The first draft of the Stage 2 Investigation document reveals an abusive predatory mindset by the malevolent authoritarian and officious Children Services.

Children Services Abuse:
1st draft by Complaints Officer 09/11/2011

26 November 2011

Proposed complaint written by the Complaints Officer!

Having had a meeting on 2 November 2011 Mark Hughes went away and constructed his proposition for 'the complaint' and emailed it to Mr Hook on 9 November 2011.

Dave began to read the document and soon realised there was a lot wrong with it. The more he thought about it the more dreadful it became. The more he got into the document the more it revealed the appalling mind set of these people who are in responsible positions. The more it became apparent that, although on the surface Mark Hughes seemed an average reasonable guy, in fact he is acting as a devious, prejudicial, manipulator. He may not mean to be, but the psychology of the beast is revealed in his presentation. The perverted interpretations, half truths and misinformation indicate what seems to be a collective unconscious exhibiting a Freudian projection of an abusive predatory mindset.

(As an aside: On the few occasions that Mark Hughes referred to the Children Services he has spelt it such. In other words he has not asserted that it should be the Children's Services which is what it is usually called by the Children Services themselves. The question as to what they are really called still remains unresolved.)

Here are some points about how this document is a perversion of the truth and an attempt to continue the abusive assault on Dave and Helen.

On page 1 Mark Hughes assumed, and stated, that it was Sumshire Children Services who investigated the Hooks seven years earlier when CAFCASS requested an investigation due to Marion's allusions and insinuations. It was not Sumshire, it was Frabenshire where they lived at the time. A perfectly understandable mistake but worrying since Mark is employed to look into this complaint. If it were one of only a few assumptions and errors it would be fine.

Mark proceeds on page 1 to state "There was suspicion of sexual abuse and Mr Hook said that he was arrested following allegations that he had assaulted his former wife." That is not a fair or reasonable way to phrase the 'information'. He does later mention that the Social Services investigation concluded "... that there was nothing to substantiate the concerns about sexual abuse." but although that is a feigned (and inaccurate) attempt to vindicate Mr Hook he also fails to redress the comment about the arrest. So the truth is that Marion self harmed and made a false allegation about Dave and he was subsequently arrested and released when the police concluded there were no charges to investigate. And Marion also suggested so strongly to CAFCASS that Dave was sexually abusing their daughter that they had no option but to launch a full investigation by the Social Services. The gentleman investigating concluded by saying he was very pleased to report that there was "clearly nothing wrong". The whole point of mentioning these examples in the 'history to the complaint' is to highlight the relentless abuse that Helen and Dave have suffered. Ironically Mark is falling into the same abusive mindset that Dave is now complaining about in the Sumshire Children Services. Mark has left the comment about the arrest hanging with no suggestion as to whether there was actually an assault and his comment about the Social Services investigation is deliberately leaving the possibility wide open that there may have been sexual abuse. He says there was "nothing to substantiate the concerns" but should clarify that there was clearly nothing wrong. It is the difference between saying "I couldn't find the murder weapon in the study" and "The murder weapon was not in the study". The first statement leaves the reader with the strong possibility that the murder weapon was well hidden. The second statement simply clarifies the situation. So it seems Mark Hughes is either colluding with the Sumshire Children Services or is astoundingly prejudicial himself without realising what he is doing.

The last paragraph on page 1 is yet another misrepresentation of the truth which simply plays into a negative interpretation of events. It gives entirely the wrong impression, and misses the salient point, to say that Helen was out of school because she was being bullied. The cultural assumption is likely to be that there are nasty peers being horrid to Helen and a sympathetic mindset might think 'poor Helen' in an apparently benign, but nonetheless demeaning, view of Helen. But the reason Dave raised the issue was to highlight the fact that it was an abusive teacher who illegitimately demanded that Dave remove Helen from school. Yes, she was bullied out of school but not by her peers, by the 'authority' at the school. The cascading abuse from the Education Authority 'threatening' Dave with imprisonment to the hospital school irresponsibly suggesting they would deny Helen's legitimate right to contact home was all part of why Helen was not in school. Mark went on to say "Helen found it difficult to mix with people and dropped out; this has been compounded as she was not getting any benefits." There is little more to say about this except that it is utter fabrication.

