See also: • Cascading Oppression • Magnetic Morality • Authoritarian Paradigm Collapse • Conspiracy Theory Coincidences
Children Services Abuse:
Stage 2 - Dave's response to the report.
28 March 2012
Previous Document Main Index Next Document

Dave spent one month writing this response to the Stage 2 Independent Investigation Report.  The report was late and delivered by email on 27 February 2012.  Dave sent this response by recorded delivery on 27 March 2012 and it was delivered and signed for on Friday 30 March 2012!

Dave was less than happy with the report.  He regarded it as more abuse and maladministration by the Children Services.  I couldn't do justice to it by summing it up here but it is amazingly incompetent and stunningly inept, let alone probably illegal.  Here is Dave's letter and enclosed response.

80 Haslet Road – Biston - Sumshire – AZ1 1ZA
Telephone: 01234 567890 - Email:
George Trevithick
Complaints Manager
PO Box 123
27 March 2012

Dear George

Please find enclosed my response to the Stage 2 Independent Investigation.

In summary:
Mr Hughes has falsely claimed this is a response to my signed complaint.
He states that I have said things that I have not.
He alters quotes from other professionals and official documents.
He does not investigate disputed facts.
He introduces new irrelevant 'facts' in an attempt to denigrate me.
He colludes with the deceptions being perpetrated.
He simply ignores facts that support my claims.
He is prejudicial and abusive to an extraordinary degree.
He has acted in such an unprofessional and irresponsible way that it is hard to believe.
He has not seriously addressed or investigated my complaint.
Mr Hughes has clearly failed to carry out his statutory duties.
Mr Hughes has committed a serious offense against Helen and me.

1. This is not satisfactory and I would like a Stage 3 Panel Review into this matter.
2. I would also like to make this a formal complaint (starting at Stage 1) against Mark Hughes for this travesty and the serious negative impact on Helen and me.  The complaint comprises the list above and the enclosed response plus all related documents as supporting evidence.

Wishing you well
Yours sincerely

Dave Hook

The enclosed response...

---   27 MARCH 2012   ---


The Stage 2 Independent Investigation report submitted to me via email on Monday 27 February 2012 by the Children Services Complaints Department in response to my Complaint signed on Thursday 17 November 2011 is entirely unequivocally unacceptable.  This document constitutes a formal complaint against Mark Hughes and the Children Services for this abhorrent excessive charade.  It is so irresponsible it is verging on unbelievable.  He couldn't fill out the front page correctly and the situation deteriorated from then on.

Lucille LeSueur's report is based on inaccuracies in Mark Hughes' report.

Mr Hughes claims he is investigating my signed complaint but is, in reality, addressing his own version of my complaint.

Mr Hughes is abusive in his presentation of irrelevant material to malign me.

Mr Hughes does little or no relevant investigation of the complaint.

Mr Hughes applies little or no logic or deductive reasoning in his report.

Mr Hughes is inaccurate in his quoting of other professionals and even misquotes me rendering his report entirely unreliable.

Mr Hughes has wasted the taxpayer's money and my time, money and emotional energy to a ridiculous degree.

Mr Hughes has acted in an unprofessional manner, has not carried out his duty, has colluded with other professionals' deception and has failed to address the complaint.

Mr Hughes has now contributed significantly to the torrent of prejudice, abuse and bullying to which Helen and I are being subjected.

It seems clear that whether or not it is conscious or intentional the effect is that if I dare to complain about the abusive behaviour of the Children Services that they will simply escalate their abuse in an attempt to defend themselves.  It is now nearly one and a half years since I first outlined my concerns and the situation has got progressively worse.  Now I am subjected to this torture too.  And for all of that, Mr Hughes gets a salary and a pension and I get nothing but pain.  One could suppose that in a Darwinian sort of way it is perfectly reasonable and I am simply on the wrong side of the conceptual gene pool.

Page 1 of 33


I had a meeting with Mark Hughes and Lucille LeSueur on Wednesday 2 November 2011 and they were both polite, professional and pleasant (as I hope I was too).  Mark Hughes went away and compiled a "draft summary" of my complaints and emailed it to me on Wednesday 9 November 2011 asking me to "review the summary document and make any necessary amendments" and he added "please send me an electronic copy, by return email and a signed copy to George Trevithick, Complaints Manager for my attention." which I did.  I amended the document, added a 51 page attachment with relevant documents and signed it on Thursday 17 November  2011.  On Friday 18 November 2011 I emailed an electronic version and posted the signed hard copy.  It was sent by registered delivery and was received on Tuesday 22 November 2011.  All seems well.

On 24 January 2012 Ronald Taylor responded to my letter of 9 January 2012 saying "Should you not hear from us in respect of a response to the Stage Two investigation by the 16th of February 2011 (one week prior to our 65 working day deadline), please do not hesitate to contact me again."  To my surprise I heard nothing by 16 February 2012.  One week later, on Thursday 23 February, I had still heard nothing.  The following Monday (27 February 2012) I received an email with an attachment which was the report submitted by Mark Hughes.  I also received another email with the report from Lucille LeSueur (the Independent Observer).  So the report is late, albeit only slightly, and otherwise all seems reasonably well.

In Mark Hughes' report at a section numbered 1.12 he says "DH signed the statement of complaint on 17.11.11 to confirm that the document represented his complaints."  Lucille LeSueur states in her report on page 3 "The complaints were ... agreed by Mr Hook on 17.11.11".  There is only one way they could have known that the document was signed on 17 November 2012[4] They were in receipt of, and saw, the hard copy.  Why, then, do both Mark Hughes and Lucille LeSueur both consistently refer to the wrong document?  Purely on this technicality this report could be deemed invalid and a request for a Stage 3 Panel Review submitted.  The original document produced by Mark Hughes significantly misrepresented my complaint.  That is why it was amended.  But the original and the signed copy both refer to the original complaint of 13 July 2011 as the source material and so, on this basis, and to be practical, reasonable and fair, I would not reject this report on those grounds alone.  However, it must be noted that the material in the document referred to in section 1.14 as "Appendix A", and used by Mr Hughes, does not accurately reflect my complaints.  I have requested a hard copy of the report and any appendices but, to date, nothing has arrived.


Overall the tone of this report is kind.  I would not normally highlight simple mistakes or occasional errors so long as the general meaning and effect of the literature was comprehensible and the gist was fair.  Unfortunately the content of this report is mostly based on other inaccuracies and misunderstandings.  I have no strong qualms with what Lucille LeSueur has written because it is largely inconsequential but in the broader context of this complaint and the disproportionate number of errors ranging from typographical to blatant inaccuracies I will just note one or two points to illustrate the difficulty of dealing with the Children Services in general.

Lucille LeSueur writes (on page 5) with respect to the complaint about Ms Mahjong lying that " would be reasonable for the complaint to be upheld".  I don't think this is what she means.

Page 2 of 33

In the next paragraph Lucille LeSueur makes an extraordinary claim which is remarkably inaccurate and concludes "It was only during interview that it was made clear to the investigation team that in fact Mr Hook had been comparing two different Initial Assessment formats. It is more than likely that Mr Hook is still unaware of this."  It seems almost as if Ms Brookson is a magician with supernatural powers.  By uttering pronouncements on the state of reality with such confidence she seems to alter people's perception of the universe.  It seems not only hypnotic but the effect is so powerful that her fantasies are transmitted by proxy.  Because Ms Brookson imagines I have mixed up two Initial Assessments she simply asserts that I have.  Everyone seems to bow down in awe and accept her assertions without questioning them.  Ms Brookson, on more than one occasion, has blithely stated untruths with a tone of innocent confidence that appears to fool some people.  The really amazing thing is that Ms Brookson's explanation relies on facts that she asserts which are equally untrue (see section heading Incomplete section: reason for initial assessment section 5.64 later in this document for specific details).

Lucille LeSueur also addresses the issue of the lack of a signature on the Core Assessment and evidently misses the point entirely.  This may be understandable if she, quite reasonably, assumes Mr Hughes checked his facts but unfortunately he didn't (see section heading Core Assessment not completed in the mandatory time sections 5.133 to 5.135 later in this document).

Lucille LeSueur then refers to Ms Mahjong's statement "It doesn't matter; no one reads these reports." entirely missing the point again.  It is not THAT no one reads these reports that was ever an issue (though it is now appearing to be so) but that Ms Mahjong saw fit to use such an overtly ridiculous claim to dismiss and invalidate my concerns.

I am pleased to note that Lucille LeSueur acknowledges my frustration and upset.  That is a start but of course it is not only frustration and upset that Helen and I have suffered.  So overall Lucille LeSueur has been mislead by the content of Mark Hughes' report but she is otherwise reasonable and inoffensive.


My first response to this report is total dismay.  I began to get a bad feeling about it as the number of irrelevant references to negative reports and opinions regarding me increased.   It seems Mr Hughes has sought to malign me with an exaggerated zeal.  He has brought into the report a list of irrelevant facts and opinions to cast me in a bad light.  Not that one can tell the difference between facts and opinions with Mr Hughes' subtle adaptations and selective editing.  It is an overt attempt at mudslinging and is simply unacceptable.

Mr Hughes exercises virtually no logic in this report.  He shows little indication of rational or clear thinking.  There is no real collecting of impartial 'facts'.  He doesn't investigate or authenticate  claims made by potentially 'interested' parties.  He indulges in repeated slandering of me.  He ignores issues that don't fit his ideas or he can't refute.  He alters quotes from other professionals whilst presenting them as verbatim.  He makes irrelevant claims about what the Children Services did that was correct as if that were addressing what they did that was wrong.  The whole report is not an investigation but rather a transparent 'defence' of the Children Services at my expense.  The only acknowledgement he makes of any of the complaints are diminished to the point of virtual irrelevancy.  This is actually an abusive assault against me.  Given the substance of my complaint Mr Hughes is exacerbating the damage by perpetuating the assault.

Page 3 of 33

I have given the report a partial review and commented on some of the immediately striking failures and errors.  When I realised that Mr Hughes was quite happy to introduce rafts of irrelevant material and he failed to address the pertinent issues I nearly gave up.  But a little more in depth analysis soon began to reveal the most dreadful deceptions such as altering quotes from other professionals to bolster his preconceived intended outcome.  He even misquotes me saying "DH would like a full investigation into his complaints and a meeting with a senior manager following the outcome of the investigation."

I simply cannot find the right words to describe this report.  It is unprofessional.  It does not address the substance of my complaint.  It raises a multitude of irrelevant issues to malign me and to distract from the complaint.  It is a shameful piece of work.  Given that this is the work of a government employee on behalf of a government organisation carrying out its statutory duties I suspect this is seriously illegal and it is certainly maladministration.  It in no way satisfactorily addresses the complaint.  Mr Hughes has wasted the tax payers money by spending a lot of time and resource writing waffle and garbage whilst pretending to investigate a complaint.  On top of all that he has wasted my time and money and effort.  He has caused me even more distress.  He has wasted a part of my life and consequentially part of Helen's life.  Helen was 14 when she started at the Biston High School and due to what begins to appear to be a punitive, draconian, medieval culture in this town she has been marginalised, ostracised, bullied, excluded, blamed, accused, maligned and  criticised.  Even Mr Scott acknowledged that the schools were being intransigent and could keep his perspective on the well being of the child.  But has anyone in the Biston Children Services done anything to actually help this girl?  She is now 18 and who is going to give her her life back?  Mr Hughes, by this wanton abuse, has contributed to the devastation that is our lives.  Just because a specific individual identifiable injury can't be attributed directly to him doesn't mean he is guiltless.  He has not only prolonged this agony but he has gratuitously stuck the boot in.  It is a very serious human injustice.

This is institutionalised prejudice, abuse and bullying.

(Quite aside from this complaint, and on account of the title on the front page, I would be interested to know whether the services are called the Children Services or the Children's Services as I have seen both versions on numerous occasions.  For comparison it is not the Adult's Services.)

I will now address each point of Mr Hughes' report in order.  I have only addressed the problems that strike me at first reading his report.  A second reading started to reveal even more problems.  On account of this I will present these findings with the proviso that they are understood to be just a sample as supporting evidence for my conclusions.  My case is valid and reasonable.  I want it responsibly addressed and correctly dealt with.  I want the damage that is still being done to stop and to be put right insofar as it can be.  I want reasonable compensation for the losses in time, money and emotional and physical health.  Helen has lost several crucial years of education and integration into her culture.  It was her right as a human being and her privilege as a British Citizen to be allowed a fair start in life.  How can this be redressed?  It is no longer a simple case of replacing the education.  She has been severely injured and handicapped by this whole affair and the Children Services in Biston, when they had an opportunity to help, not only offered NO real help but rather tapped into the abuse, escalated it, frightened and alienated her and struck such a massive blow to our well being that there is little or no chance of our recovery now.  Please read the following very carefully.

Page 4 of 33


My first name is David and my preferred name is Dave.  My daughter's name is Helen and her preferred name is Helen.  The report refers to Davey, Hellean and Heli all of which are consistent misspellings.  All the Children Services employees are given respectful names where I am depersonalised to DH most of the time.  It is interesting that the only things frequently and regularly reduced to initials are documents and me.  This is prejudicial and abusive.

