Children Services Complaints department Stage 2 Independent Investigation Report. This report is a charade and a continuation of the abuse that the Children Services are perpetrating on the family.

Children Services Abuse:
Stage 2 - Report from Mark Hughes.

28 March 2012

On 27 February 2012 Dave received an email from the manager of the Complaints Department. It said "Good Morning Mr Hook, Please find report submitted by Mark Hughes in relation to his investigation, if you would like to make any comments please let me know." And there was an attached word document, the content of which is below...

The report was the result of the Independent Investigation into his Stage 2 Complaint and it took Dave one month to compile his response. To put it mildly he was not satisfied with this abusive charade.

SUMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
CHILDREN SERVICES DIRECTORATE

FORMAL STAGE COMPLAINT REPORT
COMPLAINANT: Mr Davey Hook

Complaints Manager:	George Trevithick
Independent Investigating Officer:	Mr Mark Hughes

Date Appointed:
Date Report Completed:

1.	INTRODUCTION

1.1.

The Complainant, Mr Davey Hook ("DH"), is the father of Hellean Hook ("Heli") (DOB:: 31.01.94), who was the subject of Sumshire Children Services ("SCS"), Children in Need ("CIN") intervention. SCS was involved following concerns about Hellan and her relationship with her father.

1.2.

DH was granted custody of Heli following the divorce from his wife and Heli's mother ("MH"). Following the divorce DH and his estranged wife continued sharing a house and the relationship, described as very 'acrimonious' was affecting Heli. At the time of the divorce, the family were living in Frabenshire and MH involved the Fraben Valley Police following alleged physical assaults on her by DH. 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.

1.3.

DH and Heli moved from Frabenshire to Sumshire in 2007. In 2009 SCS was involved following a referral from the Education Department, who received a letter from MH raising concerns about Heli's welfare, whilst in the care of her father. The IA carried out by Dave Scott, Social Worker, concluded that there were no child protection concerns and SCS closed the case.

1.4.

In September 2010, SCS received a referral from the Biston Hospital expressing concerns about Heli, (who they said appeared not to have any outside contact), father was laying on her bed and Heli stated that she was into 'witchcraft'. SCS investigated the concerns through a Core Assessment ('CA') and concluded, because Heli had declined all services offered, that there was no further role for SCS.

1.5.

DH complains about the process used for the IA and CA, which he states were inadequate, prejudicial and contained numerous errors. He said the IA was illegitimate and 'must be removed from the records'. DH further complained about the lack of response to his concerns and the failure to adequately address the issues raised in his complaint.

1.6.

Mr Damon Markham, Principal Practitioner and Petra Brookson, Team Manager, both responded to DH's complaints. 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. Ms Brookson said they completed the assessments in the stipulated timescales and was, 'therefore unclear...why you have the impression that the assessment was not completed in the mandatory time... I can confirm to you that the Core Assessment is not as you suggest 'a fake with no legitimacy'.

1.7.

DH was not satisfied with either, Mr Markham's response, which he described as 'curt and arrogantly dismissed his concerns with an air of self importance and impunity' or Ms Brookson's, which he states was not an acceptable response, because she simply picked on three issues which she thought she could explain and obfuscates the whole complaint by talking in detail about those selected issues and did not address the main substance of his complaint.

1.8.	On the 24.08.11 the Complaints Manager convened a meeting with Adrian Greenhead, Head of Services and DH. Mr Greenhead addressed the issues agreed with DH at the meetings. Mr Greenhead concluded he could not remove the IA and CA from the records, as requested by DH.

1.9.	SCS Complaints Procedures requires the investigation of these complaints at Stage 2 of the procedure and the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in the form of a report. Mark Hughes (Independent Investigator) investigated these complaints and is the author of this report.

1.10.

Lucille LeSueur, an Independent Person, was appointed to work alongside the Investigator, as required under section 26 (3) (4) of the Children's Act 1989. Ms LeSueur will provide a report commenting on the investigation process and any observations that she might have.

1.11.

In the process of this investigation, staff involved or named in the complaints were interviewed. The Investigator and Independent Person are grateful to all the professionals who agreed to meet with them to assist in this investigation.

1.12.

The Investigator and Independent Person met with DH on 02.11.11 to record and clarify his complaint. DH signed the statement of complaint on 17.11.11 to confirm that the document represented his complaints.

1.13.

The following complaints were agreed for investigation:

Complaint 1: DH complains about the Initial Assessment completed by Obelix Mahjong, Social Worker. The offensive negativity of the report was glaring. It contained errors on numerous levels from simple facts to insidious insinuations. It was prejudicial in the extreme. It was divisive and manipulative in its intent. There is no justification or constructive purpose for this report. It failed to comply with statutory regulations. It is illegitimate and must be removed from the records and suitable reparation made.

Complaint 2: The activities that purported to be an investigation were a shambles. If there was a plan, it was abandoned midstream. The behaviour of the social worker involved and the Children Services Directorate was unacceptable. The report was not completed in the statutory time. It did not fulfil statutory regulations. It was based on incomplete information. It abandoned the child's needs because of fear complaints. It is worse than illegitimate because it is an abdication of responsibility and a crime against the family. The fake report must be removed from the system and suitable reparation made.

Complaint 3: Information explaining the Complaints Procedure was not provided at the correct time; statutory guidelines were ignored. Several letters of complaint were ignored. Responses did not address the issues raised. There is a clear intention to avoid addressing the complaints.

1.14.

A detailed record of Hook's complaints can be found in Appendix A. The three complaints are broken down into individual issues that DH wanted addressing.

2	PRÉCIS OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS RELEVANT TO THE COMPLAINTS (TAKEN FROM SOCIAL SERVICES CASE FILES)

2.1	DH and his family were briefly involved with Frabenshire Children Services in 2005, before he and Heli moved to Sumshire in 2007.

Date	Headline	Events/Details
12.05.05	Historical information	Letter from Frabenshire CC to CAFCAS outlining their involvement with Heli. Following an I.A. ..'There is not a matter of child protection around the issues to be addressed...MH and DH have shared a lot of information with me, and have been very frank. They are in a miserable situation, which they perpetuate. If this continues I think that there is potential for emotional trauma and distress upon Hellean.'
07.08.09	Initial Assessment	Dave Scott, Social Worker, I.A concludes, '.leaving aside the obvious concerns for Hellean's education, which is of course are entirely valid concerns, I am compelled to conclude that a major factor behind MH's referral originates from her, seemingly as yet unresolved, antipathy towards her former husband and the judgement of the Court concerning Heli - which she had been at liberty to challenge if she was so minded - and also where I note that her correspondence is entirely silent on the judicial reason which ultimately led to Heli not being placed in her care.
14.10.09	Dave Scott's I.A	Dave Scott confirmed he had made a last visit regarding his I.A and DH and Heli had agreed and signed the assessment.
06.09.10	Case allocated to Obelix	Case allocated for I.A. The .immediate task is to give Heli the opportunity to talk about her circumstances given her apparent isolation - the .immediate risk is alleviated due to her being in hospital.
10.09.10	Historical Information	Ms Mahjong emailed Frabenshire CC requesting information about Heli. Telephone call from Hospital. Heli is fit for discharge - they state 'father is a bit odd and he has not left her side all day and has complained he is not sleeping with anxiety for Heli.' SCS to investigate the case further...'
15.09.10	Initial Assessment	Obelix's assessment concludes that the concerns needed further investigation in the form of a Core Assessment.