At the top of page 2 Mark says that "Mr Hook said that Helen suffered a pentasyitus ...". Mr Hook assures me he does not know what a 'pentasyitus' is and so could not have said that. And so the sloppy, casual, incompetent, tirade continued. Mark evidently got tired around page 2 and it seems he copied the original 20 page complaint into his new complaint and arbitrarily chopped chunks out leaving an unintelligible stream of erroneous junk.

But it is worse than that because Mark evidently attempted to make some sense of some of it but changed the meaning and the facts. For example at the bottom of page 2 he has reconstructed chunks of words to read "Helen read a few pages, got up and left the room; "I expected it would upset her." I happen to know my daughter quite well." It clearly reads that Mr Hook "...expected it would upset her" but this point is raised in Dave's complaint precisely because it was Obelix, the social worker, who exclaimed with a smile "I expected it would upset her." So the truth is perverted by Mark Hughes. It is hard to imagine that he doesn't know what he is doing.

Although examining this wreckage of a proposed complaint reveals a lot about how people's minds work and how oppressive regimes perpetuate their misconceptions for their own benefit it is not otherwise worth reading.

A last point worth making is regarding the final statement (on page 14) prior to the declaration and signature: "Mr Hook would like a full investigation into his complaints and a meeting with a senior manager following the outcome of the investigation." Why did Mark Hughes add that? There is something quite deep and malevolent about this statement. Of course on the surface it seems reasonable. But it assumes a world view that is already being questioned. Not to put too fine a point on it, it assumes that Mr Hook would like to "have words" with someone "high and mighty" as if that would give him satisfaction. No: Mr Hook requires the Children Services to formally apologise and remove the offending documents from the system. Mr Hook requires them to fix the damage they have done. Mr Hook requires compensation for the devastating effects of their dreadful behaviour. And Mr Hook requires that they then set about doing the job that they were employed to do in the first place; Namely to provide benign support and assistance for Helen. Of course 'senior management' may want a meeting or two with Mr Hook but he doesn't give a damn whether they resign or simply palm him off with a million pounds compensation.

For the record here is the first draft offered by Mark Hughes:

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 summarises and should be read in conjunction with Mr Hook’s statement of complaint dated 13.07.11)

Mr Hook said that his wife and mother to his daughter, Helen (Helen), suddenly said that she wanted a divorce and approached this in an aggressive manner. The couple remained living in the same house with Helen, which led to the situation becoming very acrimonious.

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 evicted from privately rented accommodation, which Mr Hook said was a travesty and things have been going downhill from then on.

Mr Hook said that Sumshire Children Services became involved at the request of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). This was 7 years ago when Helen was 10 years. There was suspicion of sexual abuse and Mr Hook said that he was arrested following allegations that he had assaulted his former wife.

Mr Hook was interviewed and the Social worker concluded that there was nothing to substantiate the concerns about sexual abuse. Mr Hook said if there was nothing about the allegations why then was the Court, Police, CAFCASS, Children Services and Health all involved. Mr Hook said that this was both psychological and emotional abuse by his wife.

Mr Hook said that he is now stuck in his father’s house, penniless and Helen is not attending school because she is being bullied. Helen found it difficult to mix with people and dropped out; this has been compounded as she was not getting any benefits. Mr Hook said that he would have to declare himself bankrupt.

Mr Hook said that Helen suffered a pentasyitus and was admitted to hospital. Mr Hook said it was a female ward and they had problems with a male visitor, but they never mentioned this to Mr Hook, but it was raised with the surgeon.

Mr Hook said that he suggested to the nurse it would be better if he went away when they did their rounds and come back later. Mr Hook agreed to contact the hospital before returning to see if it was convenient for him to return. However, when Mr Hook rang the nurse said that he could not return and Mr Hook was concerned that Helen was distressed. At the same time Mr Hook did not want to just turn up, therefore he rang Helen but she was under medication.