1.1  Actually the SCS was involved following a report expressing concern from the hospital.  This needs to be kept clear.

1.2  States: "Frabenshire Children's Social Care ("FCSC") became involved at the request of the Fraben Valley Police, to carry out an Initial Assessment ("IA") of Heli's needs."  As a statement of fact can I assume this is on record somewhere?  It seems strange that I was there at the time and both CAFCASS and the Social Services told me that it was CAFCASS who had initiated the investigation on the back of Marion making serious allusions and implications in interviews with her.  Incidentally I do not recall any "Initial Assessment Report" being produced so whether they gave it to Marion I have no idea.  The only consequence being that if references are made to the content of this document then I would usefully have a copy to check.

1.3  A slight factual error.  Actually we moved from Nothertonshire to Sumshire in 2007.  Relevant only to section 5.30 in Mr Hughes' report.

1.4  "...concluded, because Heli had declined all services offered, that there was no further role for SCS."  This is disgraceful.  This statement is deliberately manipulative.  It is so ridiculous that I can't believe it needs explaining.  It has nothing to do with anything that Helen may or may not have declined that the SCS decided there was "no further role" for them.  (See comments relating to sections 5.66 to 5.70 to see more evidence that this phraseology is deceptive and intended to besmirch the child.)  This is cruel, blame orientated and manipulative.  It is, in fact, child abuse.  It is an adult in a position of responsibility 'blaming' the child for the Children Services' inadequacies.  The SCS may well have decided that there was no further role but why say that decision was "because" of some action of the child.  It is entirely contradictory to other claims they have made.  And to make matters worse, some vague and meaningless reference is made to "all services offered".  This is deliberately intended to imply that many helpful things were offered and the reluctant child refused them "all".  As it happens the only suggestions the SCS came up with were two things that had already been done.  (See comments relating to the entry for 28.10.10 in the précis from Mr Hughes later in this document for more details.)  For adults, these people are acting more like the children of their prejudicial imagination than like either 'adults' or real children.  This kind of cruel manipulative writing is offensive, harmful, shameful and inaccurate.  And we are only on page 1.

1.5  No comment.

1.6  It sounds as if Mr Hughes is suggesting they acted correctly.  They did respond after a ridiculous delay and only after repeated and concerted efforts on my part and then entirely unsatisfactorily.  Since Mr Hughes wishes to raise the issue of witchcraft here I will address it here because he avoids dealing with it anywhere else in his report.  Mr Hughes is being prejudicial by entering this fact and never addressing the subject especially since it was a specific item in my complaint.  Mr Hughes states "Mr Markham found no evidence of prejudice towards DH or Heli.  He found that Heli had identified herself as a 'Wiccan' an entirely respectable religion, as opposed to 'Witchcraft'."  This notion that nobody can see any prejudice in the report has been maintained (or feigned)

Page 5 of 33

consistently since the outset.  Let me suggest a comparative example to illustrate the most obvious and appalling prejudice.  "Mr Markham found no evidence of prejudice towards DH or Heli.  He found that Heli had identified herself as a 'Black African' an entirely respectable ethnic group, as opposed to 'a nigger'."  And yet Mr Markham can find no evidence of prejudice!  The Children Services saw fit to respond to a 'concern' that Helen was a nigger.  They never questioned it but validated it by including it in the Initial Assessment as a 'reason' to 'investigate'.  If there were nothing wrong with it then it would not be a 'reason' to investigate.  Like all the other 'reasons' to investigate they never investigated it and never made any more reference to it.  This lack of concern for an issue claimed to be grounds for investigation is the clear indication that the claim and the response to it are prejudicial and without substance.   It was just a nasty remark picked up by the Children Services and deliberately used as an excuse to pry in an offensive and prejudicial manner.  There is more that is wrong with the way Mr Hughes has chosen to present this excerpt but at this stage there has to be a limit to what is practical to explain.

1.7  On other occasions, when the proverbial boot is on the other foot, Mr Hughes represents what people say very differently.  In section 1.6 Mr Hughes writes "Mr Markham found no evidence of prejudice".  On this occasion (at section 1.7) he writes "which [DH] described as 'curt and arrogantly dismissed his concerns with an air of self importance and impunity'".  To illustrate the problem consider the equivalent alternatives:  1. Mr Hook found the letter curt and it arrogantly dismissed his concerns with an air of self importance and impunity.  2. MD claimed he 'couldn't find any evidence of prejudice'.  Do I really need to explain all this in detail?

1.8  This is yet again a grossly unreasonable and unfair representation of the facts.  This 'introduction' is evidently trying to establish a biased view from the outset.  The facts relating to this issue are that there was a meeting on 24 August 2011 and Adrian Greenhead confidently and enthusiastically assured me that he would respond within 10 days.  He didn't.  I never received this letter from Adrian Greenhead.  See the entries in this document relating to the précis under the dates 26.10.11 and 11.01.12 for more details and supporting evidence.

1.9  On the surface it seems factual except that "these complaints" is referring to the Appendix A (see section 1.14) which is stated to be a "detailed record of Hook's complaints" (Thank you Hughes).  I have requested a copy of Appendix A and they have failed to provide me with it but the evidence is clear that it is NOT my complaint.  More incorrectly asserted facts by Mr Hughes.

1.10  This seems to be a reasonable introductory fact.

1.11  In a court of law this would be frowned upon.  This device of expressing gratitude to all those who agreed to assist is basically bolstering the view that the professionals are all nice, reasonable, civilised people quite willing to help out in this investigation and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.  It is simply additional bias being applied in the introduction.  It has nothing to do with the introduction and nowhere does Mr Hughes maintain the balance by thanking the complainant for bringing these problems to their attention or for being willing to spend vast rafts of time trying to help the Children Services sort out their problems.  The fact is that  these professionals are obliged to be answerable for their actions.

1.12  This point should be considered carefully.  It clearly suggests something that is not true.  I would ignore this error but it seems to have ramifications later in the report not least being the very next section (1.13).  The communicated information to someone reading this, in order to understand the facts, is that a document was produced by the investigator and signed by DH.  But that is not the case.  Mr Hughes delivered an appalling document to me via email requesting I amend it as required, print out a hard copy (at my expense), sign it and send it to him (at my expense).  I did that.  The

Page 6 of 33

original document produced by Mr Hughes was neither accurate nor a fair representation of the truth.  I corrected it, signed it and sent it to Mr Hughes (via the Complaints Manager as requested).  Mr Hughes later refers, in this report, to text from the original document which is not in the signed complaint document.  How ridiculous is that?  This is incompetent and deceptive to an alarming degree.

1.13  The statement heading this section "The following complaints were agreed for investigation:" is a lie.  This is shocking.  There is a signed complaint from me and Mr Hughes seems not to like that and so simply substitutes what he proposed.  Clearly illegitimate.  Clearly unacceptable.

1.14  I have not been provided with the appendix and so I cannot ascertain if this is true or not.  The implication from other references in this document is that Appendix A is not the signed complaint.


Since I am reading this report in detail I will make an observation.  The first doubtful entry is the first one relating to Obelix Mahjong.  The first entry, from Frabenshire, is fair.  I think it is slightly incorrect because it asserts that "they" are perpetuating the situation.  That is like suggesting that both the terrorist and the hostage are 'both' perpetuating the situation.  I had no money.  I couldn't move.  Had I left with Helen (as she wished) I was assured I would be arrested for abducting the child because I was not the 'mother'.  But given the otherwise fair remarks this is an acceptable opinion.  The writer is fair to the parties and is fair in the representation of what they "think" may have "potential" to be a problem.  As it happens Helen has suffered emotional trauma (as have I) as a direct result of Marion's behaviour.  Dave Scott's remarks in the second entry are not only fair but also indicate that the source of the trouble seems to be Marion.  The third entry is a matter of fact.  But the fourth entry suddenly changes the perspective.  There is a nasty undercurrent in Obelix's words;  "immediate risk is alleviated due to her being in hospital".  What risk exactly?  But this just indicates Obelix's mindset which she reveals clearly later on (see section 5.28).  This is already indicative of a prejudicial attitude.

This whole section seems only to be digging for dirt from here on.  It is actually a disgusting false impression of events designed to bring into question my good nature.  For example, referring to the Fraben Valley Police arresting me and referring to the allegations without mentioning any findings or the facts behind those events is cruel, deliberate, irresponsible and unacceptable.  Mr Hughes has now proved himself to be prejudicial.  There is too much in this précis to dissect in detail but it really is shocking.  For example Mr Hughes can assert as fact that there was a telephone call from me saying that Helen was "refusing" to go anywhere with Ms Mahjong and to go on to say "he required a further joint session with Heli and himself before Ms Mahjong could see Heli alone." where this is clearly trying to present me as objectionable and demanding.  But the truth was that Ms Mahjong suggested a sequence of meetings and deliberately changed them with no consultation.  Since Ms Mahjong had attempted to gain Helen's confidence by appearing to be reasonable and had subsequently ignored the reasonable arrangements, Helen was suspicious of such a manipulative person and said she was willing to meet her at home but until she had carried out the agreed joint meeting was too nervous to just 'go away' with her.

Under the date 15 October 2010 it states  "Case supervision: Difficulties getting into household...father is quite combative."  This is just more of Obelix's peculiar prejudicial way of representing facts (with a dash of Mr Hughes' prejudice thrown in).  The implication is that there was some external obstruction causing "difficulties" and the intended inference is that I was wilfully that

Page 7 of 33

obstruction.  Mark Hughes adds, presumably from a little later on in Obelix's record, that "father is quite combative" conjuring an image of me standing at the door waving my fists as if to reinforce this implication.  But what Obelix says is probably true;  She did have "Difficulties getting into household" because she didn't use the door bell.  Also it seems her own motives were blurring her perception and therefore her representation of events because she wanted to steal (or in her mind to "rescue") the child from a horrible monster of a father.  She was finding it very hard to achieve her objectives.  Obviously she would perceive me as combative (reasonable) because I wasn't pliable to her manipulation of meetings and because I raised concerns about the content of the Initial Assessment which she evidently didn't want to - and never did - address.  There could be no correlation between the "difficulties" getting into the house and the "combative" description of me because when she didn't use the bell I didn't know she was there and on all other occasions she was politely invited in and offered refreshment.  If that woman remains in the Children Services' employ it is my opinion that she is likely to do a lot of harm before she obviously oversteps the mark and is stopped.

24.09.10  Confirmation from Obelix's notes that an individual meeting was arranged and agreed.  She was reluctant to have the meeting and it never occurred.

28.09.10:  This fact is of interest because it is raised on several occasions to indicate the correct behaviour of Obelix Mahjong and the Children Services.  As if to assert that nothing is wrong because I was quite reasonably informed, in advance, of a cancelled meeting.  It is true that the meeting was cancelled and the right thing was to inform me.  I have never questioned this and it is nice to know that they can do the right thing.  However, this meeting was scheduled and should have been rescheduled.  I was informed that Obelix would be back in the office on the following Friday as if it were up to me to rearrange it.  I tried to contact Obelix and neither could I contact her to reschedule nor did she ever contact me to reschedule.  In addition, this point is pertinent because the meeting was part of the reasonable arrangement that had been agreed.  In all the communication I have had to date with the Children Services and the Complaints Department it seems that no one understands the issue here.  So, at the risk of being boring, let me explain.  Obelix had shown an understanding of what was reasonable by first arranging a joint meeting with Helen and myself and then an individual meeting with Helen and an individual meeting with me followed by a final joint meeting.  Having cancelled the joint meeting with no attempt to reschedule it Obelix seemed to assume that she could turn up at the family home and simply take Helen away for a 'private' meeting.  Helen was understandably wary of this.  Helen is bright as is amply illustrated in all the various reports and investigations.  Helen knew it was not reasonable for someone to 'appear' fair and to drop the joint meeting and to refuse to communicate on the issue whilst still expecting to take her away for a 'private' meeting.  This is not unreasonable of Helen;  It IS unreasonable of Ms Mahjong.

05.10.10  This is just a disgusting misrepresentation of the truth.  And Mr Hughes is very happy to represent it as a fact as opposed to one party's expressed view.

07.10.10  Two entries covering the same event?  Not a problem, just odd.

15.10.10  This is very disturbing.  I did mention this a little earlier in this document but on closer examination this date makes the claim even more bizarre.  Of course I don't have access to Obelix's case notes so I would not have known that she wrote this.  The first statement is a lie.  On that particular day Obelix arrived 10 minutes early (now knowing there was a bell and using it) for the 'individual' meeting with Helen.  There were no "Difficulties getting into household..." and it is a complete invention to suggest I was "combative".  If Obelix interprets her anxiety about approaching people as "difficulties" implying that the people are making it difficult this is pure (and dangerous) Freudian projection.  I recall that I did say that I wanted the opportunity to discuss my concerns

Page 8 of 33

about the report and I asked when would be a good time for her.  I was not intending to disrupt the meeting she was having with Helen but she invited me to discuss the issues there and then.  As soon as she realised that my concerns were not easily dismissible (with a fatuous remark about it not mattering because no reads these reports) she suggested I put them in writing;  I agreed.  If she regards my asking her to deal with my concerns about the IA at some point in the future as "combative" this is also Freudian projection and it is typical of a compulsive controlling character.  It seems Obelix Mahjong is far more dangerous than I had imagined.