Date	Headline	Events/Details
20.09.10	Failed Visit	Ms Mahjong's records state she made an unannounced visit - no response.
20.09.10	Historical information	Fax from Frabenshire County Council to Obelix included information from Fraben Valley Police. The Police attended the family home on 04.03.05 following allegations that DH had assaulted his estranged wife...the Police arrested DH.
23.09.10	Hospital referral	Discussed concerns raised by the hospital, subsequent treatment and discharge...discussed I.A and need for Core Assessment. 'Heli began reading the report and left the room for 20 minutes...the concerns outlined in the report may be difficult for Heli to take on board as it is the lifestyle she is used to. DH was dismissive of my comments stating that he thought Heli had only gone to use the bathroom.'
24.09.10	Core Assessment	Case supervision states Continue Core Assessment and to see Heli and father individually.
28.09.10	Cancellation of Arranged visit	Catherine Bonnick, Social Worker, contacted DH to let him know that Obelix Mahjong would not be able to attend the meeting arranged for 30.09.10.
02.10.10	Complaint	DH wrote to George Trevithick, Complaints Manager, stating that he was stumped and lost for words. He outlined his concerns about the way SCS handled his complaint and asked for Adrian Greenhead to submits the notes from the meeting on 24.08.11.
04.10.10	Historical information received.	Historical information, including I.A from 2005, received from Frabenshire CC.
05.10.10	Failed Visit	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.'
06.10.10	DH's Letter of Complaint	Letter to Obelix following visit on 23.09.10. 'Much of your analysis based on your observation of Hellean seems measured, insightful and informative.' DH said that his comments of the nurse are clearly indicative of why your department would feel the need to investigate. However, they are all allusions, value judgement, prejudicial or without substance.
07.10.10	Missed appointment	Handwritten note from Obelix stating that she attempted to get DH's attention for several minutes but got no response.

Date	Headline	Events/Details
07.10.10	Failed visit	Ms Mahjong records state she arrived late for the appointment due to traffic congestion after a police incident on route...she could not get a response and left a handwritten note.
15.10.10	Missed appointment	Case supervision: Difficulties getting into household...father is quite combative. Ms Mahjong's session with Heli and DH spoke of his feelings about the I.A...Counselling/CAMHS discussed and declined by Heli...
19.10.10	Core Assessment	Ms Mahjong held session with Heli in the home. Discussed what Heli does in her free time and family dynamics.
22.10.10	Letter re concerns about I.A	Letter to Obelix following meeting on 15.10.10. DH raised his continued concerns about I.A...As a consequence ...have suffered a significant amount of anxieties, had sleepless nights and developed a physical condition due to stress, which has required medication.
28.10.10	Core Assessment	Case supervision: Core Assessment ongoing, concerns over relationship between DH and Heli...Heli is socially isolated, but is not interested in taking up services.
02.11.10	Core Assessment	Obelix's assessment concludes, given Heli's age and much discussion, however her ultimate decline of services which have been offered in order to help address these issues it is clear that there is no further role for Children's Services.'
04.01.11	Core Assessment	Case supervision agreed that 'in this instance the Core Assessment can be sent to the family by post.'
07.02.11	Complaint	DH's letter raised his concerns about lack of response from SCS...requested information under the Freedom of Information Act...
22.02.11	Response to Complaint	Damon Markham, Principal Practitioner, responded to DH's complaint.
28.02.11	Complaint	DH wrote to Damon Markham to express dismay at his response to his complaint. He states, 'you have arrogantly dismissed my concerns with an air of self importance and impunity.'
14.03.11	Core Assessment	Damon Markham wrote to DH, enclosing the Core Assessment, which should have been sent to him on completion.

Date	Headline	Events/Details
03.04.11	Complaint	DH wrote to Damon Markharm, 'your curt response of 14 March 2011 is a metaphoric slap in the face...I take it from the brevity of your letter that you have no intention of addressing the issues I have raised...'
18.04.11	Complaint	Letter to George Trevithick, Complaints Manager making formal complaint.
30.06.11	Complaint	Petra Brookson, Team Manager, responded to DH's complaint.
13.07.11	Formal Complaint	DH wrote to the Complaints Officer, enclosing his 20 page statement of complaints. He states that the response from Petra Brookson was 'not acceptable...' 'In the spirit of trying to get this complaint dealt with responsibly and on account of the fact that I have written 6 letters of complaint and had three unsatisfactory replies in 8 months, I propose that we try to put the complaint back on track with a Stage 3 Review Panel...'
26.10.11	Complaint letter to MP	Ronald Taylor, Director of Children Services wrote to DH's MP stating that 'we have now responded to each of these points in a letter to DH. Within our response, and further to his letter dated 02.10.11, we have also clarified that a stage 2 investigation of his concerns has been instigated, and he will be contacted shortly by the independent investigator.'
02.11.11	Complaint recorded	Independent Investigator and Independent Person met with DH to record his complaints.
11.01.12	Letter from Adrian Greenhead	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.'

3.	THE INVESTIGATION

3.1

The investigation was carried out by means of a detailed examination of the relevant departmental files and personal/telephone interviews as follows:

Title	Role	Date interviewed
Damon Markham	Principal Practitioner	26.01.12
Petra Brookson	Team Manager	26.01.12
Catherine Bonnick	Social Worker	26.01.12
George Trevithick¹	Complaints Manager	20.01.12

3.2

The complaints were recorded on 02.11.11 and DH signed the statement of complaint on 17.11.11. At the time of recording DH's complaint, the investigator explained that the 35 working days for completing the investigation would not be met, because of the number of issues to be covered and also the fact that Christmas was soon approaching.

3.3

The investigation was slightly delayed, due to the key member of staff, Obelix Mahjong, having left the Department and the investigator requested that she was contacted. At the time of writing the Investigator has not received a response from Ms Mahjong and therefore had to rely on her case recording and the views of her managers.

4.	LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE RELEVANT TO THIS COMPLAINT

4.1

The relevant legislation to these complaints is the Children's Act 1989 and the guidance is the Assessment Framework. The Children's Act states:

'Where it appears to a local authority that a child within their area is in need, the authority may assess his needs for the purpose of this Act...' s17 (10)

4.2	The Guidance set out the process for carrying out an Initial Assessment and Core Assessment and these are covered under the relevant complaints.

FINDINGS AS ESTABLISHED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION

Complaint 1: DH complains about the Initial Assessment completed by Obelix Mahjong, Social Worker. The offensive negativity of the report was glaring. It contained errors on numerous levels from simple facts to insidious insinuations. It was prejudicial in the extreme. It was divisive and manipulative in its intent. There is no justification or constructive purpose for this report. It failed to comply with statutory regulations. It

¹Telephone conversation with Mr Trevithick

is illegitimate and must be removed from the records and suitable reparation made.

The Initial Assessment is a brief assessment of each child referred to Children's Social Care Services, where it is necessary to determine whether the child is In need, the nature of any services required, and whether a further, more detailed Core Assessment should be undertaken².

The Initial Assessment should be led by a qualified and experienced social worker, supervised by a highly experienced and qualified social work manager and they should carefully plan. The child should be seen within a timescale that is appropriate to the nature of the concerns expressed at the time of the referral, according to the agreed plan (which may include seeing the child without his or her care givers present).

The Initial Assessment should address the following questions:

▪	What are the developmental needs of the child?
▪	Are the parents able to respond appropriately to the child's identified needs?
▪	Is the child being adequately safeguarded from Significant Harm, and are the parents able to promote the child's health and development?
▪	What impact are family functioning and history, the wider family and environmental factors having on the parents' capacity to respond to their child's needs and the child's developmental progress?
•	Is action required to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child?