The nurse at the Hospital contacted Children Services and raised several concerns. She reported that Helen had refused to take her medication. There were also 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 each and completed an Initial Assessment. Mr Hook was unhappy about the way the assessment was carried out, the content of the assessment document and lack of analysis. Mr Hook said that he originally made his views known on the back of the IA and sent this to Obelix Mahjong, who carried out the assessment, stating that he wanted a serious response, but got no reply. He outlined his complaint in his letter of complaint dated 13.07.11.

The IA concluded that Helen was a child in need and not able to achieve her potential. Children Services decided to escalate the IA to a Core Assessment and Mr Hook said that this was appropriate because of the circumstances.

SPECIFIC ISSUES TO INVESTIGATE

Complaint 1: 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. 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 and suitable reparation made.

Mr Ho ok highlighted the following points for consideration by the Investigator:

Deliberate attempt to upset the child: Obelix Mahjong handed the Initial Assessment Report to Helen, stating the report was confidentially hers. She emphasised this point by explaining to Helen that I could only look at it with her expressed permission. Helen read a few pages, got up and left the room; "I expected it would upset her." I happen to know my daughter quite well. It transpired that the report had upset her so much she had left the room and burst into tears. I have since read the report and can fully understand.

The lie about the doorbell (See Mr Hook’s letter to the Manager of Children Services dated 25 October 2010).

On 21 September 2010, Obelix Mahjong left a card saying she could not get our attention at our house and would re-visit the next day at 4 pm. Two further meetings were scheduled; a joint meeting with Helen and myself for Thursday 30 September at 80 Haslet Road, and an individual one with Helen for Tuesday 5 October optionally at the Children Services Family Centre. Obelix cancelled the joint meeting and presumed to simply miss it and have the following meeting with Helen alone. Obelix explained that meetings with Helen and me required that her colleague, Chris, be present, but meetings with Helen alone did not. It was for this reason she said that the meeting could not be replaced with a joint meeting, because Chris was not available. On 21 September, a note from Obelix said she could not get our attention. Chris should have been with her because, as she explained, this was a requirement.

Initial Assessment not completed in the mandatory time.

When Obelix Mahjong delivered the Initial Assessment report to Helen she made a point of explaining that they were supposed to complete Initial Assessments within 7 working days and they had been so busy recently that they had not managed to complete this one in that time. She apologised for the delay. As Petra Brookson later reported to me 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.

Incomplete section: reason for initial assessment

I have explained the problem with the section entitled ‘Reason for Initial Assessment’ in more detail in my 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 final statement in the ‘Reason for Initial Assessment’ section on page 2 states "Initial assessment carried out in order to further investigate the concerns of nursing staff..." This statement erroneously implies that a fair investigation would be carried out and reported therein. Nowhere in the report are there any statements made to mitigate the nurses’ comments. If nothing was found to address those concerns that were serious enough to instigate an Initial Assessment Investigation, then presumably those concerns still exist.

Incorrect telephone number

On page 1 of the Initial Assessment the "Main Contact Number" is stated as 01234 567890. This is an error. I would be interested to know where it was obtained and why, when I have pointed this out, it remains an incorrect fact in an official document.

No diagnosis?

Page 3 of the Initial Assessment Report contains the statement "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." I have a hard time believing that the nursing staff made that statement, because it is not true, and contradict another claim about Helen undressing in front of her father.

Striptease for the doctors?

On page 2 of the Initial Assessment Report it is asserted that Sandy Shore stated that Helen “...had to dress and undress in front of her father" and on page 3 it is claimed that Helen "...would not allow any medical staff to examine her". So what did she have to undress for?

Refusal of treatment?

On pages 3, 4 & 6 of the Initial Assessment Report Obelix Mahjong has referred to Helen's refusal of treatment as if it were a fact. On one occasion she has stated 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?