22.10.10: At this point Mr Hughes has lost all credibility.  Not only is he prejudicial but he is also a bully.  A more reasonable reference to this letter would have simply highlighted that it expressed my concerns about the prejudicial nature of the report.  But Mr Hughes chooses to ignore the main content and quote a reference by me to my own suffering.  A typical bullying technique is to belittle any claim by the victim that the bully is hurting them.  That is what Mr Hughes is doing here.

28.10.10  Incidentally this statement "Heli ... is not interested in taking up services." assumes she was offered services new and useful.  Helen had already completed a course of counselling (see section 5.11 in Mr Hughes' report) and was currently in touch with Connexions.  So "Would you like some counselling?" "I've already done that bit." "Would you like to be put in touch with Connexions?"  "No thank you I am already in touch with them."  It seems an art that social workers are trained in;  To entirely misrepresent the facts.

02.11.10  This is not even English so there is little point in highlighting what is wrong.

04.01.11  Does this not ring any alarm bells?  On the 4 January 2011 "Case supervision agreed that 'in this instance the Core Assessment can be sent to the family by post.'".  But I am assured this was all finished by 3 November 2010 so what was this event in January of the next year?  There is something even more inconsistent going on here.  It probably requires investigation - Mr Hughes.

28.02.11  Mr Hughes is repeating this quote seemingly in an attempt to imply I am unreasonable and unfriendly.  I would like to assure the reader that it was a fair and accurate reference to Mr Markham's letter - which you can see for yourself because it is attached to my signed complaint.  Oops, Mr Hughes has the wrong complaint attached.

14.03.11  How very strange that Mr Hughes should put this in the précis.  "Damon Markham wrote to DH, enclosing the Core Assessment, which should have been sent to him on completion."  Methinks Mr Hughes has missed a salient point.  It should NOT have been sent to DH.

26.10.11  This whole affair started because Obelix Mahjong would not deal with my question about the prejudicial nature of her report.  Since many people at the Children Services seem to close ranks in an almost knee-jerk reaction to defend her it is escalating to involve many more people.  Mr Hughes now quotes the Director of Children Services.  This entry by Mark Hughes references a letter dated 26 October 2011 from the Director (Ronald Taylor) to the local MP (Simon Marcombe) where Ronald Taylor states "We have now responded to each of these points in a letter to Mr Hook. Within our response, and further to his letter dated 2nd October 2011, we have also clarified that a stage 2 investigation of his concerns has been instigated, and he shall be contacted shortly by the independent investigator."  Until I encountered this entry in Mr Hughes' précis I had left this matter alone.  However it seems the Director was seriously mistaken and is misleading the MP.  There was no such letter sent to me.

Following a meeting between Adrian Greenhead and myself on 24 August 2011 the Director of Children Services wrote to the local MP on 16 September 2011, nine days after the report from the meeting

Page 9 of 33

was due, assuring him they would respond to me within the next 10 days.  This was late upon late.  Then the Director wrote saying they had responded fully to me.  This, if it were true, is already two months after the meeting and very late.  I was copied this letter by the MP and so I phoned the Director requesting a copy for my records.  His secretary emailed me a copy and said she would forward a hard copy (which never arrived).  The emailed copy was not the same as the forwarded copy from the MP.  So what is going on here?  What is represented in this section as perfectly responsible behaviour by the Children Services was, in fact, an amazing piece of subterfuge and deception on top of a complete failure to carry out their job.  Did Mr Hughes actually check any of the facts?  This was in fact more dereliction at my expense.

11.01.12  And what is going on here?  Mr Hughes has a date - 11 January 2012 - and a headline "Letter from Adrian Greenhead".  The text reads: "Letter following meeting on 24..08.11... apologised for the delay in responding.   Adrian Greenhead outlined and responded to the issues agreed at the meeting.  He states  ..'In respect of the removal of the reports from the ICS system, I am afraid that I am unable to support your request.  As an authority, we have a legal duty to retain records related to assessments, even where the outcome is that no further action is necessary.'"  Where does the date 11 January 2012 come from?  Is this the date in Adrian's records stating when he sent the letter?  This letter never arrived with me from Adrian Greenhead.  I have a copy of two of the three pages forwarded from the local MP Simon Marcombe and an email copy from Ronald Taylor's secretary sent on 9 December 2011.  They are not the same document.  So, although the mystery of whether this letter was ever sent remains, the entry by Mr Hughes in this précis raises more questions.  If Adrian's records state that he sent the letter (which never arrived) on 11 January 2012 then how come Ronald Taylor stated in a letter, dated 25 November 2011, to the local MP "I have also attached a copy of the response sent to Mr Hook on the 04 October 2011."  Did Mr Hughes think to investigate?

And on the subject of their "legal duty to retain records" I did point out to Adrian Greenhead in my response dated 11 December 2011 (one month prior to him sending me this letter ??? - and long after Ronald Taylor assured Simon Marcombe it was sent) to the various copies of his supposed communication with me that they "also have a legal responsibility to ensure that those records are legitimate."


The only comment with regard to this session is that point 3.2 is misleading.  It suggests the complaint that Mark Hughes wrote up as a consequence of the meeting is the same one that I signed;  It is not.


No comment.


This section seems incoherent and amongst other things appears to evolve into a pretence at addressing each point in the complaint.

Page 10 of 33

5.1  What has that got to do with addressing my complaint?  This is prejudicial and simply an attempt to sling mud.  I will not be drawn to address this except to say that if Mr Hughes believes it has some relevance to my complaint then would he please attempt to make explicit some coherent and meaningful explanation.

5.2  What has this got to do with addressing the complaint?

5.3  More mudslinging.

5.4  Irrelevant.

5.5  Not only irrelevant but self evidently nonsense.

5.6  More opportunistic mudslinging and it is all speculative implication.  This is worse than pathetic.

5.7  Irrelevant.

5.8  Here is a conclusion which should warn the investigator off trying to mudsling from ten years in the past to avoid addressing the appalling behaviour of the Children Services in Biston which has nothing to do with anything that happened ten years ago.

5.9  Simply perverse and feeble.

5.10  No comment.

5.11  The last point is such bad English it doesn't even make sense.

5.12  An unfair and inaccurate comment implying something that is not true.  Helen completed the arranged sessions.  So it would be true to say she had completed the sessions at CAMHS.  It is a little unclear from Mr Hughes' comments if the fact that "it was noted that Heli had stopped attending CAMHS" was in the letter from Biston School.  But wherever the comment is sourced it is prejudicial and suggests Helen should have been continuing sessions at CAMHS but that she had terminated them.  Just a negative way of referring to the facts.

5.13  Perversion of the English language.  They were not offering "support" but rather "oppression".  A fact that can be gleaned from other material in this very report so it isn't even only my opinion.

5.14  Incidentally, but it has nothing to do with this complaint, the suggested legal action was ridiculous as this very statement proves.  There was engagement with all three institutions and no one could actually help because they were too self interested and incompetent.

5.15 and 5.16  Yes.  So all this attempt at mudslinging by Mr Hughes has actually been dealt with before.

5.17 to 5.20  Relatively straight forward information.  Or so I thought!  I defy the reader to return to these sections and to read them carefully and tell me what is wrong.  In fact I will help by pointing out the error (the one I just spotted but the implication is that there are more) is in section 5.19.  Surely not much could be wrong with that - it is mostly a quote from an official report produced by another professional.  There are at least seven alterations made to the quoted text! - and I will not be held responsible for not finding ALL of Mr Hughes' errors.  The first is the fact that Mr Hughes sees fit to quote another document and to alter the child's name.  There are conventions for doing

Page 11 of 33

this:  you can simply quote verbatim, you can edit the content (provided it has the same meaning) and put your edits in square bracket, or you can note that an error is verbatim by following it by (sic).  E.g. Mr Hughes could have quoted verbatim "Helen's current welfare circumstances do meet the definition of a 'Child In Need' under s.17 of the Children Act 1989." or if he 'thought' Helen's name was spelt wrong he could write "[Heli]'s current welfare circumstances do meet the definition of a 'Child In Need' under s.17 of the Children Act 1989." (although he might have thought to check his information if he was going to correct it) or he could write "Helen's (sic) current welfare circumstances do meet the definition of a 'Child In Need' under s.17 of the Children Act 1989."  But it is not legitimate to simply change the text and pretend that it is verbatim.  But none of those were what Mr Hughes wrote.  What Mr Hughes wrote was the following:

"Mr Scott concludes, 'Heli's current welfare circumstances do not meet the definition of a 'Child in Need under s17 Children's Act 1989'."

Take your attention off the child's name and look for the other alteration in this quote.  Mr Hughes has, for some unknown reason, gone to the trouble of adding a word.  Not just any old word but one which totally changes the meaning of the quote.  Mr Hughes has decided to add the word 'NOT'.  What is that about?  Even if this were only a slip of the finger it would immediately bring the whole report into question.  This entirely changes the meaning of the sentence.  I don't suppose Mr Hughes did this with deliberate malicious intent but I do suspect that the word was inserted because it is what Mr Hughes expected the sentence to mean.  This is indicative of a prejudicial mindset.  He also removed a word from the first of the two items in the following list.  What Mr Hughes says Mr Scott's[2] wrote is "making a referral to CAMHS or similar services" whereas what Mr Scott actually wrote was "making a further referral to CAMH or similar service".  And can you spot the other two edits Mr Hughes made in this 9 word phrase?  Not good enough?  The second and last item in the list is quoted as "a referral to a Befriend/Advocacy Youth Service organisation" but what Mr Scott actually wrote was "a referral to a Befriender / Advocacy / Youth Service organisation".  So does Mr Hughes think it is his role to correct Mr Scott's comments?  This is beyond unacceptable - this is Mr Hughes breaching his codes of professional conduct.  Mr Hughes chose to make seven separate changes to this short quote from Mr Scott and to represent it as verbatim.

5.21  More wasting of the tax payers money writing irrelevant distraction and obfuscation.

5.22  Just more illustration of the prejudicial mind set of Obelix Mahjong.  She refers to "the" risk as opposed to 'any possible' risk.  She has already formed an image in her mind that there is a "risk".

5.23  Yes - Well I have a Masters Degree in Computing Science so I guess that qualifies me to assess the logic of Ms Mahjong's actions!  I wonder why she has her particular interests.

5.24  No comment.

5.25  Interesting to note that Ms Brookson says the first point would be to go back to the referrer (in this case Sandy Shore) and to clarify their concerns.  What consequence was there from this apparent requirement?  Were the concerns ever clarified?  Was anything ever mentioned again in the IA regarding these "concerns"?  No!

5.26  No comment.

5.27  I would be proud to be a "bit odd" except that it is being used offensively in this context.

5.28  Probably the most telling remark from Ms Mahjong to date.

Page 12 of 33

5.29  Am I missing something or is that not deception by the nurse?  Is there nothing wrong with lying to people if you are a nurse?  Is it a "bit odd" if someone is anxious as a result of this kind of deception?  Here is clear damning evidence of the nurse and yet this report and all communications with the Children Services continues to pretend that my responses are not connected to any real reality and are therefore a "bit odd".

5.30  More indication of Obelix Mahjong's predisposition to prejudice.  If Obelix had those proverbial 'ears to hear' she would have heard me say that Marion was continuing to hound us even to the point of complaining to the police in Notherton that I hadn't notified her of a change of address.  Not that it is in any way relevant to my complaint and not that it is established in all this documentation whether that complaint had substance.  If I mentioned this incident as I expect I did I would have fully explained as much as Obelix required and I would be willing to explain it here except it is a distraction and a waste of time.  (If you want to know the details please ask.)  Why has Ms Mahjong claimed there were "allegations concerning his care of Heli whilst living in Notherton"?  What allegations concerning my care of Helen?  Did Ms Mahjong actually write that?  We cannot be sure because Mr Hughes regularly alters quotes.  But if Ms Mahjong wrote that, and in my opinion it is consistent with her style, then she has 'interpreted' what I said incorrectly.  Ms Mahjong has expressed surprise before when her misinterpretations don't match the evidence she finds (see section 5.167).  This is simply more evidence of how prejudice perverts truth and justice.

5.31  More bad English.

5.32  This is amazing!  Is this a regular tactic used by Children Services?  Call round several times and avoid being detected to cast doubt on the openness of your victims?  There has never been any problem with anyone else gaining the attention of people in this house.  There were 5 people in the house all of whom can hear the door bell.

5.33  Obelix Mahjong did not discuss the concerns raised by the hospital.

5.34  Here we have information from Ms Mahjong's own records that a meeting was agreed with me alone;  One which never happened.

5.35  An overused cover up for a totally different occasion.

5.36  No comment.

5.37  Simply more misleading statements.  Anyone would imagine that I had stipulated conditions.  These were the arrangements made by Obelix not me.  Obelix was changing the goal posts and was unnerving Helen.  I was simply unwilling to have Obelix unfairly alter the otherwise fair and agreed arrangements.