Events Prior to Obelix Mahjong's involvement

5.1

Heli was born on 31.01.94 when the family was living in Frabenshire. Historical records from Frabenshire state in 1998, DH physically assaulted his former wife whilst drunk and the Police intervened, but there were no charges. MH was a counsellor and Physiotherapist, DH was an IT Expert who worked from home.

5.2	In 2004, MH filed for divorce and stated DH began a campaign to turn Heli against her. DH said MH approached the divorce in an aggressive manner. The couple remained living in the same house with Heli, which led to the situation becoming very acrimonious.

5.3

Information from MH states in March 2005, the divorced was granted, but DH refused to move out of the family home. Between April and July 2005, the police were called three times, due to DH's violence, but no charges pressed. The Police information stated alcohol was a factor in the situation.

²Paragraph 3.9 of the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (2000)

5.4

On 04.03.2005, a referral from Fraben Valley Police, Domestic Violence Unit, to FCSC states that they were called following an alleged assault by DH on his estranged wife and DH was arrested and taken to the Police station. The Police stated there was a history of domestic Incidents with regards to this couple and at the time (though living at the same address) were going through divorce proceedings. 'There is also a great deal of animosity between the couple and 'mind games' and 'controlling behaviour' factored highly within the relationship.

5.5

The Police stated that Heli has a very close relationship with her father, which he used to get the child on side, using emotional blackmail to control her as well as her mother. DH said there was suspicion of sexual abuse and he was arrested following allegations that he had assaulted his former wife.

5.6

On 08.03.05, FCSC commenced an I.A, following a referral from CAFCAS³ that MH alleged that DH still baths Heli and ushered her out of the room. MH also raised concerns that Heli was still sleeping in her father's room. MH told FCSC that she categorically did not believe that anything untoward had taken place and there had not been any inappropriate touching.

5.7

In a letter to CAFCAS dated 15.05.05, FCSC stated that Heli did not feel the sleeping arrangements was exceptional and had no strong feelings...mum felt categorically nothing inappropriate happened. The bathroom door was not closed when Dad was bathing Heli. DH reported that Heli slept on a camp bed for her protection. The I.A states that Heli returned to her own room.

5.8

FCSC concluded 'the parents must sort out the living arrangements...they need not fear that Heli will have a better relationship/favours the other parent...Heli will need more of a life of her own'. FCSC stated there were no child protection concerns and they decided they would not continue to be involved with the family.

5.9	DH and Heli moved to Sumshire in 2007 and there is no recorded involvement with SCS until 2009. However, DH and Heli were involved with the Education Department.

5.10	On 25.11.08, an Attendance Panel meeting highlighted concerns about Heli's non-attendance. DH said that illness, distress and anxieties were the reason for Heli's non-attendance. The school offered a reintegration package to encourage full-attendance.

5.11

On 19.12.08, further non-attendance concerns were highlighted and a referral was made to Biston High School ("BHS"). The Education Department issued DH with a formal warning on 28.01.09. On 23.03.09 support was requested for Heli and records state she was seeing Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) with a block of five appointments

³Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service

•	On 27.04.09, a letter from the Education Department to DH outlining actions:
•	Heli in regular contact with CAMHS
•	Heli has been referred to Biston
•	Heli is and they are looking at an eventual return to full-time attendance

5.12	On 15.06.09, a letter to DH from Biston School state they were still awaiting DH's response to a request regarding support for Heli and it was noted that Heli had stopped attending CAMHS.

5.13

On 07.07.09, a meeting considered the proposed support at BHS and heard:

...initially two mornings per week...Mr H asked for assurances that Heli could leave 'whenever she wished or contact him by mobile' when she wants...This request was not agreed and Mr H has not has not accepted support by DH...'

5.14	On 13.07.09, a letter to DH informed him that legal action would now be taken, as he has refused to engage with Biston Hospital, CAMHS and BHS.

5.15	In August 2009, SCS received a referral via the Education Department, following letters from MH. The referral raised concerns about Heli not attending school; the welfare system having failed Heli...Heli was isolated in her father's care and should be removed from her father's care;

5.16	SCS Referral and Information form states: *'The concerns that MH has for her daughter, in the main, but not exclusively, covers areas of her educational, social, emotional and psychological well-being.'*

5.17	On 07.08.09, Dave Scott, Social Worker, was allocated to undertake an I.A, to get the full picture around the concerns raised by MH and to include contact with Frabenshire CC.

5.18	Mr Scott found that Heli exercised her right not to have contact with MH. The primary concern was non-school attendance; Heli was required to attend school or be educated 'otherwise'; and Heli was a sensitive character.

5.19

Mr Scott concludes, 'Heli's current welfare circumstances do not meet the definition of a 'Child in Need under s17 Children's Act 1989'. Mr Scott suggested consideration be given to:

•	making a referral to CAMHS or similar services
•	a referral to a Befriend/Advocacy Youth Service organisation...

5.20	On 14.10.09 Mr Scott made his last visit and DH and Heli agreed and signed the I.A. Dad stated that he intends to educate Heli 'otherwise'.

Obelix Mahjong involvement

5.21

Ms Brookson explained that all referrals are received centrally, at the Customer Service Centre (CSC) and put on the system, by non-social work trained staff. If the referral is urgent then it is passed to a manager. She said non-urgent cases are screened by a social work trained principal practitioner, who makes decisions as to what is the most appropriate course of action.

5.22

On 05.09.10, Biston Hospital contacted the CSC to make a referral. On 06.09.10 the referral was allocated to Obelix Mahjong, Social Worker, to undertake an I.A and her immediate task was to give Heli the opportunity to talk about her circumstances, given her apparent isolation. Ms Mahjong's records state 'Difficult to ascertain the risk to Heli at this stage, given the circumstances, but the immediate risk is alleviated due to being in hospital'.

5.23

Ms Brookson says that Ms Mahjong has a master's degree in social work and initially joined SCS on a 100 days student placement. Her second placement was with the Police Protection Unit ("PPU") and Ms Brookson was her Placement Supervisor for the second part of that placement. Ms Brookson says that Ms Mahjong's quality of work was good, very analytical and she had an interest in sexual harm and risk, which she covered both with SCS and the PPU.

5.24	Mr Markham, Principal Practitioner, said Ms Mahjong engaged well with service users and got her work done, but there were sometimes issues with her day-to-day recording. Mr Markham and Ms Brookson said that Ms Mahjong was suitably qualified to carry out the I.A. and Core assessments.

5.25

Asked what would be the process for carrying out assessments, Mr Markham said that he expects the worker to visit the families and, speak to the child alone, speak to the other agencies involved and gather the information together. Ms Brookson said in this case they had the information from the hospital and the first point would be to go back to the referrer and discuss/clarify their concerns. She explained that they have 7 days to do the assessment, but the I.A might not start until the fifth day, therefore, they will need to get updated information.

5.26

Ms Brookson said Ms Mahjong spoke to Heli alone, to establish what her life was like. Ms Mahjong also spoke to DH and other agencies. She said Heli was home educated and not taking part in any outside activities. Therefore, they did not have the range of agencies that they would normally contact, to balance out the information received.

5.27

On 10.09.10 the hospital informed Ms Mahjong that Heli was fit to be discharged. They commented that her father was a 'bit odd', had not left Heli's side all day, and has complained he was not sleeping with anxiety for Heli. They said that DH was not sticking to visiting hours and has been at the hospital all day up until midnight and then back again at 7.30.

5.28	Ms Mahjong wrote: *'Currently there is no information/allegation which would allow us to prevent DH taking her home'.*

5.29

DH said that he suggested to the nurse it would be better if he went away when they did their rounds and come back later. DH agreed to contact the hospital before returning to see if it was convenient for him to return. However, when DH rang, the nurse said that he could not return and DH was concerned that Heli was distressed.