On page 2 of 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." It is weird that the only point recognising any of my concerns from Damon Markham, 4 months late in his letter of 22 February 2011, was the slightly weird statement - "I recognise your point in respect of Helen being "into witchcraft" and as it subsequently emerged she identifies herself as being Wiccan, which, as you say, is an entirely respectable religion." If that were my only complaint I might even have taken it as a kind of an apology, but it is more of an insult given the trivial nature of this remark against the seriousness of the rest of my complaint.

Vacuous claims of intent

In the Initial Assessment Report on page 4 Obelix writes "There were concerns from nursing staff that there was inappropriate physical contact and attention from Helen's father. Therefore Helen and Dave's relationship and the boundaries of it need to be explored further." So has anyone reading this report any reason to know whether Dave inappropriately 'touched' Helen or not? Apart from the fact that this is vacuous, in that it was neither "explored further" nor has anything more been said on this subject, it is by its inclusion, with no real intention to investigate, simply included to maintain the insidious sexual innuendo. This is disgusting in its intent and irresponsible in its dereliction.

A misquote repeated three times

On three occasions in the Initial Assessment Report it is stated, in quotes, that Helen said she was a 'recluse' (pp. 4 & 5). Helen has never described herself as a recluse. This would be bad enough if it were not quoted. The fact of quoting it gives it added authenticity and is in fact simply wrong. This must be amended for the report to be legitimate. I did mention this error to Obelix on one occasion (either 12 or 15 October) and to give credit where it is due, where a block was copied and pasted from the Initial Assessment to the Core Assessment the word was corrected to 'hermit'.

Incorrect date of the only source of information

In the section ‘Sources of Information’ on page 2 of the Initial Assessment Report the only source provided has the wrong date. Apparently Helen was interviewed 11 August 2009, eleven months before this assessment was initiated.

"It doesn't matter; no one reads these reports"

This was a very interesting explanation given to me by Obelix Mahjong when I queried some facts that were wrong in the Initial Assessment Report. She simply dismissed the errors by stating that it doesn't matter because no-one ever reads these reports.

Sources of information not included in Initial Assessment Report

In the ‘Sources of Information’ section in the Initial Assessment Report, apart from the incorrect entry of Helen there are no sources listed. There is no record of who else was interviewed or contacted. There is no record of when anyone was interviewed (pertinently, since the only name has a false date).

Incomplete "Involvements Contributing To Initial Assessment"

For approximately three hours on 6 September 2010 Fi Prattle interviewed us. Obelix Mahjong took notes with only very occasional comments. Why is Fi Prattle not listed here? She was the interviewer. Does Fi Prattle work for the Children Services or was she just a friend along to help Obelix and not to be mentioned as an involvement contributing to the Initial Assessment?

Parental Consent error

Under the subheading "Involvements Contributing to Initial Assessment" Obelix Mahjong is named as one such source. But whether parental consent was obtained is categorically stated as "Unknown". But consent was requested and it was given and I recall taking Obelix to the ward to collect Helen.

False hypothesis of separation anxiety claimed as fact

On page 6 of the Initial Assessment Report Obelix Mahjong confidently states that Helen has "separation anxiety". This is a pseudo psychological statement. It has no validity in this report. The writer has no authority to make such a claim and no investigation of any kind was carried out to test this hypothesis. There was a discussion in the original interview when Fi Prattle first used this catch phrase and I clearly illustrated that it was not the case. I repeated my objection to this unqualified statement in my letter to Obelix Mahjong of 22 October 2010 and she still managed to copy and paste it into the Core Report; it needs removing.

Helen's "attire at the hospital"

On page 4 of the Initial Assessment Report Obelix sees fit to speculate with the remark "Helen's father did not seem concerned about her attire at the hospital." A little sordid remark really. If there is any meaning to this statement other than to denigrate me I would like to know what it is.

Dependency?

On page 4 of the Initial Assessment Report it states "Dave's caregiving behaviour is encouraging Helen's dependence on him which is inappropriate for a child of her age." This is remarkably naive given that we discussed the subject in depth. There is a history to our story, which is entirely ignored here. Actually I probably do quite the reverse, but I am not really complaining about the assertion so much as the relentless negative interpretation of everything.