5.38 and 5.39  I am not sure what this either means or is attempting to suggest.  The meeting was always on and I confirmed it.  The information in this section is disconnected and quite meaningless.

5.40  This is a strange device being used repeatedly by the Children Services.  What has the police accident got to do with anything?  Is it because the police records show that there was an incident (I did check) and so the Children Services feel that by having ONE point they can PROVE it vindicates them from any other failure?  It is pure distracting nonsense.

5.41  More nonsense.  I would like to know what all these "difficulties" getting into the house really were.  As for me being combative this is a subjective interpretation by Obelix of her own problems.

Page 13 of 33

5.42  I bet she didn't discuss cream buns either!

5.43  Talk about repetition and cherry picking.  This is Mr Hughes at his best.  This is a disgusting way to handle someone's complaint.  It is worse than not sympathetic it is trying to ridicule.

5.44  Again I am left wondering what the relevance of all this is to my complaint.

5.45  What is this "fact"?  It is just evidence that the Children Services were not complying with statutory guidelines.  It seems peculiar that this fact is repeated in this document and yet it is never brought to bear on the issue of whether the CA was legitimate or not.  What were they doing deciding something about what could happen to the CA on 4 January 2011 when they have so far asserted that everything was completed in the statutory time?  This is, in fact, more damning evidence which I didn't have prior to this report by Mr Hughes.  Funny how he can do this and still can't connect the dots.

Deliberate attempt to upset the child:
5.46 to 5.49  This simply does nothing to address the complaint.  Why is the comment from Obelix Mahjong's notes in bold?  Is Mr Hughes trying to say something but can't quite put it into words?  And just as an aside what does "The concerns outlined in the report may be difficult for Heli to take on board as it is the lifestyle she is used to." mean?  I am so used to over simplistic replies from the Social Services I will pre-empt the obvious explanation that if she were used to a 'lifestyle' that was being questioned it may be upsetting and clarify that my question addresses the specific content of this particular report.  WHAT, in this report, fits the meaning of Ms Mahjong's assertion?  It is just a stock phrase to justify the prejudicial and offensive remarks in the report.  Evidencing my claim that it was intended to offend.

The lie about the doorbell
5.50 to 5.53  In what way does this address the issue at hand?  This is just copying and pasting chunks of material from around the event.  There is no rationale, no logic, no deductive reasoning or any semblance of any thought being applied.  But Mr Hughes gratuitously takes the opportunity to denigrate me at 5.53.

Ms Mahjong cancelled the joint meeting arranged for 30 September 2010.  With no attempt to reschedule she planned to go ahead with the individual meeting with Helen scheduled for 5 October 2010.  I suggested we simply make the 5 October the missed joint meeting but Obelix said this could not be done because she was obliged to have another social worker with her when meeting with us, and Cathy was not available.  The apparent contradiction in my mind was cleared up when she explained that it was not required that another social worker be present when she was seeing a child alone.  So the individual meeting with Helen was postponed in order to first hold the joint meeting as arranged.  This joint meeting was arranged for 7 October 2010.  Obelix and Cathy did not materialise.  Obelix later explained they could not get our attention and told me that there was no door bell.  And I know the door bell was not rung because I was there listening for it.  At section 5.53 Mr Hughes reports that Ms Bonnick said "it was not necessary for her to attend the appointments with DH" and at section 5.128 that Ms Bonnick said "they did not get an answer to ringing and knocking the door."  I have no idea why Ms Bonnick said that but it is clear something is still inconsistent anyway.  As I proposed in my complaint (which this report purports to address) "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)."  According to the latest information Obelix was lying about the requirement to have a colleague with her.  So at this point their story is inconsistent and we still cannot really be sure why Obelix would not have the joint meeting on 5 October 2010.  Of course, in itself, it hardly matters whether we can establish

Page 14 of 33

what was really going on, the point of this and the host of other examples is to illustrate that, as a whole, there is no doubt that Ms Mahjong was untruthful, unreliable, prejudicial, abusive and ultimately caused us a great deal of harm.

The deception has been proven from the records whether it was about the bell, the requirement to have a colleague with her or her intention to have the meeting.  This issue also has a bearing on other aspects of the complaint;  For example that we were accused of being reluctant and missing meetings which we didn't but Ms Mahjong clearly did (whether or not by deception as illustrated here) and the joint meeting never occurred.  Neither did the individual meeting with me (see section 5.125) or the final joint meeting she originally proposed and was agreed.

Initial Assessment not completed in the mandatory time.
5.54 to 5.61  Mr Hughes has provided information here to conclude that the Initial Assessment was three working days late and yet he has failed to acknowledge that fact and to uphold this point of complaint.  There is another damning remark from Damon Markham when he says "unfortunately, when assessments are printed off, the date on the assessment is the date that the I.A was printed off the system."  I'm sure it is unfortunate - unfortunate for him and the Children Services in general.  The Initial Assessment has written on it in clear English "The information in this report was based on the information available on 20/09/2010".  Therefore, prior to that date, any relevant additional information could have been added to the report.  The report was therefore NOT finalised until that date and that is precisely what Ms Brookson assured me was the evidence for the date of completion.  The fact that the report cannot be printed off until it is "locked" is not the issue.  The issue is that it was not finalised until 20/09/2010.  My point is proved.

Incomplete section: reason for initial assessment
5.62 to 5.65  Did Mr Hughes actually look at the Initial Assessment?  Was he not capable of reading it himself?  Just because Ms Brookson asserts something does not make it inevitably true.  Ms Brookson seems to be in the habit of asserting facts if they suit her which may have nothing to do with the real world.  These comments by Ms Brookson are truly amazing.  Where did she get the idea that I was looking at the wrong report?  She actually asserts "that DH is referring to two different I.A's - the one by Ms Mahjong and the one done earlier by Dave Scott."  That is nonsense and she has no evidence or grounds to make that claim.  What is remarkably bizarre about this invented explanation is that she asserts the wording is different where it isn't.  (see section 5.64 for clarification of what Ms Brookson said and then take a look at both the Dave Scott report and the Ms Mahjong report to see that they both say "Reason for initial assessment, including views of child/young person and parent/carers " where the only difference is that in the Ms Mahjong Initial Assessment report it is in block capitals.)  Incidentally, at the time of writing my complaint I did not have the report from Dave Scott available to me and so I could not have been looking at the wrong report.  How would Ms Brookson know what I was looking at anyway?  And why should I have to explain this.  No - Ms Brookson is wrong and professionally irresponsible.  The Initial Assessment that we are talking about, the one Obelix Mahjong did way back in September 2010 and the one I am complaining about clearly states in black and white "REASON FOR INITIAL ASSESSMENT, INCLUDING VIEWS OF CHILD/YOUNG PERSON AND PARENT/CARERS".  Therefore, since the justification for this section not including the views of either Helen or myself has been invalidated, the only conclusion left is that the complaint is valid.

Erroneous implication of a fair investigation
5.66 to 5.70  I don't think Mr Hughes understands the issue.  Clearly there was nothing wrong.  I know that!  The reason for the Initial Assessment, as stated by Ms Mahjong, was to "further investigate the concerns of nursing staff ".  One doesn't do an investigation and then write a report about something entirely different (or perhaps I should say "shouldn't").  The report is the findings of the investigation.  The Initial Assessment Report, as delivered to me, claimed to investigate the

Page 15 of 33

concerns of the nurses and failed to do so.  It is a fact.  It is in black and white in the report.  Mr Hughes has done nothing to address this failure.  All he has done is talk about other issues that have nothing to do with my point.  Show me, in the report, where it addresses the concerns of the nurses and I will apologise and retract this particular part of the complaint.  Failing that my complaint is entirely valid.

Do any of the people working for the Children Services in Biston understand prejudice?  I am afraid it is evidently rife.  I should not be having to explain this but I clearly have to raise this concern somewhere.  The use of the word "allow" in section 5.67, allegedly "stated" by Ms Mahjong, who, incidentally, was reportedly not available for interview, is prejudicial.  The word "allow" was then repeated in section 5.70 and attributed to Mr Markham.  Although I will not indulge in a detailed analysis and an irrefutable logical explanation (which I can do upon request) I will point out what is fundamentally wrong with the use of the word "allow" in this context and why it is prejudicial.  In section 5.70 Mr Hughes writes "[Mr Markham] said this came to nothing, because there was no disclosure and nothing that would allow them to take the issues further."  Did Mr Markham use the word "allow" or is that word introduced here because of its previous use by Ms Mahjong and as an 'interpretation' by Mr Hughes of what Mr Markham said?  Regardless of where the prejudice has arisen it is a[5] clear that the conveyed meaning is that it was BECAUSE they did not have permission from a higher authority (in the form of statutory guidelines or whatever) that they didn't take further action.  They did not have permission because they had not found anything and nothing had been disclosed to afford them that permission.  In other words, without that constraint, they WOULD have taken further action.  So it is clear that they believed there was something wrong but had failed to get the required evidence to prove it.  And that is the impression given by this phrasing.  They do not state that nothing was wrong.  They do not state that there was no evidence to suggest anything was wrong.  They do not even simply state that they could not find any evidence of anything wrong.  They go so far as to say the REASON they didn't take further action was BECAUSE they were not ALLOWED to.

Having illustrated this point it is worth noting that the proposed rationale contradicts the blame orientated statement by Ms Mahjong as referenced at section 1.4.  Clearly they don't even know why they terminated contact with us.  I am complaining about this and here is more substantial evidence of the irresponsible, prejudicial, incompetent, deceptive and abusive behaviour of the Children Services.  But Mr Hughes doesn't seem to notice this.

After the Investigation by the Social Services in Frabenshire the gentleman conducting the investigation said to me that he was pleased to report that there was clearly nothing wrong.  I don't know what was written in any report because I don't recall ever seeing a written report but I do recall what he said.  (Incidentally my response was to suggest the question "If nothing is wrong then why are so many official agencies involved in investigating matters?"  My suggestion was that there was something wrong and that it was a concerted psychological and emotional assault by Marion.  He got it - for a moment - but nothing ever came of it.)  My point being that when someone has investigated properly and they are satisfied that nothing is wrong they don't claim the reason for no further action is because they are not allowed to.

Incorrect telephone number
5.71  Simply nothing said about this!

Information from the Hospital
5.72 and 5.73  Have I been fictionally culturally emasculated or has Ms Mahjong had a sex change?  On a more serious note this section clearly does not address my complaint.  It is not for me to ascertain if the hospital reported these things correctly.  It is actually of no consequence to this point of

Page 16 of 33

complaint whether they are true or false.  The truth is that IF the facts, that Obelix claims were of concern, were examined they can be seen to be contradictory and therefore fictitious.  But Obelix has applied NO inquiry into these 'concerns'.  She has therefore failed entirely to carry out the investigation that she claims she was carrying out.  Instead of looking into my point Mr Hughes has simply quoted some official paragraph but it says nothing about whether what Ms Mahjong says in her report is consistent with itself.  It is clear that Ms Mahjong was NOT investigating these concerns but merely using them for some other agenda of her own.  Also Mr Hughes, in his meticulous addressing of each point, has omitted the section "Witch hunt?"

A misquote repeated three times
5.74 to 5.77  Yet again there is no real investigation into this point.  It is only a small point and not worth much effort but I am dismayed to note that yet again Ms Brookson dreamily announces what should be the case as some kind of assertion that it IS the case.  Ms Brookson is in no position to assert that "Ms Mahjong put the quote recluse in because this was what was said".  Mr Hughes has made it clear that he has not been able to interview Ms Mahjong so how does this fantastical assertion by Ms Brookson clarify anything?  As it happens Ms Mahjong herself corrected the quote in the Core Assessment after I had raised the point.  So just imagine that Ms Brookson has supernatural powers and knows that Ms Mahjong put 'recluse' in the report three times because Helen said 'recluse';  Can she explain why the word has mysteriously changed to 'hermit' in the Core report?  It is also very sad to see Mr Hughes, yet again, cherry picking from the report written by Dave Scott.  It is worrying that Mr Hughes sees fit to misquote a colleague from an official report too.  He seems to think it is perfectly legitimate to select something out of context which nearly says what he wished it said and to edit it, massage it, rewrite it and then to put it in quotes as if it is verbatim.  Is it a policy of the Children Services to put things in quotes when they want people to believe that someone else said something when they didn't?  It is illegitimate and the point remains unresolved.

Mr Scott wrote:
"My inquiry revealed that Helen has very limited peer group friendships within the Biston area and that she does not socialise much, if at all, within the community within which she lives."

Mr Hughes categorically asserts that in his IA Mr Scott states:
"my inquiries reveal that Heli have very limited peer group friendships within the Biston area, that she does not social network within the community within which she lives."

I have meticulously struck out and underlined what Mr Hughes deleted and italicised and emboldened what he has added:
Mmy inquiryies revealed that HelenHeli hashave very limited peer group friendships within the Biston area and, that she does not socialise much, if at all, network within the community within which she lives.