5.30

The same day, Ms Mahjong contacted Nothertonshire Children Services ("NCS") to request information about DH and Heli. NCS responded that they had no records of involvement of NCS involvement with Heli. Ms Mahjong observed 'This is interesting given that DH stated there were allegations concerning his care of Heli whilst living in Notherton'.

5.31	Ms Mahjong's supervision notes of the same day state, Heli were very isolated, there were questions about the nature of DH's relationship with Heli, and she has been home educated for some time.

5.32	Ms Mahjong's records that on 20.09.10 she carried out an unannounced visit, but got no response.

5.33

On 23.09.10 Ms Mahjong visited and discussed the concerns raised by the hospital, the home circumstances and Heli's feelings around attending college. Ms Mahjong discussed her I.A and the need for a Core Assessment. She states that Heli started to read the report and Heli left the room for twenty minutes and spoke very little when she returned. DH said that with 'Heli's persuasion, he now felt that SCS involvement was a positive thing'.

5.34	On 24.09.10, Ms Mahjong recorded there was nothing concrete regarding DH and Heli's relationship and the CA was ongoing. It was agreed that Ms Mahjong would contact Connection; see DH individually and make a referral to CAMHS.

5.35	On 28.09.10, Catherine Bonnick, on Ms Mahjong's behalf, contacted DH to inform him that the meeting scheduled for 30.09.10 had to be cancelled, because of Ms Mahjong's personal health appointment.

5.36	Ms Mahjong's supervision notes state that Heli was not interested in taking up services and attendance at Biston College was poor.

5.37	On 05.10.10, DH called to say that Heli did not want to go anywhere with Ms Mahjong, until they discussed the I.A. DH stated that Heli would not leave the house and he requested a further joint visit before Ms Mahjong could see Heli alone. The joint visit was arranged for 07.10.10.

5.38	On 07.10.10, DH wanted the address of the office to make a complaint. DH raised concerns about his father being in the house...records state that they did not get on...He later rang back to say that the meeting could go ahead.

5.39	Ms Mahjong's records state that she arrived late for the appointment due to traffic congestion after a police incident on route. A handwritten note from Ms Mahjong stated that she attempted, for several minutes, to get DH's attention, but got no response.

5.40	Ms Bonnick said she was newly qualified when she accompanied Ms Mahjong to see DH and took notes of the meeting. She said on the 07.10.10 they were on the way to see DH, but were delayed due to a police incident

5.41	On 15.10.10, Ms Mahjong's case supervision state there were difficulties getting into the house and DH was quite combative.

5.42	On 19.10.10, Ms Mahjong discussed Heli's health issues and her views on life. She states that Heli did not discuss karate and seemed less enthusiastic about it. Ms Mahjong held a session with Heli in the home to discuss what Heli does in her free time and the family dynamics.

5.43	DH wrote to Ms Mahjong on 22.10.10, following the meeting on 15.10.10. DH raised his continued concerns about the I.A, stating consequently, he had suffered a significant amount of anxieties, had sleepless nights and developed a physical condition due to stress, which had required medication.

5.44	On 28.10.10, Ms Mahjong's records state the CA was ongoing due to concerns over the relationship between DH and Heli, Heli was socially isolated, but not interested in taking up services. She was enrolled at Biston College but her attendance was poor.

5.45	On 04.01.11, supervision agreed that in this instance the CA could be sent to the family by post.

Deliberate attempt to upset the child:

5.46

DH says Ms Mahjong handed the I.A to Heli, stating the report was confidentially hers and could only be shared with DH with her expressed permission. He said Heli left the room after reading a few pages and Ms Mahjong said, "I expected it would upset her." It transpired that the report had upset her so much she had left the room and burst into tears.

5.47

On 23.09.10, Ms Mahjong's records state that she discussed the I.A and the need for Core Assessment. She states 'Heli began reading the report and left the room for 20 minutes'. Ms Mahjong said to DH, 'the concerns outlined in the report may be difficult for Heli to take on board as it is the lifestyle she is used to. DH was dismissive of her comments stating that he thought Heli had only gone to use the bathroom.' Ms Mahjong records that when Heli returned she spoke very little.

5.48	Ms Mahjong's records state: *DH stated that while he had initially been apprehensive, he now felt after Heli's persuasion, the involvement from Children's Services is a positive thing.*

5.49	Mr Markham said most I.A's are posted out to the families. However, where the case is more complicated, where they feel the need to do a CA, they would speak to the family.

The lie about the doorbell

5.50

DH said on 21 September 2010, Ms Mahjong left a card saying she could not get his attention. He said two further meetings were scheduled; a joint meeting and an individual one with Heli. DH said that Ms Mahjong explained that the joint meetings required that her colleague, Cathy Bonnick, be present, but meetings with Heli on her own, did not. It was for this reason she said that the meeting could not be replaced with a joint meeting, because Cathy was not available. Cathy should have been with her because, as she explained, this was a requirement.

5.51

Ms Mahjong's records state that on the 20.09.10, she made an unannounced visit, but got no response because no one was home. On 23.09.10, Ms Mahjong shared the I.A and stated that they were moving to CA. She recorded that two further sessions had been arranged, but did not state what dates these were. The other appointments were made as part of the CA and are discussed below.

5.52

Ms Bonnick said at the time she was newly qualified and went along with Ms Mahjong to observe and took notes of the meeting. Ms Bonnick said they agreed mixed sessions and one of the sessions she attended looked at the family's history. She recalled attending two sessions plus the mixed appointment. She never went on her own, because it was not her case.

5.53

Ms Bonnick said that DH did not want them involved and was not keen for them to support Heli. Ms Bonnick felt that Heli did not get a chance to talk because DH said a lot and seemed to like to play power games. He used his knowledge and liked to talk about himself. She said it was not necessary for her to attend the appointments with DH, but she was only observing as a new worker.

Initial Assessment not completed in the mandatory time.

5.54	The Initial Assessment must be completed within a maximum of 7 working days of the date of the referral. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010, provides that this maximum timescale can be increased to 10 working days.

5.55

The urgency of the situation may dictate that the timescale is much shorter than 7 days, for example, where it is immediately clear a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. In such circumstances, the Initial Assessment may be completed on the same day as the Referral, and a decision reached to conduct a Strategy Discussion/Meeting, leading to a Core Assessment incorporating a Section 47 Enquiry (Child Protection Enquiry).

5.56	An Initial Assessment is deemed completed once the assessment has been discussed with the child and family and authorised by the manager. The possible outcome of the Initial Assessment includes no further action; immediate provision of child in need services or Instigation of a Core Assessment.

5.57	A manager must sign and approve the outcome of an Initial Assessment .

5.58	DH said Ms Mahjong explained SCS were supposed to complete the I.A within 7 working days and they had been so busy recently that they had not managed

to complete this one in that time. She apologised for the delay. He said Petra Brookson later reported to him the Initial Assessments are locked by the ICS when they are complete. The ICS records the completion date as 20.09.2010, which is three working days late.

5.59	On 15.10.10, Ms Mahjong's records state 'DH spoke to me regarding his feelings about the Initial assessment, discussing the need for improvement within the computer systems used in Children's Services and the process of Children's Services improvement.'

5.60

In her response letter dated 30.06.11, Ms Brookson says the computer upon which Children's Service records, and specifically Initial and Core Assessment's are held, has a facility whereby once assessments have been authorised by a social worker supervisor, they are effectively locked and cannot be amended. She explained that the timescale for the I.A is 7 days and Ms Mahjong's I.A commenced on 06.09.10 and was authorised on 16.09.10. Ms Brookson stated that this adhered to the statutory timescales.