Financial difficulties ignored

On page 5 of the Initial Assessment Report under the heading "Income (please include information regarding financial difficulties)" it simply states "Dave is currently in receipt of state benefits." Is that because being in debt to the tune of £65,000 is insignificant when compared with state benefits? Could it be relevant that Helen's mother is a millionaire and that we were literally evicted from the family home and cast into rent land with an unrealistic settlement? Could it be relevant that her mother has never paid anything towards Helen's upkeep or wellbeing, except a brief period of enforced CSA payments before she quit her job, thereby avoiding legal enforcement? Could it be relevant that we moved town for me to get a job and that we were burgled and attacked in the middle of the night and consequently I lost the job? Could it be relevant that we are forced economically to reside rent free in my father's attic? Would these be relevant 'financial difficulties', if not what is?

Bad analysis of information gathered

The brief comments in the section entitled ‘Analysis of Information Gathered during the Initial Assessment’ on page 6 of the report are remarkably 'blame' orientated.

No strengths or needs

Throughout the main section entitled ‘Child/Young Person's Developmental Needs’, ranging from page 2 to page 4, each subsection is divided into "Child's needs" and "Parenting Capacity". Both of these subdivisions are always followed by "Please give

details including strengths and current needs". There are absolutely no strengths noted for the parent, nor needs, only blame and criticism. The following section is entitled ‘Parent/Carers Attributes’ and the explanation of this section contains quite clearly the statement "It is important to be aware of parent(s)/carer(s) strengths as well as the difficulties they are experiencing."

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 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.

Breach of fair procedures

When the Core Assessment was initiated it was proposed by Obelix Mahjong that there be four meetings; a joint meeting with Helen and me, an individual one with Helen, an individual one with me and a final joint meeting. This was deemed fair and reasonable. The first meeting, scheduled for Thursday 30 September 2010, was cancelled by Obelix. The next meeting, with Helen alone, had been arranged for Tuesday 5 October 2010. Obelix intended to hold the second meeting with Helen without replacing the joint meeting. I suggested the 'fair procedure' should be adhered to and she reluctantly agreed to have the first joint meeting at 2:30 pm on Thursday 7 October 2010.

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 and suitable reparation made.

A 'fake' Core Assessment Report

Having suggested that the Core Assessment Report seemed fake in a letter to Damon Markham on 3 April 2011 I then complained to the Complaints Manager on 18 April 2011 referring to '...what appears to be a hastily concocted document entitled "Core Assessment”. I eventually got a response (only after complaining to the Ombudsman) from Petra Brookson, dated 30 June 2011, going to some length to 'prove' the Core Assessment was not a 'fake'. Petra Brookson state "I trust the above comments confirm to you that the Core Assessment is not as you suggest 'a fake with no legitimacy.'" and yet her preamble to that comment confirms the illegitimacy.

I now concluded that the Core Assessment is 'fake'. Petra Brookson assures me that the 'proof' lies in the fact that the computer system 'locks' reports when they are authorised by a social worker's supervisor.

Core Assessment not completed in the mandatory time

The Core Assessment was 'initiated' on 15 September 2010 and was locked by the system, with no supervisor authorisation, on 14 March 2011. That is approximately 120 working days later; 85 working days outside the statutory time limit.

No supervisor authorisation on Core Assessment Report

As the heading states there is no supervisor authorisation on the Core Assessment Report.

Breach of confidentiality

Although it was made clear to Helen and myself that the Initial Assessment Report was confidentially for her eyes only, unless expressed permission were given for anyone else to read it; the Core Assessment was sent directly to me. So was Obelix lying to get Helen to read the Initial Assessment or are these reports confidential and Damon Markham was simply acting in breach of confidentiality? My guess is the latter as he was slightly unclear in his thinking because of his haste to cover their collective tracks of malpractice.

