Hook says is objectively inaccurate. In her inimitable way she supports her 'surprise' by misquoting Mr Hook.
College and school attendance
Obelix states "There is a clear need for Helen to engage in sustained attendance at Biston in college (sic)..." It is unfortunate then that the consequence of Obelix's remarks and behaviour have been to stop Helen attending college. Mr Hook says that it would be nice to be able to thank Obelix for reassuring Helen that adults in authority are honest and trustworthy but sadly she achieved the reverse.
|
10 of 13
|
Emotional Warmth
Under the heading "Emotional Warmth" Obelix says "Helen and Mr Hook clearly have a close relationship, however..." Mr Hook suggests that Obelix could not make such a statement without a 'but' or a 'however'. She goes on to make a misrepresentative claim of "his removal of her from school". Mr Hook says that in some respects he doesn't mind that Obelix has such a negative view of him, but says it is unhelpful to Helen to continue to maintain these false constructs.
Moving to Fraben?
In the section entitled "Stability" Obelix states that "[Helen] is hopeful that the option of returning to Fraben will increase stability, confidence and happiness in her life." Mr Hook's point in referring to this is to highlight that there are positive possibilities. But Obelix goes on to say "As Mr Hook is not currently in receipt of an income it will be difficult for the family to move at the present time." Mr Hook says that he is in receipt of an income as stated by Obelix on page 8 of the document and so feels that this is avoidance of the real issues, namely what can constructively be done to help Helen.
Obelix Mahjong's reluctance and missed appointments
Obelix Mahjong was overtly reluctant to attend certain meetings to the point of lying and missed three appointments and disregarded a fourth.
The amazingly rude termination of an official investigation
Obelix Mahjong said that she could not do the last meeting because she was too busy. Mr Hook offered to attend her office if that would help and she reluctantly agreed to a meeting on 22 October 2010. Mr Hook turned up but was told Obelix was off sick. Mr Hook phoned on the following Monday and got no reply and then wrote to the Manger and got no reply. Christmas came and went and he heard nothing. Eventually Mr Hook wrote to them on 7 February 2011. The abrupt termination of this process midstream was not only irresponsible and a dereliction of duty but it was done in an unacceptably rude and offensive manner.
Was Obelix in the office?
Given Obelix's propensity for lying there is the nagging possibility that she was not off sick on 22 October 2010. If Obelix was off sick would her secretary not have contacted Mr Hook as she had done on a previous occasion or was the meeting not in Obelix's diary? These matters could possibly be clarified by examining the records. Unfortunately, until this matter can be resolved, there is the dreadful possibility that there was collusion amongst the staff.
Complaint 3: Complaints Procedure
Information explaining the Complaints Procedure was not provided at the correct time; statutory guidelines were ignored. Several letters of complaint were ignored. Responses did not address the issues raised. There is a clear intention to avoid addressing the complaints. By their deliberate dereliction in
|
11 of 13
|
responding to the complaints according to the statutory guidelines they have caused very serious negative consequences to both Helen and Mr Hook. Helen has spent another damaging year stuck in her grandfather's attic and Mr Hook is now ill and cannot work because of this irresponsible behaviour. Mr Hook needs some official, responsible, fair and correct response to this complaint. Mr Hook wants corrective action from the Children Services and Sumshire County Council as their employer. Mr Hook wants help to put their lives back in order so that they can become self-sufficient again.
Repeated attempts by Mr Hook to communicate with Children Services have been ignored. Only after the suggestion was put to them that the Core Report was either not completed or was being kept secret did the Children Services respond to Mr Hook by sending a fake Core Assessment Report to the wrong person. More attempts to complain were ignored until Mr Hook finally contacted the Ombudsman which prompted a response with false claims and assertions. More attempts to complain were ignored until finally Mr Hook contacted several MPs and submitted a complaint to the GSCC. Then Mr Hook was contacted by the Complaints Manager and they had a meeting. An attempt by Adrian Greenhead (Head of Teenage Services) to address some of the concerns failed as he simply did not respond. But the Director of Children's Services for Sumshire (Ronald Taylor) thought fit to tell the local MP, Simon Marcombe, in a letter dated 26 October 2011, that he had "responded to [Mr Hook's] concerns". Mr Hook eventually requested this Stage 2 Investigation and copied the request to Simon Marcombe. Mr Hook says that to date he has seen no sign of any serious intent to handle this complaint.
Mr Hook says that Children Services have been abusive to his daughter and himself and he wants the abuse recognised and acknowledged. He wants issues that can be fixed to be fixed and compensation for the damage, which can never be undone.