'It is therefore unclear to me why you have the impression that the assessment was not completed in the mandatory time'.

5.61

Ms Mahjong's supervision notes have the facility for the manager to complete to indicate when the I.A was completed but these are not filled in. Ms Brookson acknowledges this and said this is something that has been highlighted with managers. The CA document stated that the CA commenced on 15.09.10. Mr Markham says that unfortunately, when assessments are printed off, the date on the assessment is the date that the I.A was printed off the system.

Incomplete section: reason for initial assessment

5.62

DH says the section entitled 'Reason for Initial Assessment' clearly states in the heading that it should include "Views of Child/Young Person and Parent/Carers". It fails to do so. In his letter of 22.10.10, DH comments that the I.A was prejudicial because of the way that the comments from the nurse were used in the report. He states:

'overall it is remarkable how the report seems to not only ignore the prejudice in the nurse's statement but happily carries that prejudice into the report by presenting the prejudicial views as facts.'

5.63

DH says the I.A has a section headed 'Reason for the Assessment' and in this section Ms Mahjong outlined the details of the referral from the nurse. She makes no comments, judgement or conclusions about these comments. There is also a section for the children and parents views but these are not completed.

5.64

Ms Brookson highlighted that DH is referring to two different I.A's - the one by Ms Mahjong and the one done earlier by Dave Scott. Mr Scott's I.A states 'Reason for Initial Assessment, including views of child/young person and parents/carers' and Ms Mahjong's states 'Reason for assessment'. Ms Brookson said that the I.A has been modified, since Mr Scott did his assessment, there

is no longer a child, and parents view, in the same section as the reason for the assessment.

5.65	Ms Brookson said that staff operate different practices, when it comes to completing the 'Reason for Assessment' section. Some will say that the family cooperated or others would do as Ms Mahjong did, and outline who lives in the house and what was the nature of the concerns.

Erroneous implication of a fair investigation

5.66

DH says the final statement in the 'Reason for Initial Assessment' section on page 2 states "Initial assessment carried out in order to further investigate the concerns of nursing staff..." If nothing was found to address those concerns that were serious enough to instigate an Initial Assessment Investigation, then presumably those concerns still exist.

5.67	On 06.09.10 Ms Mahjong states the immediate risk to Heli was alleviated due to her being in hospital. On 10.09.10 Ms Mahjong, when informed that Heli was due for discharge, recorded there was 'no information/allegation which would allow us to prevent DH taking her home.'

5.68	In her analysis, Ms Mahjong states that she was concerned that Heli would not have reached her full potential, that there were needs around education, emotional health and her isolation. Ms Mahjong concluded that further investigation was required under the CA.

5.69

Ms Bonnick believed that the case was initially dealt with as a section 47 investigation, but Mr Markham and Ms Brookson said that it was not. Ms Brookson said that Ms Prattle is a trained s47 worker, but the case was not seen as a section 47. They sent two workers because the hospital had serious concerns. Ms Brookson said that Fi Prattle would have gone out with Ms Mahjong to visit Heli at the hospital and they interviewed Heli and DH. Mr Markham said there were some vague concerns and they sent out two workers.

5.70	Mr Markham said there was nothing in the concerns raised, in terms of sexual abuse, but it was an undercurrent. He said this came to nothing, because there was no disclosure and nothing that would allow them to take the issues further.

Incorrect telephone number

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

Information from the Hospital

5.72

Mr Mahjong raised a number of issues about the content of the referral made by the Hospital.

•	No diagnosis?

•	Striptease for the doctors?
•	Refusal of treatment?
•	Vacuous claims of intent

5.73

The investigator is satisfied that this is the information that was provided by the hospital and it is for DH to challenge the hospital about the accuracy of these comments. The Investigator is satisfied that the receipt, recording and consideration of the information provided to SCS was in line with the guidance 'Working Together to Safeguard Children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children'. The guidance states:

If somebody believes or suspects that a child may be suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, then he/she should always refer his/ her concerns to the local authority children's social care services (5.19).... If a decision is taken not to share information, the reasons must be recorded...Sharing of information in cases of concern about children's welfare will enable professionals to consider jointly how to proceed in the best interests of the child and to safeguard children more generally (see paragraph 5.3). In deciding whether there is a need to share information, professionals should consider their legal obligations, including whether they have a duty of confidentiality to the child.

A misquote repeated three times

5.74	DH says on three occasions in the Initial Assessment Report it is stated, in quotes, that Heli said she was a 'recluse' (pp. 4 & 5). Heli has never described herself as a recluse.

5.75	Ms Mahjong's IA states Heli described herself as a recluse and that she liked to talk to people but didn't get the chance as a recluse. The I.A further states she was isolated from her peers and did not like to engage with people.

5.76

On 15.07.09, MH complained that Heli was isolated in her father's care. Mr Scott stated Heli sees herself as over-sensitive to her peers' comments...' His I.A 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.'

5.77

Ms Brookson says Ms Mahjong put the quote recluse in because this was what was said and they would often check these things out. She said they would see the child on their own. She described Heli as very bright, articulate and confident. She recalled there were underlying concerns in the initial assessment about DH and Heli's exclusive lifestyle and therefore they needed to see Heli.

Incorrect date of the only source of information

5.78	DH pointed out that in the section 'Sources of Information' on page 2 of the Initial Assessment Report, the only source provided has the wrong date.

5.79

Ms Mahjong's I.A states that the child was seen on 11.08.09. Ms Brookson explained said this was linked to the date Heli was seen by Mr Scott in 2009. She said the date Heli was seen by Ms Mahjong is missing from the I.A and the recording has not been linked to the visit carried out by Ms Mahjong. She said that the I.A cannot be sent for authorisation unless it was linked to a visit date. However, the system would not pick up that the date linked was outside the timeframe. She said that authorisation cannot be backdated.

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

5.80	DH said that when he queried some facts that were wrong in the Initial Assessment Report, Ms Mahjong simply dismissed the errors by stating that it does not matter because no-one ever reads these reports.

5.81

Ms Brookson said that the I.As are firstly read by the manager who provided quality control, before it is then shared with family members and only shared with other professionals if the family request it. On rare occasions, the I.A might be shared with the health visitors, but again with the family's agreement.

Sources of information not included in Initial Assessment Report

5.82

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

5.83	Ms Brookson says in the ICS record there is a section regarding relationships. She said that DH was not listed as the father (Ms Brookson updated the ICS with this during the interview. She said that is always good practice that parents are asked for consent before other agencies are contacted.

Incomplete "Involvements Contributing to Initial Assessment"

5.84

DH said for approximately three hours on 6 September 2010, Fi Prattle interviewed us and Ms Mahjong took notes with only very occasional comments. He said that Ms Prattle was the interviewer, but she was not listed in the I.A and he asked whether Ms Prattle worked for the Children's Services or was she just a friend along to help Obelix.

5.85	Ms Brookson said that Ms Mahjong was the key worker and Ms Prattle went along with her. She said that it is the key worker's responsibility to make the records. She confirmed that Ms Prattle's presence should have been recorded.

5.86	Mr Markham said the reference to Fi would depend on how the records were written up. He said the focus would be on the child and information relating to the child. He said the ICS only allows them to put down one worker.

Parental Consent Error

5.87

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

5.88	Ms Brookson said the ICS has a section that asked about relationship, but DH was not listed. During the interview, Ms Brookson updated the ICS system and added DH's name. Ms Brookson said that it is good practice that parents are asked for consent before contact is made with other agencies.