Sources of information not included in Core Assessment Report

This differs somewhat from the issue mentioned under the heading "Sources of information not included in Initial Assessment Report" insofar as there is no section to include more general sources of information on the Core Assessment Report form. This may be a general matter that wants addressing. But there is a section to list "Date(s) Child & Family Members Seen/Interviewed" and there are omissions in this section. The information regarding Helen's interviews seems complete and accurate but there is no mention of any interviews with me. Obelix can manage makes deliberately derisory comments about me like I "dominate discussion with particularly derogatory comments about Helen's mother" whilst apparently never having seen or interviewed me.

Deliberate misrepresentation and misuse of official reports

On page 2 Obelix claims "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." She never referred (specifically) to this report or its findings again. This is clearly intended to suggest that there is something negative about my caring for Helen. However, the contradictions are clear even in this report. Helen's mother continues to try to cause more problems for both of us and Obelix legitimising them by saying an Initial Assessment was carried out.

The lie about our reluctance and missed appointments

On page 2 of the Core Assessment Report Obelix claims "... although there has been some reluctance, and missed appointments." What is the purpose of this remark? There was no reluctance at all to comply with the arranged and agreed meetings. Neither Helen nor myself missed any appointments.

The lie suggesting Helen was lying

In the Core Assessment Report (p. 2) 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." That is not true. Helen agreed to a joint meeting followed by an individual meeting with her and Obelix alone. It was Obelix that suggested 'going away' with Helen, but it was a suggested possibility not an arrangement. The arrangement was for an individual meeting either at Sleaford Road or possibly somewhere else. By default Obelix manipulated the 'going away' part. What is true is that Obelix's Initial Assessment Report was overtly offensive to Helen and when Obelix conspired repeatedly to avoid the agreed joint meeting it is not surprising that Helen would get suspicious of such behaviour. It was Obelix that betrayed any trust by her tricky behaviour. When Obelix makes an arrangement to perform a sequence of actions and fails to carry out the first part she cannot claim that the other party failed to carry out the second part. The failure was clearly Obelix's and it is clear even from the Children Services' own records. So to suggest Helen had a secret agenda by claiming she agreed to something "however in reality was reluctant...” is an appalling perversion of the truth. Well actually this is classic Freudian projection. It is Obelix who "in reality was reluctant" to have the joint meeting and it was Obelix who displayed overt avoidance of meetings. (All on record if anyone is sincere enough to check it out and see also "Obelix Mahjong's reluctance and missed appointments."). This must be removed from the report.

No response is being prepared

On page 2 of the Core Assessment Report Obelix 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 I didn't hear from them again until 22 February 2011, nearly 4 months later.

Helen is thrown out of school

On page 3 of the Core Assessment Report, it states "...the relationship between the school and Helen deteriorated, whereby Mr Hook decided to remove Helen from Biston High School.". Working with Mrs Caitlyn Copeland (an Assistant Head at Biston High School) the relationship was improving to the point of 100% attendance for a whole term. It was one day when Helen was poorly that a stressed out Mrs Jane Thornbush (Acting Head Teacher of Biston High School) decided to eject this 'problem' because they had an Ofsted Inspection the next day. Mrs Thornbush actually complained to me that she had spent an hour with Helen and had not been able to stop her crying.

"I won't pretend I educate her"

On page 3 of the Core Assessment Report Obelix states "As a result of Helen's mother making persistent complaints regarding Helen's lack of education, Mr Hook decided that he would educate Helen at home. He has however admitted that he 'won't pretend I educate her', rather leaving her to her interests of writing and fashion design rather than taking on any teaching role.

Sugar coating is not an acceptable or fair representation of reality

On page 3 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 me to save her from the difficulty of asserting that the school failed us through their own illegitimate behaviour.

False construct: "a very distressing separation from her mother"

The claim that Helen suffered "what is termed a very distressing separation from her mother" first appears on page 5 of the Initial Assessment Report. As explained at length in my letter of 22 October 2010 to Obelix Mahjong, this claim is false. Having read (?) my letter Obelix then went on to creatively copy and paste this phrase twice into the Core Assessment Report (pp. 4 & 8).

A telling remark

On page 3 of the Core Assessment Report Obelix writes "As there is no contact with her mother, Helen has no positive female role models." It is simply a telling remark. It is not because she has no contact with her mother that she has no positive female role model, but rather simply she has no positive female role model.