Mr Hook says that the complaints procedure is in place to ensure fair and just treatment. By not operating the complaints procedure the Children Services have achieved unfair and unjust treatment of them which can only be defined because there is serious damage caused. If there were no consequences what would be unfair or unjust about it? Mr Hook would like to add that if the Statutory Complaints Procedure were not for real then it would be only a charade presented by government to veil the illegitimate activities of the Children Services. This would be nonsense.
No Complaints Procedure supplied or explained
The Core Assessment Report Form states clearly that the complaints procedure should be provided. It was not.
Ignored complaints: numbers 1, 2 and 3
Complaints 1 and 2 were completely ignored. A third attempt received a response which basically ignored the content of the complaint. It took 123 days from the first letter of complaint to get any reply. The Statutory Complaints Procedure states that they will respond within two working days.
|
12 of 13
|
Ignored complaint: number 4
On 28 February 2011 Mr Hook wrote to the Manager in response to his unsatisfactory reply. 15 days later Mr Hook received a two sentence reply. Upon realising the glaring error that they had not completed the Core Assessment Damon Markham provided Mr Hook with a copy of a report, apologised and... that was it. Essentially, Mr Hook's concerns were ignored.
Ignored complaint: Number 5
Mr Hook wrote to the complaints department on 18 April 2011 expecting a response within 2 working days. Three weeks later Mr Hook phoned the Complaints Department and the person who answered assured Mr Hook that someone would be in touch within a day or so. Mr Hook did not hear from anyone. He repeated the exercise a week later and got the same response. So he waited. Still no response. Eventually Mr Hook contacted the Ombudsman. Finally, 73 days after Mr Hook wrote, he got an unsatisfactory response from Petr Brookson.
Unsatisfactory response from Petra Brookson of the Complaints Department
The response from Petra Brookson was appalling. In summary it did not address the bulk of the complaint, it was inaccurate, it made false claims, it confirmed the invalidity of the Core Assessment and the whole thing was a vague and irrational stream of words. Mr Hook says that he hardly has words to describe the invalidity of this communication. As such it is part of the cascade of abuse being hurled at Mr Hook and his daughter.
Desired Outcome
The Children Services Directorate in Biston are clearly 'not fit for purpose'. At some point this matter will have to be responsibly addressed. The family have suffered serious consequences as a result of the torrent of abuse perpetrated by the Children Services and corrective action must be initiated.
This is no longer only about the specific case but must be investigated with respect to the general mode of operation of the Children Services in Biston.
Mr Hook would like a full investigation into his complaints and some serious and creative suggestions as to what can be done by way of reparation. Mr Hook would also like corrective action taken by way of removing the damning false documents from the ICS and a full and formal apology on record. Mr Hook would like help and support to repair the significant damage he and his daughter have suffered. He would also like action taken to ensure that this mode of operation cannot continue.
This is a true and accurate record of my complaints against Sumshire County Council Children Services.
Signed.................................... Date....................................
Mr Dave Hook
|
13 of 13
|
Attachment to complaint
Index:
Corrigendum for Pages 28 to 48 "Letter & 20 page complaint to the Complaints Officer 13 July 2011":
A few minor errors did appear in this document although none are significantly consequential.
|
|
p.
|
5:
|
Under the heading "The lie about the door bell." in the first few sentences it refers to a card left on 21 September saying they would re-visit the next day. The reference to the next day is a mistake and it should say two days later. And the visit did occur two days later. Just a slip in the brain as they were chronologically contiguous events.
|
|
p.
|
8:
|
Under the heading "Incorrect date of the only source of information." it states the error was "eleven months before this assessment". It should say "thirteen months".
|
|
p.
|
9:
|
Under the heading "False hypothesis of separation anxiety claimed as fact." it begins "On page 6..." referring to the claim of separation anxiety and it should read "On page 3..."
|
|
p.
|
11:
|
Under the heading "A 'fake' Core Assessment Report." towards the end it refers to "my complaint dated 1 March 2011". The date should be 28 February 2011.
|
|
p.
|
14:
|
The first line contains the phrase "in a position to educated her". It should be "in a position to educate her".
|
|
p.
|
17:
|
The first line refers to a letter dated 8 February 2011. It should read 7 February 2011.
|
|
p.
|
18:
|
Under the heading "Ignored complaint: number 4." it begins "On 30 February 2011...". It should read "On 28 February 2011...".
|
|
|
|