False hypothesis of separation anxiety claimed as fact

5.89

DH says on page 6 of the Initial Assessment Report, Obelix Mahjong confidently states that Heli has "separation anxiety". This is a pseudo psychological statement. It has no validity in this report. The writer has no authority to make such a claim and no investigation of any kind was carried out to test this hypothesis.

5.90	On 04.03.05, the Fraben Valley Police referral states 'the child has recently started to have panic attacks at nights and had on some occasions gone to her mother's room and got into bed with her. The child has now started to sleep walk and still uses a dummy when she goes to bed'.

5.91	Frabenshire Social Care for Children's I.A states,... 'Heli was using a dummy...and it allowed us to see a younger child in her... and perhaps, someone who in part wanted to be a younger child...Heli disliked the arguments and her parent's relationship...she is truly in the middle of this'.

5.92

Mr Scott states that Heli clearly articulated that the origins of her insecurity are to be found in her experiences of her parent's marriage breakdown and the reported subsequent concerted, manipulative and harmful behaviour of her mother...which has led to her having massive issues around trust. He further wrote:

'notwithstanding this position, it is of course evident from talking to Heli that she has many unresolved issues of anger and mistrust arising from what she considered to be her mother's past, and continuing attempts, to disrupt and cause upset in her life'.

Dependency?

5.93

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

5.94

Fraben Valley Police stated there was a 'great deal of animosity between the couple, mind games and controlling behaviour factors highly within the relationship'. They further stated, Heli has a close relationship with which he uses to get the child on side, using emotional blackmail to control her as well

as the mother. 'The child is unwilling to leave her father. He manipulated this situation and therefore taunts the mother with this behaviour....'

5.95

Ms Mahjong states:

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.'

5.96	Ms Bonnick says, Heli did not get a chance to talk because DH said a lot and he seemed to like to play power games with his knowledge and enjoyed talking about himself.

Financial difficulties ignored

5.97

DH said, following several investigations the Courts awarded him residence of Heli. 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. DH said that he is now stuck in his father's house, penniless and he would have to declare himself bankrupt.

5.98	Ms Brookson said that it is difficult to know whether DH had disclosed that he was in financial ruin. She said that he was comparing the two different versions of the assessment. She said the I.A form used by Mr Scott has different headings to the one used by Ms Mahjong.

5.99	Mr Markham said that the I.A is very brief and they would look at the potential impact of financial difficulties on the child. He said that if DH had said that he was in financial ruin, then he would have expected to have seen that in the records.

Bad analysis of information gathered

5.100

DH complains, the brief comments in the section entitled 'Analysis of Information Gathered during the Initial Assessment' on page 6 of the report, are remarkably 'blame' orientated.

5.101

The Assessment Framework states, 'Analyse available information (including information about the history and functioning of the family both currently and in the past, and adult problems such as domestic violence, substance misuse, mental illness and criminal behaviour/convictions) .

5.102

In a letter to Ms Mahjong, following a visit on 23.09.10, DH wrote

'Much of your analysis based on your observation of Heli seems measured, insightful and informative.' DH said that the comments of the nurse clearly indicate why your department would feel the need to investigate. However they are all allusions, value judgement, prejudicial or without substance.

No strengths or needs

5.103

DH says throughout the main section entitled 'Child/Young Person's Developmental Needs', there are absolutely no strengths noted for the parent, nor needs, only blame and criticism.

5.104

Ms Brookson said this is complicated because they have to create needs and link it on the ICS. Some workers do this and go along; others create a plan and then link this. She said this was a system issue and this box category is no longer on the system.

Breach of fair procedures

5.105

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

5.106

Ms Bonnick said they agreed a mixture of individual and joint meetings. Ms Mahjong's case notes confirm this view.

Conclusions:

5.107

SCS received a referral from the Biston Hospital, which met the criteria for their involvement. Under the Children's Act, SCS have a duty to respond where they have reasonable cause to believe that a child might be at risk of significant harm. The information available shows that SCS responded appropriately to concerns raised by the hospital.

5.108

SCS responded to the concerns raised as a child in need and completed an I.A and subsequently a Core Assessment. The information available supports the views of Ms Brookson and Mr Markham, that there was no child protection concerns, but the referral did give an undercurrent of something untoward.

5.109

The Working Together guidance requires SCS to work with partner agencies in the process of protecting the child. This entails sharing information and SCS is required to consider the information before making a decision on how best to respond to the concerns. DH raised many concerns about the information shared by the Hospital, but this is a matter for him to take up with the referrer. The Investigator is satisfied that SCS has responded appropriately to the information.

5.110

A lot of the issues raised by DH, amount to his disagreement with what Ms Mahjong wrote, rather than them being, fake, inappropriate or prejudicial. Ms Mahjong's approach to the I.A is in line with the Assessment Framework and has been supported by her managers.

5.111

Where Ms Mahjong had missed appointments for whatever reason, she did take steps to let DH know, apologised and rearranged these appointments. There is no evidence that she deliberately tried to upset Heli when sharing the I.A. The information available showed that there is simply a difference in wording between DH's recollection of what was said and Ms Mahjong's recording of the meeting. DH recalls Ms Mahjong said 'she knew it would upset Heli', whereas Ms Mahjong recalls that she said 'the report may be difficult for Heli to take on board.'

5.112

Mr Mahjong and Ms Bonnick called DH and could not gain access. This could be for many reasons, but it is hard to see why they would have to lie about his.

5.113

DH says that Ms Mahjong wrote down things in the report, which she attributed to Heli, but she did not say these. However, Ms Mahjong interviewed Heli on her own so it is not clear how DH could be sure what Heli said to Ms Mahjong. The Investigator also finds that many of the comments Ms Mahjong wrote in her assessment, were similar to that stated by Mr Scott and other professionals in their information to SCS.

5.114

DH raised several concerns about missing information on the I.A form and Ms Brookson accepts this. However, this is a result of the SCS database used by SCS and in some cases, poor recording. The Investigator agrees with DH that the relevant boxes should be completed in order to accurately reflect the work undertaken by Ms Mahjong.

5.115

Ms Mahjong completed the I.A within the statutory timescale and moved to a CA, based on the conclusion of the assessment. The Investigator is satisfied that Ms Mahjong's analysis is in line with the information she gathered as part of her assessment. The I.A document could have been completed in more detail but the Investigator could not see anything to question the conclusion reached by Ms Mahjong.

5.116

Nevertheless, the investigator finds DH's complaints about the lack of information is upheld, but the complaints about the assessment process are not upheld.

On the information available, this complaint is partially upheld

Complaint 2: Core Assessment

The activities that purported to be an investigation were a shambles. If there was a plan, it was abandoned midstream. The behaviour of the social worker involved and the Children Services Directorate was unacceptable. The report was not completed in the statutory time. It did not fulfil statutory regulations. It was based on incomplete information. It abandoned the child's needs because of fear of complaints. It is worse than illegitimate because it is an abdication of responsibility and a crime against the family. The fake report must be removed from the system and suitable reparation made.

5.117

A Core Assessment, using the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families must be completed within a maximum of 35 working days.

5.118

Children's Social Care staff are responsible for the co-ordination and completion of the assessment, drawing upon information provided by partner agencies.

5.119

Any request from another agency for a Core Assessment must be given serious consideration and clear reasons recorded for a refusal.

5.120

Core Assessments commence:

•	When an Initial Assessment recommends that a further complex assessment is required
•	When a Strategy Discussion/Meeting initiates a section 47 Enquiry
•	When new information obtained on an open case indicates a Core Assessment should be undertaken

5.121

A Core Assessment is deemed completed once the assessment has been discussed with the child and family and authorised by the manager. A manager must sign and approve the outcome of a Core Assessment and ensure that:

5.122

There has been direct communication by the Lead Social Worker with the child alone, unless inappropriate to do so on account of the child's wishes or level of understanding and her/his views and wishes have been recorded and taken into account:

•	All the children in the household have been seen and their needs considered
•	The parent/carer has been seen and his/her views and wishes have been recorded and taken into account
•	The analysis has been completed
•	The chronology at the front of the file is up-to-date.