Point 1:  This is entirely illegitimate.
Point 2:  It throws into doubt everything that Mr Hughes quotes from other official documents.
Point 3:  It makes anything that he reports other people as saying unreliable.
Point 4:  Mr Scott wrote a correct and meaningful English sentence and Mr Hughes turned it into bad English and changed the meaning.

Consider me shocked!

Incorrect date of the only source of information
5.78 and 5.79  What exactly has Mr Hughes established here?  He seems to have established that I am right - the date is wrong.  If an Initial Assessment cannot be sent for authorisation unless it is

Page 17 of 33

linked to a visit date does that mean that one can link it to a fictitious date and have it 'authorised'?  Apparently 'Yes'.  As the "authorisation cannot be backdated" this would mean the information can be used in court as reliable evidence in spite of the fact that it is known to be false.  Since this is obviously ridiculous I assume the report is not legitimate.

"It doesn't matter; no one reads these reports"
5.80 and 5.81  Ms Brookson is inimitable.  So Ms Mahjong makes a fatuous remark belittling my concerns over the content of an official document in order to fob me off and Ms Brookson confidently asserts that the content of Ms Mahjong's comment is not true.  If Ms Brookson showed any realisation that Ms Mahjong was acting irresponsibly using this nonsense to marginalise any concerns of mine it would be a different matter.  But Ms Brookson seems to think she is correcting my misunderstanding and assuring me that people do read these reports.   The irony of all this is it seems people do NOT actually read them.  If they do look at them it seems, from this report, that it is not done to gain knowledge or information but rather only to scan them for juicy bits to use against clients.  Of course, Ms Brookson, these reports are there precisely as records of what has happened.  Of course, Ms Brookson, people read these reports.  That was and is my concern.  They are not there, as Ms Mahjong would have me believe, simply to fill up filing cabinets with no other consequence.  So it remains true that Ms Mahjong was out of order dismissing my legitimate concerns by suggesting these reports are never read by anyone.

Suppose a policeman tells you that the speed limit doesn't matter and you then get prosecuted for speeding.  You have still broken the law but a complaint against the Police Officer is not satisfactorily addressed by stating that it DOES matter.  What is more, it is illegal for a policeman to instruct you to act illegally.  It is a professional responsibility of Ms Mahjong's to provide us with correct information.  To attempt to prevent me from questioning the report by claiming no one reads them is a lie and a serious breach of professional conduct.  For Mr Hughes not to recognise this is collusion.

Sources of information not included in Initial Assessment Report
5.82 and 5.83  This seems to make no sense at all.  It would be funny that they didn't have me as Helen's father on their sophisticated ICS if it weren't so serious.  But it seems to be Ms Brookson doing her speciality again;  Just asserting something else as if it has anything to do with the point at hand.  It remains true that there is no record of "Sources of Information".

Incomplete "Involvements Contributing to Initial Assessment"
5.84 to 5.86  I think this is upholding my complaint.  If it is the case that the ICS only allows them to enter one social worker then they will have to get their system fixed.  Also it would be possible, as a work around, to include other people involved in the text of the report.  It is important to know who was involved (hence this section) for future reference.

Parental Consent Error
5.87 and 5.88  Again I really do not know what Mr Hughes is doing.  Ms Mahjong has stated in her report that whether or not parental consent was given is "Unknown".  It matters.  These 'facts' are not inconsequential.  If they were there would not be a box to fill in.  Note:  There is no box to tick for "Cream buns for tea" because it is of no consequence!  Obelix Mahjong could not possibly have NOT known if parental consent was given.  She has put "Unknown" because it leaves the opportunity to criticise at a later date or, worse, to claim that consent was refused because there is no 'evidence' to refute that.  On all accounts, watching the Children Services at work, this IS how they operate.  It is a deliberate lie.  It is a tactic of manipulation and oppression.  If the question is never significant or useful in the future then the records will not be checked but if it becomes important or 'useful'  - perhaps to denigrate someone - for any reason she has "Unknown" entered in the box.  It is not

Page 18 of 33

acceptable and it must be corrected and Ms Mahjong must be advised to be more accurate in future.  But pertinently Mr Hughes has made no conclusive observation regarding this matter.

This 'trick' is referenced in a humorous story in the medical profession.  A doctor tells the pregnant mother to be that he can detect the sex of the unborn child by dangling his gold watch over her tummy.  He announces that the child is a BOY.  He points out to the lady that he will enter it in his diary and discreetly enters 'GIRL'.  Many months later when the child is born if it is a boy the mother tells the doctor how clever he is.  She doesn't need the evidence because all is well and she knows the doctor was right.  But if the baby turns out to be a girl and the mother questions the doctor he says he thinks he recalls saying it was a girl.  The mother remembers that the doctor wrote it in his diary and says "We can check it because you wrote it down in your diary."  "So I did!" the doctor exclaims and lo-and-behold when they check the record it is clearly entered as "GIRL".

Ms Mahjong's action was overtly deliberately deceptive.  She simply could NOT have accidentally written "Unknown".  It could not be a typographical mistake.  It was a conscious deliberate act;  A lie in an official document.

Also Ms Brookson has something to say.  It has no relevance to this point and Mr Hughes has reported it previously at section 5.83.  But it does raise the question of why they didn't have me as the father even at this stage.

False hypothesis of separation anxiety claimed as fact
5.89 to 5.92  This report repeatedly avoids dealing with the complaint.  Mr Hughes has evidently got hold of a lot of documents and has quoted bits and pieces from all over the place.  Given that Mr Hughes' 'quotes' have already been shown to be unreliable on numerous occasions and given that I have never seen the quoted "Frabenshire Social Care for Children's I.A" I simply cannot comment on its accuracy.  Having said that, Mr Hughes has produced nothing to refute my claim that Ms Mahjong's assertion is incorrect.  My concern here is that Ms Mahjong wrote "Dave's emotional responses to Helen as well as his removal of her from school have reinforced her own emotional behaviour in terms of separation anxiety when not with Dave" and it is an incorrect analysis or description of Helen's condition.  It deliberately suggests that I am in some way at fault for Helen's unsatisfactory condition (defined by Ms Mahjong as 'separation anxiety').  It is not friendly, it is not accurate, it is not helpful and in the context of the overall prejudicial nature of the report it is not acceptable.  Helen's anxieties are valid and a response to events that would naturally cause anxiety.  There is ample evidence to suggest where this anxiety originates and to understand it better would enable realistic help.  But Ms Mahjong is inaccurately defining Helen in terms of my failure and it becomes an assault on both of us.  Mr Hughes has sought, it seems, to 'suggest' there is some validity in Ms Mahjong's comments.  There is 'some' validity but only some and the description is an invention and an inaccurate one.  It has no place in this report.

Helen's "attire at the hospital"
For some reason Mr Hughes has left this issue out of his report.  It is possibly simply an error but the point is still relevant and is part of the whole complaint.  It is possible that every grain of sand can be shown, in itself, to amount to nothing serious but when buried under a pile of sand it is precisely the totality of all the grains which cause the problem.

5.93 to 5.96  Mr Hughes is simply imitating the very thing I am complaining about.  First of all I have no qualms with the notion that Helen is more dependent that the average child of her age.  There are good reasons for this.  Ms Mahjong chooses to simply 'blame' me as if I have 'caused' this injury to Helen.  That is illegitimate, unfounded, ridiculous and unfair.  It is also unhelpful.  There is plenty of actual

Page 19 of 33

evidence to support my claim and little or no evidence to support Ms Mahjong's assertion.  But Mr Hughes trawls through historical documents to quote some sap of a police officer (Marion's description - not mine) who fell hook line and sinker for Marion's projection.  I do not have to go further than the very quote Mr Hughes has chosen to prove my point.  If I had a "close" relationship with the child why would I be "using" this to get her "on side".  By definition we are already "on side".  And in what way was I supposed to be using emotional blackmail to control Marion?  It clearly was not successful.  This sounds more like Marion's description to the police than their own observations (and incidentally they never saw enough of me to make that level of observation) and if they believed her then I am inclined to conclude that she was right when she described them as "saps".  I am tempted to try to explain what was really going on but Mr Hughes has illegitimately attempted to drag up dirt to offend and marginalise me in order to defend Ms Mahjong.  Mr Hughes is engaging in very unsavoury tactics when he should be addressing my legitimate concerns.  All this mudslinging is a waste of time and all the 'facts' (including the policeman's speculation and opinion) have been repeatedly and rigorously examined in court.  As for Ms Mahjong's reference to my "particular derogatory comments about Heli's mother" I suggest you go back through all the documents you can lay your hands on to ascertain whether I might be correct.  And it is silly of Ms Mahjong to ask me lots of questions about Marion and then to accuse me of talking a lot about her.  As for Ms Bonnick's comments I would be interested to know what bearing this has on the subject in hand. (Apparently, according to the documented evidence in the Initial Assessment, she was not party to any of this anyway.)

On rereading my text above I noticed the quote "particular derogatory comments about Heli's mother" didn't seem right so I checked it up.

For the record:
In the Core Assessment it says:
"The observations of the Connexions worker at Biston College is that the relationship between Mr Hook and Helen is 'intense' with Mr Hook 'controlling' conversation when Helen is present. During my sessions with both Helen and Mr Hook this has also been the case, whereby Mr Hook has appeared to dominate discussion with particularly derogatory comments about Helen's mother, and leaving little room for Helen to interject."

Mr Hughes (or is that MH) says it says:
"The observation of the Connection Worker at Biston College is that the relationship between DH and Heli is 'intense' and DH controls the conversation when Heli is present. During my session with both Heli and DH, this has also been the case, whereby DH has appeared to dominate discussions with particular derogatory comments about Heli's mother, and leaving little room for Heli to interject."

Here are the changes illustrated where I have struck out and underlined what MH deleted and have emboldened and italicised what MH chose to add.
"The observations of the Connexections wWorker at Biston College is that the relationship between Mr HookDH and HelenHeli is 'intense' withand Mr HookDH 'controlling'controls the conversation when HelenHeli is present. During my sessions with both HelenHeli and Mr HookDH, this has also been the case, whereby Mr HookDH has appeared to dominate discussions with particularly derogatory comments about HelenHeli's mother, and leaving little room for HelenHeli to interject."

Is it a device of MH's to alter things like the names such that he can innocently claim that he was just making it consistent with the rest of his document and it doesn't matter?  Is this a device to hide

Page 20 of 33

other edits when they suit him?  It is not acceptable or legitimate.  Why does he add 's' to words and knock them off the ends of other words?  Why correct the spelling when it was correct in the first place?  Why change 'with' to 'and'?  Why change 'controlling' to 'controls the'?  Does he not realise the seriousness of this?  If he sees fit to alter the spelling when he thinks it is wrong and that extends to altering the words and even phrases then exactly how far will he go?  Isn't he satisfied with his cherry picking opportunities?  This is verging on a fetish.  Is it that MH can't think of how to waste more of the tax payers money or to make the investigation take more than the maximum time allowed and so just 'fiddles around' with the text to use up more time?  What is he thinking of?  I think the man is not well.

Something Mr Hughes and perhaps more people at the Children Services need to know is that when people exhibit prejudice they don't usually 'know' they are altering their perception and therefore their representation of reality.  They mostly do it because it is how they believe things ARE.  It is the evidence that illustrates the prejudice and indicates that care must be taken not to indulge in the act of prejudice.  It is stunning that Mr Hughes perhaps doesn't realise this but he IS being prejudicial.  This is so disgraceful that I can hardly believe it is actually real.  I expect Mr Hughes has some qualifications and that he has therefore been made aware of the importance of not altering other people's words when quoting them.  When a person deliberately ignores relevant information it is called ignorance.  This isn't simply an academic issue this is a legal issue.  Mr Hughes is representing the Sumshire County Council as a social worker and in this report is engaged in government business relating to the welfare of children.  He is an agent of a legislative body.  This is quite seriously beyond the pale.

Financial difficulties ignored
5.97 to 5.99  I cannot make sense of Mr Hughes' comments.  Is he asserting that my complaint is valid or is he denying it.  He does not make it clear.  But again we have Ms Brookson claiming something that is not true and which is a complete irrelevance.  This is pure insanity.

Mr Hughes is also indulging in utter prejudicial deception again.  He claims "DH said he used to be financially secure but he was evicted from privately rented accommodation, and things have been going downhill from then on".  It may or may not be literally accurate to say we were evicted (I can't establish the exact meaning of the word 'evict') but the implication of eviction is that the tenant is somehow the cause of the requirement to leave a property.  It strongly suggests that the move was forced upon the tenant because of some failure on their part.  This is of course Mr Hughes' intended implication.  Would it be unreasonable of me to say that Mr Hughes is trying to denigrate me by implication?  I mean if I never said that?  If I never once said we were 'evicted' from privately rented accommodation would this be unfair of Mr Hughes?  The answer is, of course, yes it would be.  I didn't say it and Mr Hughes cannot produce any evidence that I did say it because it doesn't exist.  Why would he say that?  Because he is prejudicial.  I told him that we had been required to move several times because landlords wanted to sell their properties and we were only on short term lease agreements.  We were unfortunately forced to move against our wishes several times.  But if Mr Hughes already assumes I am an unsavoury fellow he could well get home and record in his notes that I was evicted several times because that is what he understood from what was described to him given the likelihood of events assuming I am an unsavoury character.  (It's called prejudice.)  In fact it IS what he wrote in his 'proposed' complaint.  I edited it out precisely because I did not say it and it gives the wrong impression.  But that doesn't seem to have been satisfactory to Mr Hughes.  So he has simply abused his position and claims that it is what I said.  I don't think I have ever referred to our constant moving as eviction.  This is simply disgusting and irresponsible behaviour by Mr Hughes.