Complexity of negative projection does not legitimise it

on page 5 of the Core Assessment Report, Obelix presents the case, that "both Helen and Mr Hook have on more than one occasion presented to me their views that there is prejudice in society towards single fathers, in terms of a child being brought up solely by her father; with Mr Hook feeling that 'people can make pejorative suggestions, insinuations, allusions and accusations' about their close relationship." This is a subtle misrepresentation because I never said those things about our 'close relationship'; that is Obelix's anxiety surfacing but that is not the point of this example.)

Subjective versus objective

On page 5 of the Core Assessment Report Obelix states "Mr Hook gave a portrayal of Helen where she found it difficult to relate to peers and 'doesn't like to engage with people'. In light of this I was surprised at how open and eager to speak with me Helen appeared." Given her surprise it is also possible that she had misunderstood

me. Given that I didn't say that Helen "doesn't like to engage with people" it is not surprising that Obelix, interpreting what I said as meaning that, was then surprised. Obelix makes a remarkable presumptuous 'objective' interpretation of the world.

College and school attendance

Obelix states on page 5 of the Core Assessment Report "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 from attending college. Obelix goes on to say "The removal of Helen from school..." which is a convenient but misleading way of referring to her ejection from school.

Emotional Warmth

Under the heading "Emotional Warmth" on page 6 of the Core Assessment Report Obelix says "Helen and Mr Hook clearly have a close relationship, however..." Of course Obelix could not make such a statement without a 'but' or a 'however'. The 'however' goes on to make a misrepresentative claim of "his removal of her from school". In some respects I don't mind that Obelix has such a negative view of me, but it is unhelpful to Helen to continue to maintain these false constructs.

Moving to Fraben?

Page 6 of the Core Assessment Report has a section entitled "Stability". In it Obelix states that "[Helen] is hopeful that the option of returning to Fraben will increase stability, confidence and happiness in her life." My point in raising 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." Now I don't understand that. I am in receipt of an income as stated by Obelix on page 8 of this document.

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. It is worth noting for the record that Obelix cancelled the meeting arranged for 30 September 2010, Obelix avoided the meeting arranged for Thursday 7 October 2010 (leaving a note which can be clearly proved to be a lie; see "The lie about the door bell."), Obelix was simply not available for the arranged meeting on Friday 22 October (with no warning, no apology and no attempt to reschedule), and finally Obelix made no attempt to arrange the agreed final joint meeting. That is three meetings missed and one discarded!

The amazingly rude termination of an official investigation

This subject is described in part under the headings "A 'fake' Core Assessment Report.", "Core Assessment not completed in the mandatory time." and "Obelix Mahjong's reluctance and missed appointments." On 19 October 2010, Obelix Mahjong tried to avoid arranging the next meeting by saying she was too busy. Eventually

she reluctantly agreed to have the penultimate scheduled meeting when I offered to attend her office if that would help. The meeting was arranged for Friday 22 October 2010. I arrived at her office building at the allotted time and spoke to a receptionist for the building. I explained why I was there and she duly phoned Children Services. The conversation that ensued resulted in her asking me three times if this was by appointment. Three times I explained that it was. I was simply informed that Obelix Mahjong was off sick. The termination of this process midstream was not only bewilderingly irresponsible but it was done in an unacceptably rude and offensive manner.

Was Obelix in the office?

Had Obelix been off sick why would they not have seen me and apologised for this mistake? If Obelix was not in the office why did her secretary not phone me to cancel the meeting as she had done once before on 29 September. The possibility that Obelix was in the office and the staff colluded with the deception to inform me she was not there still exists.

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.

After repeated attempts to communicate with Children Services they fob me off and further attempts to complain are ignored. Over 7 months later, I finally complain to the Ombudsman and eventually Children Services respond to the Ombudsman's involvement by sending me this rather offensive and otherwise meaningless letter

Children Services have been abusive to my daughter and me and I want the abuse recognised and acknowledged. I want issues that can be fixed to be fixed and compensation for the damage, which can never be undone.