5.123

During the course and upon completion of an Initial and Core Assessment, it will be necessary to decide what services should be provided. The services will be appropriate depending on the needs of the child/children. A Child in Need Plan should be agreed with family and other agencies.

Breach of fair procedures

5.124

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

5.125

On 23.09.10, Ms Mahjong's records state that she agreed to two sessions with Heli and DH. On 24.09.10, Ms Mahjong's supervision notes confirmed that she had arranged to meet with Heli and DH individually.

5.126

On 05.10.10, Ms Mahjong recorded a failed visit. She records that she had a call from DH to say that Heli did not want to go anywhere with her until the I.A report was discussed. Ms Mahjong stated that she tried to assure DH that she would discuss with Heli as part of the session, but DH said that Heli would not leave the house with Ms Mahjong. The records states:

He stated that he required a further joint session with Heli and myself before I can see Heli alone. Another joint session was arranged for 07.10.10.

5.127

On 07.10.10 Ms Mahjong's records state that she received, a call from DH, who said that he would prefer not to conduct the visit for that day at home, because his father was at home. Ms Mahjong invited DH and Heli to come to the office but DH refused. He said he would call back, which he did to say his father was not at home and asked Ms Mahjong to attend the property with Ms Bonnick, as originally planned. Ms Mahjong's records state that she arrived at the property at approximately 14.40 as a result of traffic congestion, after a police incident en route. She states she knocked on the door and tried to gain the occupant's attention until 14.50, when she wrote a note apologising for late attendance and asking for the call to be re-arranged.

5.128

Ms Bonnick confirmed that they were late due to a police incident. She said they did not get an answer to ringing and knocking the door. She said it is a large house with a porch at the front door. She recalled DH saying that they were home, but did not hear the door or anyone knocking. Ms Bonnick said they also looked through the windows. She said she cannot recall if they used their phone to ring him whilst still at the property, or if Ms Mahjong called when they got back to the office.

5.129

On 15.10.10, Ms Mahjong records that she had difficulties getting into the house. On 19.10.10, Ms Mahjong held a session with Heli. On 28.09.10, Ms

Bonnick contacted DH on behalf of Ms Mahjong to inform him that Ms Mahjong would not be able to make the appointment arranged for 30.09.10.

A 'fake' Core Assessment Report

5.130

Having suggested that the Core Assessment Report seemed fake in a letter to Damon Markham on 3 April 2011, I then complained to the Complaints Manager on 18 April 2011 referring to '...what appears to be a hastily concocted document entitled "Core Assessment'. I eventually got a response (only after complaining to the Ombudsman), from Petra Brookson, dated 30 June 2011, going to some lengths to 'prove' the Core Assessment was not a 'fake'.

5.131

On 14.03.11, Mr Markham wrote to DH and enclosed a copy of the Core Assessment. In his response letter dated 03.04.11, DH stated 'it seems clear that what you have done is concocted a fake report to send to me, only after I have indicated the unacceptable state of affairs.'

5.132

In her letter of 30.06.11, Ms Brookson states, the computer system upon which Children's Services records, and specifically Initial and Core Assessments are held, has a facility whereby once assessments have been authorised by a social worker supervisor, they are effectively 'locked' and cannot be amended...It is therefore unclear to me why you have the impression that the assessment was not completed in the mandatory time...confirm to you that the Core Assessment is not as you suggest 'a fake with no legitimacy.'

Core Assessment not completed in the mandatory time

5.133

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

5.134

In response, Ms Brookson states, 'The Core Assessment start date is 15.09.10 and the end date is 02.11.10, with the assessment being authorised on the 03.11.2010. The computer records confirm that Obelix Mahjong completed the Core Assessment on 03.11.10.

5.135

Mr Markham says that when the CA is printed, as he did in March 2011, the date that the CA is printed is the date that is on the form.

No supervisor authorisation on Core Assessment Report

5.136

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

5.137

Mr Markham and Ms Brookson said that when the CA is sent to the family, it is normal practice that there is no signature on the report.

Breach of confidentiality

5.138

Although it was made clear to Heli and myself that the Initial Assessment Report was confidential and for her eyes only, unless expressed permission were given for anyone else to read it; the Core Assessment was sent directly

to me. So, was Obelix lying to get Heli to read the Initial Assessment, or are these reports confidential and Damon Markham was simply acting in breach of confidentiality? My guess is the latter, as he was slightly unclear in his thinking because of his haste to cover their collective tracks of malpractice.

5.139

Ms Brookson said she would have expected, given Heli's age, the CA would have gone to her. She explained that they used a variety of methods to deliver the CA, by hand or by post. If the issues were difficult, i.e. where a person might have needs or it is likely to be upsetting, then Ms Brookson would expect the worker to go make a visit.

5.140

Mr Markham agreed that given Heli's age, she could decide whether the report could be shared with her parents and accepts the complaint that there was a breach of confidentiality. Ms Brookson says that she would have expected the CA report to go to Heli, given her age.

Sources of information not included in the Core Assessment Report

5.141

DH says there is a section to list "Date(s) Child & Family Members are Seen/Interviewed" and there are omissions in this section and there is no mention of any interviews with him. He says Obelix cannot make deliberately derisory comments about me, like I "dominate discussions with particularly derogatory comments about Heli's mother" whilst apparently never having seen or interviewed me.

5.142

Ms Brookson accepts that DH's name should have been included in this section. However, there is no evidence that Ms Mahjong made 'deliberately derogatory comments'. Ms Mahjong had also met with DH as part of her I.A and CA.

Deliberate misrepresentation and misuse of official reports

5.143

DH says that Ms Mahjong referred to the assessment completed by Mr Scott, but she never referred (specifically) to this report or its findings again. He says this is clearly intended to suggest that there is something negative about his caring for Heli.

5.144

The Assessment Framework states, 'from a range of sources (including existing records); and involving and obtaining relevant information from professionals and others in contact with the child and family'.

5.145

There is no information to suggest that Ms Mahjong failed to do this or that her intention was to be negative. Ms Mahjong's quoting of Mr Scotts' I.A is factual, and she adds no further comments or gives judgement on what Mr Scott wrote.

The lie about our reluctance and missed appointments

5.146

On page 2 of the Core Assessment Report, Obelix claims "... although there has been some reluctance, and missed appointments." There was no reluctance at all to comply with the arranged and agreed meetings. Neither Heli nor I missed any appointments.

5.147

The issue of missed appointments is addressed above.

The lie suggesting Heli was lying

5.148

DH says Ms Mahjong claimed in her CA that, "Heli had initially indicated that she would undertake some one-to-one work with the assessor as part of the Core Assessment; however in reality was reluctant to leave the family home." That is not true.

5.149

The only reference to Heli not wanting to leave the home was on 05.10.10, when DH contacted Ms Mahjong to say that Heli was not prepared to go anywhere with her until the discussed the I.A.

No response is being prepared

5.150

On page 2 of the Core Assessment Report, Obelix states "DH has complained about the content of the Initial Assessment and a response is being prepared." A strange statement, given the claim that this report was completed on 2 November 2010, and I did not hear from them again until 22 February 2011, nearly 4 months later.

5.151

See Mr Markham's response below.