Page 21 of 33

Bad analysis of information gathered
5.100 to 5.102  Again this fails to address the issue.  It seems to assert that an analysis was required.  But we know that.  The complaint is that the analysis was bad and blame orientated.  In section 5.101  Mr Hughes quotes from "The Assessment Framework";  What is this document?  I have done some research and, for the record, I have found only one document on the internet with that exact wording.  It is from the Coventry Safeguarding Children Board website and can be found at:
I have also checked the government guidelines "Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families" from the Department of Health which can be found at:

and "Working Together to Safeguard Children.  A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children" which can be found at
I cannot find this wording in those documents.  I phoned the Coventry Safeguarding Children Board and they told me that their documents are "based on" the government papers but that they are their own documents and only for use by Coventry Social Workers.  So I am still left with the question as to whether this is a valid reference.  I would appreciate some clarification on this point.  But all that aside the Initial Assessment Report form has its own preamble which I assume summarises what is required.  So why Mr Hughes is quoting yet more documents is a mystery and seems to be more distraction and obfuscation.  Having said all of this it remains the case that although Ms Mahjong was obliged to provide a brief analysis, what she produced was shallow, inaccurate and blame orientated;  Not very constructive at all and seemingly intended to offend.  At section 5.102 Mr Hughes quotes (sorry - misquotes) me.  On this point it was early days and I have to admit I was a little naive and over enthusiastic with my attempts to be positive and diplomatic. (For clarity and for the record the quote is slightly altered.  Why change 'nurses' to 'nurse'?  Why change 'a need' to 'the need'?  Why remove a comma or change 'judgements' to 'judgement'?  Maybe they are just typographical errors or perhaps Mr Hughes just thought that is what I meant.)

No strengths or needs
5.103 and 5.104  So how has Mr Hughes addressed the complaint?  This seems to be an excuse by Ms Brookson.  If it is the case that they cannot fill in this section because "this box category is no longer on the system" then since it is on the form I am right in my complaint that the specific job has not been done.  If I am to understand that it CAN'T be done that still means that it HASN'T been done.  Can I take this as confirmation and acceptance of my complaint.  If so, Mr Hughes certainly fails to make that clear.  But yet again I am addressing Mr Hughes' comments and his reference to Ms Brookson's comments but they are not accurate or relevant.  The fact remains that throughout the section 'Child/Young Person's Developmental Needs' there are absolutely NO strengths or needs noted for the parent despite the fact that every subheading includes this requirement and it would be reasonable content even if the form didn't specify it.  What was actually written is simply more prejudicial and negative content.

Breach of fair procedures
(This heading is out of sequence.  It is of no consequence but I mention it simply to clarify any mystery when referring back to the original complaint document.  In the original document it appears as the first item under the heading Complaint 2: Core Assessment.  Mr Hughes has addressed this in its corresponding sequential position so I suspect this is simply an erroneous entry and can be ignored.)

5.105 and 5.106  What is Mr Hughes saying here?  So Ms Bonnick confirmed that some meetings were arranged.  How does that address the issue that Ms Mahjong failed to carry out those meetings?  At

Page 22 of 33

section 5.125 Mr Hughes writes "On 24.09.10, Ms Mahjong's supervision notes confirmed that she had arranged to meet with Heli and DH individually."  That meeting with me never happened.  Obelix was trying to avoid it to the point that I offered to go to her office if it would make it easier for her and she agreed but was apparently not there when I arrived.  Did Mr Hughes ascertain from the Children Services records where Ms Mahjong was on Friday 22 October when I turned up and was simply told she was off sick?  Was she in the office, out at a conference or do the records show she was off sick?  This was supposed to be an investigation of my complaint not an excuse for their behaviour or a fob off.

5.107 to 5.116  Unfortunately this section does not fairly conclude on many of the raised issues.  What it does appear to do is to brush aside many of my concerns and almost nominally partially uphold the complaint as if that might be satisfactory to me.  I will deal with each point separately:

5.107  I have never questioned or criticised the Children Services for their legitimate investigation on account of the referral.

5.108  Yes, the referral did give an undercurrent of something untoward and the evidence instigating this undercurrent was never explicitly examined or reported in the Initial Assessment Report.  That is a failure to properly investigate or document findings.

5.109  Mr Hughes has not correctly dealt with this point.  It is, as he says, a matter for me to take up my complaint about what the nurses reported with the NHS hospital and I have done so.  That is not the complaint against the Children Services.  The complaint against the Children Services is that having had a referral with claims that suggested "an undercurrent of something untoward" it was their expressed duty and intention to investigate those claims.  They failed to investigate those claims and they failed to ever comment further on those issues.  Those issues being precisely what they said they were investigating.  For many years now both Helen and myself have suffered numerous relentless 'complaints' with serious 'undercurrents' and worse.  On all occasions when those vindictive and fictitious complaints have been investigated they have transpired to be unfounded.  And yet both Ms Mahjong and now Mr Hughes seem content to continue referring to the groundless and erroneous "concerns" as if they describe reality rather than the conclusions of the investigations and court cases which established their falsehood.  Given how easily they do this it highlights the importance of investigation and full and proper reporting.  It should be clear to anyone following this investigation and subsequent complaints that I have substantial grounds for being concerned that the vindicating information is properly recorded.  Much as I appreciate Mr Hughes' acknowledgement that certain things were less than ideal I cannot allow this point to go unresolved.  So the complaint still stands.

5.110  Just because I disagree with some of what Ms Mahjong wrote says nothing about other things I have complained about regarding the illegitimacy of these reports.  That is just woolly thinking.

5.111  Just because one meeting was cancelled and the Children Services did the right thing and informed me in advance says nothing about Ms Mahjong's avoidance of other meetings or her attempts to reschedule meetings without informing us or simply not being at another meeting with no attempt to apologize or reschedule or her refusal to answer my letters or to complete the Core Assessment Investigation as stated.  That is a total avoidance of dealing with my specific complaints.  Incidentally and to help clarify things I didn't once complain about the cancelled meeting of Thursday 30 September or the fact that someone phoned to cancel it on Wednesday 29 September.  My complaints are about the deliberate attempt to avoid rescheduling the meeting and to attempt to make me and Helen seem unreasonable in our expectation that it should be rescheduled.  I have also

Page 23 of 33

complained that an additional meeting was inserted and other meetings were avoided with no consultation or mutual agreement.  I have also complained that having arranged for me to attend a meeting at her office Ms Mahjong was reportedly not there and no one ever apologised or rescheduled or indeed ever replied to my enquiries or contacted me until I had written several letters expressing my concern many months later.  So it seems Mr Hughes has attempted to distract from the complaint by referring to one thing the Children Services did right.  As for the reference to the recalled wording of Ms Mahjong's expressed expectation that Helen would be upset that is another distraction.  It is not the precise wording I was complaining about.  The point is that if you are acting for a caring profession and you discover that someone is having difficulties and your intention is genuinely to help then reporting such a sympathetic perspective would hardly lead you to expect someone to be upset.  Ms Mahjong may be so psychologically compelled by her own distress as to not realise that her treacherous and unfounded negativity toward Helen's father, as her way of understanding Helen's difficulties, would cause distress in Helen.  But that is precisely the point I am trying to highlight - she expected it to distress Helen.  It came as no surprise.

5.112  This is almost funny.  Mr Hughes is suggesting that since it is hard to see why they would have lied that they didn't.  Has anyone suggested to Mr Hughes that he is paid to investigate not just muse.

5.113  More waffle from Mr Hughes.  So Mr Hughes is feigning intellectual sophistication when he states "so it is not clear how DH could be sure what Heli said to Ms Mahjong".  Of course I don't "know" what was said.  However, I know Helen and it is not something she has said before and she told me that it is not what she said and she does not tend to assert things that she is not sure of (unlike some other 'professionals').  It is an understandable reinterpretation if Helen referred to herself as a 'hermit' (which she often does and she reports is what she said to Ms Mahjong) to say she said she was a recluse.  It is similar.  My objection was that Ms Mahjong repeated this phrase three times and on all three occasions put it in quotes.  It was clear that this was not a sympathetic or supportive approach by Ms Mahjong and it was offensive for her to reiterate it so often.  Having mentioned this to Ms Mahjong she quite happily altered the reference in the Core assessment to hermit (in quotes).  This implies that she either recalled it was the word 'hermit' that Helen used or it was so insignificant to her that she was willing to alter it.  And whilst we are on this subject I would like to draw the reader's attention to a contradictory remark made by Mr Hughes (hence my assertion that he is "feigning intellectual sophistication") when he says (at section 5.77) "Ms Brookson says Ms Mahjong put the quote recluse in because this was what was said" and yet Ms Brookson was not there either!  (Well she was not there in body but we have yet to establish whether she was floating around in a spiritual form.  Apparently she was hovering over my shoulder and noticed I was mixing up Mr Scott's report with Ms Mahjong's as reported at sections 5.64 and 5.98.)  So to state the obvious when Ms Brookson claims a fact about an event where she was not present it must be true and can be used as supporting evidence but when 'DH' does the same Mr Hughes patronisingly states "so it is not clear how DH could be sure what Heli said to Ms Mahjong."  This is blatant prejudice.  Mr Hughes goes on to claim that many of the comments Ms Mahjong wrote were similar to comments by Mr Scott and other professionals.  Yes Mr Hughes - and how, exactly, does that make a misquote legitimate?

5.114  Thank you.

5.115  My objection was never with Ms Mahjong's 'conclusion'.  I agreed with the conclusion.  Some of my objection was, and still is, with the overtly negative and prejudicial attitude.  It was unhelpful and damaging.  I also object to false claims of "separation anxiety" when the subject was discussed and clearly shown not to be the case.  Also, even IF "Ms Mahjong's analysis is in line with the information she gathered" I am also objecting to what information she should have gathered but didn't.  For

Page 24 of 33

example the substance of the comments that apparently warranted the 'investigation' in the first place.

5.116  At least the acceptance that there was a lack of information is a start.  However for Mr Hughes to conclude "the complaints about the assessment process are not upheld." seems illogical given the evidence.

Complaint 2: Core Assessment

This section starts with a quote from the wrong document.  Mr Hughes has presumably no regard for my opinion or views but chooses to address a complaint he made up and pretends is a signed complaint from me.

On first reading this section it appears full of extraneous irrelevant waffle.

5.117 to 5.123  Mr Hughes appears to be quoting from some official document here.  I do wish he could be thorough and specify where he is quoting from.  This enables one to check that he is not just inventing stuff to impress or falsely establish a point.

Breach of fair procedures
5.124 to 5.129  It appears that this confirms my assertion that the agreed meetings were not held as planned.  Ms Mahjong prefers to represent this as me somehow being demanding and resistant.  This is a slanderous misrepresentation of the facts and it is grossly unfair - it's prejudicial.  If Ms Mahjong was being genuine then she would not have changed the schedule with no regard to either Helen or me.  Having done so she complains about my reasonable request that the equitable agreed arrangement be upheld and represents the event in such a way as to denigrate my character.  But the facts are clear;  Meetings were arranged (see section 5.125) which she then clearly didn't carry out.  There never was the individual meeting with me.  The last joint meeting didn't occur and Ms Mahjong had two meetings with Helen alone.  My complaint is that the agreed arrangements were wantonly abandoned with no regard to us or the proper procedure for conducting the Core Assessment as defined by Ms Mahjong.  It follows that if the required process was not enacted then the report cannot be valid.  Also at point 5.127 she makes no reference to Ms Bonnick being with her and says she knocked on the door.  This is not really consistent with Ms Bonnick's representation of the event at 5.128.

A 'fake' Core Assessment Report
5.130 to 5.132  Mr Hughes has not addressed this point but prefers to reiterate comments.  So what does this mean?  The reference to Ms Brookson's comments would seem intended to support or refute something.  But Ms Brookson's comments have already been shown to be inaccurate and meaningless.  I am left with the impression that the evidence to support the view that the Core Assessment is entirely illegitimate is overwhelming and irrefutable.  Perhaps that is why Mr Hughes has not addressed this topic.  He doesn't want to admit the Core Assessment is illegitimate and so prefers to say nothing.  That is not responsible behaviour for an investigator (paid for by the tax payers).