Children Services did not supply me with the Statutory Complaints Procedure as and when they were required to do so. They ignored my first complaint for an inordinate length of time and finally tried to shut me up with an abrupt and insensitive fob off. Only when I pointed out that they were in breach of their own procedures did they concoct a seemingly fake Core Assessment and send it to the wrong person. Then they ignored my repeated complaints until the Ombudsman was involved.

I was supplied with a copy of the Statutory Complaints Procedure only when I asked and months after the time Children Services were obliged to provide it. Even with that in hand the Children Services could not follow their own mandatory guidelines. It is now insulting, damaging and unacceptable for me to be held to mandatory procedures when Children Services have wantonly ignored them. However, in a spirit of trying to get this complaint dealt with responsibly and on account of the fact that I have written 6 letters of complaint and had three unsatisfactory replies in 8 months, I propose that we try to put the complaint back on track with a Stage 3 Review Panel. Can you do this immediately please? My complaint is enclosed.

Finally, when I complained again and got no response, I contacted the Ombudsman and only then when he nudged them did I get a very unsatisfactory letter from Petra Brookson. Petra Brookson makes several false claims. Ironically, she confirms the illegitimacy of the reports without even realising it, because she states what she assumes to be true if the reports were genuine. To date I have seen no sign of any serious intent to handle this complaint. Now I also have a complaint against the Children Services Complaints Department.

No Complaints Procedure supplied or explained

On page 9 of the Core Assessment Report there is a section headed ‘Families Should Be Provided With The Following Information’ and the first subsection is entitled "When was the complaints procedure provided or explained". The complaints procedure was supposed to be conveyed to us but it wasn't.

Ignored complaints: numbers 1, 2 and 3

On the 22 October 2010 I wrote to Obelix Mahjong outlining my concerns. This letter was ignored. I wrote to the manager on 25 October 2010 to complain and raised a number of issues. This letter was ignored. Eventually I wrote again on 7 February 2011 and I got an unsatisfactory response ignoring the bulk of my complaint from the manager on 22 February 2011. (He did include a photocopy of the Statutory Complaints Procedure.) It took 123 days from the first letter of complaint to get a reply. The Statutory Complaints Procedure says they will respond within two working days.

Ignored complaint: number 4

On 30 February 2011 I wrote to the Manager in response to his unsatisfactory reply to me. I summarised my complaints and summarised what I wanted in response. This complaint, whilst summarising a number of issues, also referred to my doubts about the claim that a Core Assessment Report existed. The response 15 days later was surprising. The focus of the two sentences it contained was to get him off the hook. There was no acknowledgement of any of my concerns. He realised the glaring error that they had not finished the Core Assessment Report and so produced a copy and sent it to me with an apology. From their past track record the apology was not for me but rather for his own protection. Essentially, my concerns were ignored.

Ignored complaint: Number 5

Furnished with my newly acquired information about the complaints procedure I wrote to the Complaints Officer on Monday 18 April 2011. I waited for the reply. Given that this was the 'Complaints Department'. On Thursday, 12 May 2011, at 35 minutes past 4 in the afternoon I called the Complaints Department. I spoke to a very pleasant lady called Tracy. She explained that they had received my letter and it was marked as received on 3 May 2011. She assured me someone would contact me in a day or so. I thanked her. You won't believe this! I waited for another week. Still no response. So I called again, this time at exactly 30 minutes past four on the

Thursday afternoon of 19 May 2011. I spoke to the same lady as before who was surprised and apologetic and assured me someone would be in touch in a day or so. A week later they had not responded, so eventually I wrote to the Ombudsman on 29 May 2011.

Unsatisfactory response from Petra Brookson of the Complaints Department

This refers to the letter from Petra Brookson dated 30 June 2011.

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 a meeting with a senior manager following the outcome of the investigation.

This is a true and accurate record of my complaints against Sumshire County Council Children Services.

Signed.................................... Date....................................
Mr Dave Hook

Previous Document

Main Index

Next Document