Core Assessment not completed in the mandatory time
5.133 to 5.135  These statements only confirm my objection.  Ms Brookson is yet again quoted as asserting something that is not true.  Mr Hughes says that Ms Brookson states that the Core Assessment was "authorised on the 03.11.2010".  It was not.  Did Mr Hughes, the 'Investigating Officer' bother to look at the report himself?  Where does that date appear?  Ms Brookson has invented "03.11.2010".  Since I have pointed this out very clearly in my complaint did he not think he was actually to 'investigate'?  All he has done is reasserted the assertions that are wrong and that I am complaining

Page 25 of 33

about.  Would someone please go to the records and look for themselves instead of this relentless repeated assertion of what is presumed to be true with NO EVIDENCE.  Mr Markham's comment also confirms my complaint.  The document clearly states "The information in this report was based on the information available on 14/03/2011".  One cannot have it both ways.  This is the 'proof' offered to me by Ms Brookson (in her letter of 30 June 2011 where she states "... has a facility whereby once assessments have been authorised by a social workers supervisor, they are effectively 'locked' and cannot be amended.") that the report was completed on time.  This actually 'proves' it was not.  If, as Mr Markham casually suggests, this piece of documentary evidence is meaningless because it only really means the report was printed on that date then the system is illegitimate and MUST be fixed.  And, if that is the case then Ms Brookson's attempt to provide 'proof' is a sham.  If there is no way to establish when the Core Assessment was 'completed' and the evidence clearly indicates something is amiss and the only available evidence supports the fact that it was months late then the report cannot legitimately remain on the system with so many doubts about it's authenticity.

No supervisor authorisation on Core Assessment Report
5.136 and 5.137  There is no authorisation name or date.  I understand that the 'copy' sent out might not be signed but the entries for 'who' and 'when' are not present on the report as and when it was 'locked' or 'printed out' on "14/03/2011" (in spite of the fact that Ms Brookson can claim it was authorised on 03.11.2010).  This simply confirms this point of complaint and the Report is not legitimate.

Breach of confidentiality
5.138 to 5.140  Thank you.  A piece of simple straight forward honesty.

Sources of information not included in the Core Assessment Report
5.141 and 4.142  Thank you - and, incidentally ,there IS "evidence that Ms Mahjong made 'deliberately derogatory comments'." about me.

Deliberate misrepresentation and misuse of official reports
5.143 to 5.145  I would like to emphasise from Mr Hughes' quote from 'The Assessment Framework' the phrase "relevant information".  I do not dispute that Ms Mahjong's reference to the Dave Scott report was factual but what was the relevance?  Ms Mahjong continues to mention that the Initial Assessment was completed after Helen's "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." and yet makes no attempt to mitigate the implications.  The whole purpose for the Children Services to "investigate" was to find out if there was any substance to the "expressed concerns".  The whole purpose of the report was to "report" those findings.  Mr Scott found that the concerns relating to the "impact that living in her father's care was having on her well being" were without substance.  It is wholly illegitimate for Ms Mahjong to refer to the "concerns" without referring to the conclusions.  This is deliberately trying to colour the impression someone gets whilst reading her report.  It is mudslinging and should not be tolerated.  It is cruel and it causes harm.  If it did not then there would be nothing wrong with it.  This is logical, reasonable, clear and indisputable.  I am seriously concerned that the Children Services cannot recognise this kind of emotive and insubstantial insinuation in their own writing.  I am even more concerned if an 'investigator' cannot understand it.  And I am very worried when the investigator uses the very same techniques to 'defend' the unacceptable behaviour of members of the Children Services.  As for Mr Hughes' comment at section 5.145 he first states there is no information to suggest that Ms Mahjong's "intention was to be negative" and goes on to say "she adds no further comments ... on what Mr Scott wrote.";  There is the evidence.

Page 26 of 33

The lie about our reluctance and missed appointments
5.146 and 5.147  What does Mr Hughes think he is saying when he writes "The issue of missed appointments is addressed above."?  This issue certainly has not been "addressed above".  I will say no more about this here as I have explained it repeatedly in previous correspondence and in the complaint that this report purports to address and in this very document and it was Mr Hughes express task to address this complaint.  This is a disgraceful dereliction of his duty.

The lie suggesting Heli was lying
5.148 and 5.149  Again Mr Hughes makes an almost irrelevant comment as if that concludes something about the issue.  What Ms Mahjong is doing here is deceiving Helen, changing the plans with no consultation and then 'blaming' Helen for wanting Ms Mahjong to do what she said she would do.  This is Ms Mahjong at fault and blaming the child.  But it is even worse than that.  Not satisfied with blaming Helen she also suggests she was lying in the phrasing of her words "however in reality was reluctant to leave the family home".  That is a lie and a deliberate attempt to discredit Helen.  To clarify matters the only claim that there was anything close to reluctance or a missed meeting from Ms Mahjong was relating to the appointment of 5 October 2011.  Mr Hughes, presumably quoting from Ms Mahjong's records writes "Telephone call from DH to say that Heli was refusing to go anywhere with Ms Mahjong...he required a further joint session with Heli and himself before Ms Mahjong could see Heli alone.'"  Given that there was to be a joint meeting and Ms Mahjong had cancelled it and was presuming to carry on with the next meeting - one where she was going to pick Helen up and take her to an unknown destination - my request that we have the agreed joint meeting first was reasonable.  It was also entirely supportive of Helen's views and expressed feelings.  The FACTS are that Ms Mahjong had missed a meeting (not the only one by a long stretch) and that we were actually requesting that meeting be held.  The FACT is that I was 'keen' to have the meetings that Ms Mahjong had agreed and the FACT is that neither Helen nor I missed any meeting.  Ms Mahjong had made it clear that she could see Helen privately at Helen's house or at some other location.  Ms Mahjong had preferred the other location and Helen had agreed.  That agreement was precisely based on having the joint meeting for Helen to familiarise herself with Ms Mahjong and to be able to assure herself it was okay.  Helen was quite happy to have the private meeting at home where she felt safe even without the joint meeting.  That had been perfectly acceptable to Ms Mahjong.  There was nothing wrong with this.  The Children Services' records may not support my 'opinion' but they do support the facts.  Neither Helen nor I missed one meeting.  Ms Mahjong missed three - The first joint meeting, the individual one with me, and the final joint meeting.  For Ms Mahjong to suggest in an official document on record that Helen had lied saying "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."  Is evidently untrue, gratuitous and unacceptable.  Given the propensity for negative cherry picking shown by the Children Services and their complaints department to date could I possibly be expected to allow this blatant lie to remain on their records?

No response is being prepared
5.150 and 5.151  That is obfuscation by deliberately referring the reader to comments later in the document as if they address this issue.  They do not and this is an unacceptable tactic for avoiding addressing the complaint. "Mr Markham's response below" simply states that he was "aware" of the complaint and that "this response as (sic) delayed".  No - it was not delayed - it was never addressed.  Ms Mahjong's statement "... a response is being prepared" was, to be fair, another lie by Ms Mahjong.  I've got an idea.  If the Children Services wish to refute this claim then they can simply go to their files and produce the response that was, at that time, "being prepared".  It doesn't exist.

Heli is thrown out of school
5.152 to 5.155  I think Mr Hughes has illustrated my point quite well.  Mr Scott can make a reasonable, impartial, and significant observation without 'blame' or offense.  It is clear that he is

Page 27 of 33

thinking of the child's welfare.  This is in sharp contrast to the tone of Ms Mahjong's approach where she seeks to denigrate and criticise the parent.  A caricature of Ms Mahjong might be her glaring accusingly whilst snatching the child away from the parent.  Ms Mahjong is not only 'likely' to do more harm than good she actually did more harm than good.  She frightened Helen enough to prevent her attending the very college course about which Ms Mahjong asserts "There is a clear need for Helen to engage in sustained attendance at Biston in (sic) college, in order for her to develop her academic ability further."

"I won't pretend I educate her"
Mr Hughes has omitted this point of complaint from his report.  It is an 'out of context' remark used solely to denigrate me.

Sugar coating is not an acceptable or fair representation of reality
5.152 to 5.155[1]  Yet again it is not me that is being unreasonable.  Mr Scott was astute enough to put more than one fact together to conclude that Helen's right to phone home should not be a stumbling block to her entire education.  But Ms Mahjong wishes to assume the 'authority' is right without question and to conclude, therefore, that the father is to 'blame'.  The reference to my request not being agreed would be funny if the true facts were known.  It was never agreed because they minced their words, went all around the houses and changed the subject but would not deal with the question in hand.  I asked two staff three times each (that's six times in total) if Helen could phone home if she became anxious and not once was the question answered.  Not once were they willing to say 'No'.  There was no discussion and we were getting nowhere.  It was the Biston School that failed to be clear about their policy.  Why?  Because it would have been unreasonable to say 'No' and they knew it.  But all Helen wanted was for them to be honest and to reassure her that 'if' she was frightened she could contact home.  (Even sadomasochists agree a get out clause.)  Given their role as a hospital school to 'help' children who were finding it difficult to attend school they were more like a penal correction camp.  Can I assume, by including the quote from Mr Scott's report that Mr Hughes agrees with Mr Scott's conclusion that "If the 'stumbling' block' to Helen commencing Biston Hospital School is purely that of their refusal to contact Helen's father when she becomes upset / anxious this appears to my mind, and from a purely child welfare perspective, well worth an issue attempting to reach a compromise on."?  No attempt was ever made, the schools were dogmatic and intransigent and they first excluded Helen because of their own compulsive psychology and then refused to help.  Ms Mahjong deliberately and falsely represents the schools as reasonable suggesting by implication that we were somehow unreasonable.  Entirely inaccurate and illegitimate;  Especially since Ms Mahjong deemed it 'relevant' to mention Mr Scott's report in the first place - but then she hadn't read it had she?

False construct: "a very distressing separation from her mother"
5.161 and 5.162  Mr Hughes is yet again not addressing the issue.  Ms Mahjong asserts "what is termed...".  Termed by who?  This is suggesting it is an already established fact.  This is a rather pretentious attempt to legitimise Ms Mahjong's chosen perspective on the situation.  It pays no regard to the child.  It has never been 'termed' "a very distressing separation from her mother"'.  It would be alright for Ms Mahjong to say that in her opinion Helen had suffered a very distressing separation from her mother but she doesn't.  She attributes this observation to someone else.  Who?  It is a casual and illegitimate device to add authority to the claim.  This is remarkably ignorant of Ms Mahjong but I am not complaining about that.  I am, however, complaining that it is simply illegitimate and conveys an untruth and cannot legitimately remain unopposed in an official report to be used in the future as if it were true.

Page 28 of 33

A telling remark
5.163 and 5.164  Yes - well - it remains a "telling remark".  On the subject of "telling remarks" how about this note from Ms Mahjong's records "Currently there is no information/allegation which would allow us to prevent DH taking her home."  Ms Mahjong is incorrigible.

Complexity of negative projection does not legitimise it
5.165 and 5.166  At this point Mr Hughes has lost me.  I have complained about the prejudicial and negative nature of the report and this is one example (of many).  But Mr Hughes doesn't seem to address the issue at all preferring to copy and paste (with a dash of editing) apparently almost arbitrarily.  So can I take it that Mr Hughes agrees with me on this point?

Subjective versus objective
5.167  Mr Hughes has made no comment.  It is clear Ms Mahjong is referring to a preconceived construct in her interpretation of events and is, therefore, 'surprised' by reality.  This leads her to be remarkably prejudicial in her report.  I guess this point is proven.

College and school attendance
5.168 and 5.169   Mr Hughes says there is no evidence to respond to this.  He is wrong.  I agree that there is little direct evidence or simple one liners to reference, but the overall picture clearly illustrates the negative and offensive nature of the report and does suggest a high probability that a child in Helen's condition would be seriously unnerved by the experience.  It is a strange phenomenon that sometimes people seem able to think something is harmful whilst at the same time imagining no harm comes about.  If the negativity and the deceptive manipulations of Ms Mahjong had precisely no effect then it could not be described meaningfully as negative.  It would be neutral.  It is the case that Ms Mahjong's behaviour caused Helen to leave the college course.  As a result more harm has been done to her.  This time (like the last ten years of harassment) cannot be simply replaced.  Helen is, as I write, 18 years old and partly due to Ms Mahjong has suffered a significant lack of formal education.  These matters are not easy to grasp or to comprehend but that doesn't mean they should be ignored.  Ms Mahjong is party to the cascade of abuse that has been foisted on Helen by people in positions of authority resulting in her significant disadvantage in our society.  It is clear from reading the information relating to this case that we have been subject to a relentless tirade of accusation and constant harassment and cruelty.  It is also factual that none of the accusations have been in any way proven to have substance and, where investigated, the majority have been clearly shown to be false.  It is clear that Marion has psychological issues and set about trying to destroy both me and Helen.  The authorities have simply, and prejudicially, mostly played into her hands.  It has been all but impossible to fend off this prolonged assault and I cannot allow it to continue for two reasons:  we cannot tolerate any more, and if this is the normal mode of operation of the 'benevolent' authorities like the Children Services then even they would - or should - want it to change.  So, to summarise:  The Children Services prejudicially and destructively interfered with our lives to the point of stopping Helen attending college and causing me to become ill.  They did nothing to improve our lives or to help us in any way at all.  This action was paid for by the tax payers.  It is not acceptable.

Emotional Warmth
5.170 and 5.171  I'm sorry but Mr Hughes is simply avoiding addressing the complaint again.  If I were to say that Mr Hughes was clearly well dressed but he smells, what would one make of that?  Especially if I was an authority with influence and it was in a 'report' it would be potentially harmful to Mr Hughes.  But if Mr Hughes complained I could get my complaints department to point out that it is an established biological function supported by numerous creditable scientific sources that he has a nose which performs the function of smelling.  Would it be reasonable to consider this a satisfactory response?  And, of course, even if I 'apologised' but the remark were not struck from the record someone could quote the report at a later date stating that the respectable and responsible

Page 29 of 33

authority figure, Mr Hook, reported that "Mr Hughes ... smells".  It would only be reasonable to remove this from the record as an illegitimate, emotive, negative, slanderous, pointless, meaningless, offensive remark.  And to make matters worse Mr Hughes first copied a chunk of text from my complaint of 13 July 2011 and put it in HIS proposed complaint for me.  He then edited it to more suit his taste with no indication that he had done so.  He sent this proposed complaint to me and I rewrote this section, signed the complaint and sent it to Mr Hughes.  He then ignored my signed copy and took the quote that he had placed in his proposal (which he had already altered), pasted it into this report and edited it again!  So he has now edited my original text, from the previous complaint of 13 July 2011, twice and represents it as my signed complaint of 17 November 2011.  What is he doing?  He even 'corrected' my spelling of my daughter's name.  Before you know it they will be accusing me of not even knowing my daughter by quoting from Mr Hughes to 'prove' I don't even know how to spell her name.  This is a travesty beyond belief.  Why bother having us in the real world at all if, as far as the Children Services are concerned, we are something in their imagination.  It is not surprising I get the impression Mr Hughes thinks there is something wrong with me - THERE IS!  I don't match HIS construct of me.  I have done some careful analysis of these multiple edits and I am not going to waste any more time because this is so utterly ridiculous.

Moving to Fraben?
5.172 and 5.173  Mr Hughes is clearly becoming tired at this point.  He has already previously used the phrase "There is no information to respond to this..." but I refer the reader to my complaint and to the contradictory evidence in the Assessment Reports.  In the Initial Assessment under the heading "FAMILY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS" subsection "Income" it states I am "currently in receipt of state benefits" and  in the Core Assessment section "5 - FAMILY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS" subsection "5 - Income" it is stated that I do "not currently receive any income".

Obelix Mahjong's reluctance and missed appointments
5.174 and 5.175  By asserting that "there is no evidence to suggest that Ms Mahjong lied about he missed appointments" says nothing about her reluctance and missed appointments.  It is a matter of record that she did not carry out the designated meetings.  It is a matter of fact that she was not available for the meeting of Friday 22 October 2010 and there was no apology, no rearrangement, no response to my following letter, no more communication at all with us.  Not only is this rude and unacceptable but she therefore failed to carry out the arranged meetings to complete the Core Assessment.  And the salient issue at this point of the complaint is to establish that it was Ms Mahjong who was clearly reluctant and missed appointments.  This is counter to her quite gratuitous claim that we were reluctant and missed appointments.  We were neither reluctant nor did we miss any appointments.  Ms Mahjong's claims are false and cannot remain legitimately in a report on the ICS.  And they are deliberately maligning Helen and me which is not acceptable either.

The amazingly rude termination of an official investigation
5.176 and 5.177  This comment by Mr Hughes is simply nonsense and he is being seriously irresponsible by not addressing the facts correctly.

Was Obelix in the office?
This point has been omitted by Mr Hughes.  Lucky he's not a software engineer. (And the question remains.)

5.178 to 5.182  I think Mr Hughes is becoming incoherent.  With respect to section 5.179 I have provided information to support my claim.  I don't understand what he is talking about when he says "Similarly, DH knew a lot of the information in the CA, because they were similar issues raised in Mr Scott's I.A and historical information provided by Fraben Valley Police and Frabenshire Children's

Page 30 of 33

Social Care."  It seems a complete non sequitur almost as if he has accidentally pasted it in the wrong place.

Section 5.180 seems a little ridiculous.  There is no evidence that the Core Assessment was completed in the statutory time.  The evidence offered to me as proof that it 'was' completed in time clearly proves it was not.  To claim that there is an inherent error in the system as proof  that the Core Assessment was completed in time beggars belief.

Section 5.182 is also ridiculous.  That Ms Mahjong acted correctly on one occasion says nothing about her inappropriate behaviour on many other occasions.

Complaint 3: Complaints Procedure

5.183 to 5.186  Mr Hughes does make it difficult to understand quite what he is saying.  Is one supposed to assume that the bit in bold is a copy of the relevant section from the signed complaint?  It would be so useful for the reader of this document if he could make these things explicit.  Otherwise one could be forgiven for believing that these were Mr Hughes' words.  BUT...  Let me explain the crime that Mr Hughes is enacting.  He intends the unsuspecting reader to assume that this is the text of the relevant section from the signed complaint.  He doesn't reference it because he could be exposed as deliberately misrepresenting the complainant.  On checking it up I wondered why he would arbitrarily select only a 'chunk' of the summary text for this section.  Then I checked his original proposal.  But this IS the summary text from HIS proposed complaint.  That explains it.  Why would Mr Hughes want to say that this was from the signed complaint when it was not?  This is not a mistake this is, at best,  lax and casual.  It is unacceptably irresponsible.  It is deliberately dishonest.  It is an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

At section 5.185  Mr Markham is yet again reported as referring to the "response as (sic) delayed".  The response was not 'delayed' it never occurred.  Please show me the response if you have it.

What is Ms Brookson saying now?  At section 5.186 it seems that she suggests she wrote to me twice.  She didn't.  She finally responded to the complaint dated 18 April 2011 in a letter dated 30 June 2011.  This wasn't simply delayed!  The complaints procedure states that they will reply in 2 days.  I phoned at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday 12 May 2011 and was told they had received my letter on 3 May 2011 and someone would get back to me in a day or so.  I phoned again a week later at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday 19 May and was told again that someone would contact me within a day or so.  Several weeks went by and so I wrote to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, three MP's including my local MP, the Government Ombudsman and the GSCC[3].  Then she replied.

5.187  At least the complaint is upheld but is the seriousness genuinely appreciated?  This section, in Mr Hughes report, seems to minimise the significance of the Children Services actions - or non-action.  The 'response' was not 'delayed'.  This was not a case of accidentally postponing a response because they were too busy.  This was clearly overtly ignoring the complaint in the hope that it would go away.  It is a disgraceful way for a government organisation to carry on.  The number of letters and the total lack of response to repeated letters and phone calls was clearly deliberate.  It was only when several MP's, the Ombudsman and the GSCC were contacted that The Children Services finally responded.  The responses since then have been incompetent and feeble attempts to address a complaint;  Something they are evidently not used to.

And when Mr Hughes states that the complaint is upheld do we know which complaint?  According to all references in this document it is HIS proposed complaint that he is upholding - not mine.

Page 31 of 33

Desired Outcome
Mr Hughes says there is no evidence that we have suffered a torrent of abuse perpetrated by Children Services.  I am afraid he is wrong.  Mr Hughes also states that "DH would like a full investigation into his complaints and a meeting with a senior manager following the outcome of the investigation."  That is not true.  Where did he get this from?  That is a rhetorical question;  I know where he got it from.  He got it from his proposed complaint and not from my signed complaint.

6 Recommendations

6.1  First point:  I do not understand what Mr Hughes thinks would be achieved by a meeting between myself and a senior manager.  He claims that I want that.  He is wrong.

Second point:  It seems, reading around the subject, that the validity and effectiveness of the ICS in general is in doubt anyway.  Obviously the failures noted due to this complaint should be added to the general awareness of the problems associated with it and in particular they should be addressed urgently.

Third point:  Given the diverse range of properties the Children Services have to visit I think the less rules and regulation about how they should act the better.  It would seem reasonable to me that their attempts to contact people should simply be in line with normal civilised behaviour.  The problems (relating to this subject) that have arisen in this case are not to do with rules and regulations but the aberrant behaviour of an individual.  To imply the problem arose as a procedural failing is to entirely miss the point.

Fourth point:  What?  I have been led to believe that all Initial Assessments and Core Assessments have to be signed and authorised by the relevant manager anyway.  So why does Mr Hughes recommend this and then immediately negate the point by saying "or, at a minimum, that the covering letter confirms when the assessment was completed."  Is that rational?  A Report must be signed by a manager to complete it.  Is Mr Hughes suggesting that if that doesn't occur someone should simply write a letter saying the report is complete?  It seems this would open the door to a lot of potential confusion and possible irregularity.  All I can say about this point is that it is a good job Mr Hughes is not in charge of policy making.

In summary this is a remarkably limp suggestion as to how to redress the appalling injustice that has occurred.  I have stated in my complaint that I would like a full investigation.  That means a REAL INVESTIGATION and not a somewhat lackadaisical attempt to further abuse me and arbitrarily vindicate the Children Services with insubstantial and irrelevant references to things they do do right.  This is not an investigation but rather a feeble attempt to defend the Children Services.  Once a proper investigation which stays focused and rigorously addresses the expressed concerns resulting in a relevant, coherent, rational and logical report is carried out I then want fair consideration of what I request in MY SIGNED COMPLAINT.  For the record I would like some serious and creative suggestions as to what can be done by way of reparation.  I would also like corrective action taken including the removal of the damning false documents from the ICS.  I want all expenses incurred in dealing with the children services refunded.  I would also like a full and formal apology on record.  I would also like help and support to repair the significant damage my daughter and I have suffered.  And I would like evident action taken to ensure that this mode of operation cannot continue.

Page 32 of 33


Due to a series of unfortunate events we found ourselves in Biston Hospital.  Those unfortunate events effectively go back to July 2004 and the beginnings of what was to be an extraordinarily complex and destructive divorce leaving Helen and me as a single parent/single child family.  Much as a detailed explanation of events may enlighten a reader and enable a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the situation, it is neither necessary nor practical at this juncture.  It is enough to judge the current state of affairs on the current available facts.  The Children Services are governed by a set of statutory guidelines and professional standards.  Whether I agree with those values is not the point.  The point is that they have entirely disregarded their own rules and regulations.  It is not necessary for me to judge the morality of their actions, only whether their actions are consistent with their own written rules and the relatively simple everyday cultural expectations of civilised behaviour.  What is not acceptable is that they break their own rules and then lie about it.  It is not acceptable, by their own statutory definition, to act in a way which is prejudicial and unjustifiably damaging to anyone, let alone children.  By their own stipulations they are duty bound to act in a legal and professional manner and truth is included in those requirements.  They are supposed to be equitable and fair.  They are required to be reasonable and responsible.  It is my contention that they have failed on so many accounts that the reports on the ICS are entirely illegitimate according to their own definition, that they have irrevocably injured us and that they have prolonged and exacerbated this abuse for one and a half years so far by their entirely irresponsible and quite abusive denial of any failure or culpability.

My assertion that the collection of words in the two Assessment Reports amount to negative, prejudicial, offensive and abusive content has not and cannot be refuted and has been and can be supported by the evidence.  The self contradictions alone would be enough to condemn these two reports.  There is no plausible justification for either of those reports to be legitimately held on the ICS.  They are a pack of half truths and lies and cannot remain as an official representation of us or any reality.

Having said that, it is clear from the subsequent events that the Children Services were irresponsible in their avoidance of communicating with me.  This avoidance has cost me significant time, money and emotional energy and consequentially has had a corresponding detrimental effect on Helen.  If it is required that the Children Services act responsibly then what exactly is wrong if they don't?  It would be hollow to suggest that there are rules and regulations in place and that it does not matters if they are disregarded.  I should not have to explain the philosophical rationale for those rules and regulations to the 'professionals' in the Children Services, the County Council or, indeed, the government.  It is a correlate that if the rules are there to benefit people and prevent injustice that if they are blatantly disregarded that there is injustice being perpetrated.  It seems from all my communications so far that the only expectation of the Children Services is that they will try to avoid admitting culpability to an extreme but, if they fail, that at worst they might have to write 'sorry' on a bit of paper, or as Mr Hughes suggests, have a meeting with me.

This unfortunate affair is escalating and I hope, in the interest of all parties involved, that a satisfactory resolution can soon be reached.  I now request a Stage 3 Panel Review of this complaint.



Page 33 of 33

[1] The numbers "5.152 to 5.155" under the heading "Sugar coating is not an acceptable or fair representation of reality" should read "5.156 to 5.160".
[2] This is a simple mistake and should read "Scott" not "Scot's".
[3] The statement "... and so I wrote to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, three MP's including my local MP, the Government Ombudsman and the GSCC" is a mistake.  At this juncture Dave had several communications with the Government Ombudsman which eventually seemed to prompt the insubstantial reply from Petra Brookson dated 30 June 2011.  Following this Dave wrote a formal complaint to the complaint department dated 13 July 2011.  It was when he received no response to this complaint that he wrote to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, three MP's including the local MP, the Government Ombudsman and the GSCC and finally succeeded in getting a sensible initial response from the complaints department.
[4] Should read "17 November 2011" not "17 November 2012".
[5] The word "a" is a typographical error and should not be there.

Previous Document Main Index Next Document

© Sente Limited 2012