Heli is thrown out of school

5.152

On page 3 of the Core Assessment Report, it states "...the relationship between the school and Heli deteriorated, whereby DH decided to remove Heli from Biston High School.". He also complains about the statement made in Ms Mahjong's report when she states, 'He has however admitted that he 'won't pretend I educate her', rather leaving her to her interests of writing and fashion design, rather than taking on any teaching role.

5.153

Mr Scott wrote the 'plain fact that Hellean has not been attending school on a regular basis since October 2008, is of course a valid concerns and not one which I will in any way seek to minimise...The primary reasons for Heli's non school attendance, primarily appears to find their origins in her 'sensitive' character. Mr Scott further wrote:

'if the 'stumbling block' to Heli commencing Biston is that of their refusal to contact Heli'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, given the particular of this case.'

5.154

On 14.09.09, Mr Scotts' records state, 'dad is saying that he intends to educate Heli otherwise...'

5.155

Ms Mahjong wrote that 'DH was advised to home school Heli, although he states that he won't pretend that he educates her...This is a concern, as with no educational qualifications Heli, is unlikely to achieve her full potential.'

Sugar coating is not an acceptable or fair representation of reality

5.156

Ms Mahjong's report states:

"A placement at Biston School was arranged. However Heli's request to be able to contact her father in order to leave school at any given time if she felt distressed, was not felt to be appropriate by staff; therefore subsequently no placement within the school was undertaken."

5.157

DH says this remark by Ms Mahjong is "simply sugar coating the event", in an attempt to cast doubt on me to save her from the difficulty of asserting that the school failed us, through their own illegitimate behaviour.

5.158

On 25.11.08, the Attendance Panel meeting highlighted concerns about attendance. DH said that illness, distress and anxieties were the reason for Heli's non-attendance. The school offered a reintegration package to encourage full-attendance.

5.159

On 07.07.09, a meeting considered the proposed support at BHS and heard:

...initially two mornings per week...DH asked for assurances that Heli could leave 'whenever she wished or contact him by mobile' when she wanted...This request was not agreed and DH and has not accepted support...'

5.160

Mr Scotts stated in his I.A:

Heli, (along with her father), also reported that, ultimately, Biston High School and the Biston Biston School would not agree to their believed quite reasonable request for DH to be contacted at times of his daughter becoming upset and anxious within school - in order for him to immediately then be able to collect her from school.'

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

5.161

The claim that Heli suffered "what is termed a very distressing separation from her mother" first appears on page 5 of the Initial Assessment Report. As explained at length in my letter of 22 October 2010 to Obelix Mahjong, this claim is false.

5.162

The issues about DH's separation from his wife documented elsewhere in this report and SCS's case files. The Investigator is of the view that Ms Mahjong made a professional judgement and her opinion is in line with other professionals who have been involved with Heli.

A telling remark

5.163

Ms Mahjong wrote, "As there is no contact with her mother, Heli has no positive female role models." DH says that this is simply a telling remark. It is not because she has no contact with her mother that she has no positive female role models, but rather simply she has no positive female role models.

5.164

The issues about DH's separation from is wife is discussed elsewhere in this report. The Investigator is of the view that Ms Mahjong made a professional judgement and her opinion is in line with other professionals who have been involved with Heli.

Complexity of negative projection does not legitimise it

5.165

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

5.166

In his letter of 22.10.10, DH states, a lot, if not all, of the remarks attributed to the nurse, or nurses, are prejudicial in nature. Many of them allude directly to some dark undercurrent and many insidiously convey negative interpretation and value judgement...There are three dimensions to the issue of prejudice relating to the report...first the prejudicial remarks...the way the prejudice inherent in the remarks was carried into the report...third the fact that the report is prejudicial in itself.'

Subjective versus objective

5.167

On page 5 of the Core Assessment Report, Obelix states "DH gave a portrayal of Heli where she found it difficult to relate to peers and 'doesn't like to engage with people'. In light of this, I was surprised at how open and eager to speak with me Heli appeared." Given her surprise it is also possible that she had misunderstood me. Given that I didn't say that Heli "doesn't like to engage with people" it is not surprising that Obelix, interpreting what I said as meaning that, was then surprised. Obelix makes a remarkable presumptuous 'objective' interpretation of the world.

College and school attendance

5.168

Obelix states on page 5 of the Core Assessment Report "there is a clear need for Heli to engage in sustained attendance at Biston in college (sic)..." It is unfortunate then that the consequence of Obelix's remarks and behaviour have been to stop Heli from attending college. Obelix goes on to say "The removal of Heli from school..." which is a convenient but misleading way of referring to her ejection from school.

5.169

There is no information to respond to this aspect of DH's complaint.

Emotional Warmth

5.170

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

5.171

The Investigator has reviewed the words of Ms Mahjong and that of Mr Scotts and information provided by the Education Department. The statement Ms Mahjong made was taken from historical information and that provided by other professionals.

Moving to Fraben?

5.172

On page 6 of the Core Assessment Report, Ms Mahjong states, "[Heli] is hopeful that the option of returning to Fraben will increase stability, confidence and happiness in her life." She goes on to say "As DH is not currently in receipt of an income, it will be difficult for the family to move at the present time."

5.173

There is no information to respond to this aspect of the complaint.

Obelix Mahjong's reluctance and missed appointments

5.174

Obelix Mahjong was overtly reluctant to attend certain meetings, to the point of lying and missed three appointments and disregarded a fourth. It is worth noting for the record that Obelix cancelled the meeting arranged for 30 September 2010, Obelix avoided the meeting arranged for Thursday 7 October 2010, (leaving a note which can be clearly proved to be a lie)..

5.175

This has been addressed above, but there is no evidence to suggest that Ms Mahjong lied about he missed appointments.

The amazingly rude termination of an official investigation

5.176

This subject is described in part under the headings "A 'fake' Core Assessment Report.", "Core Assessment not completed in the mandatory time." and "Obelix Mahjong's reluctance and missed appointments." On 19 October 2010, Obelix Mahjong tried to avoid arranging the next meeting by saying she was too busy. Eventually, she reluctantly agreed to have the penultimate scheduled meeting when I offered to attend her office, if that would help.

5.177

This has been address above and the information available shows that Ms Mahjong did not prematurely terminate the CA, as DH believed.

Conclusion

5.178

Many of the issues DH raised about the CA, in terms of incomplete sections, is, as with the I.A, a result of the ICS system, and this is accepted by SCS.

5.179

DH complains that the CA was a fake, but failed to provide any information to support this claim. The Investigator finds no information to support DH's complaint. 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 Social Care.

5.180

The CA was completed within the statutory timescale, but unfortunately, again a technical problem with the ICS, meant that when it was printed, the date on the form was the date that the CA was printed. Similarly, the issue of lack of

managers' authorisation and signature, appears to be SCS practice. The Investigator found that this is across the Department and not just related to DH. However, the Investigator is of the opinion that this is not good practice and the CA should be signed and authorised by the managers when sending the CA to families.

5.181

There was a breach of confidentiality in that the form should have been sent to Heli and this is accepted by Mr Markham.

5.182

During the course of the Core Assessment, there were missed appointments and the Investigator is satisfied that Ms Mahjong acted appropriately by leaving a message for DH and rearranging another appointment. There is no evidence that Ms Mahjong lied about the reason for the missed appointments.

This complaint is partially upheld

Complaint 3: Complaints Procedure

5.183

Information explaining the Complaints Procedure was not provided at the correct time; statutory guidelines were ignored. Several letters of complaint were ignored. Responses did not address the issues raised. There is a clear intention to avoid addressing the complaints.

5.184

Case records support DH that he had written several letters, between 06.10.10 and 07.02.11, raising his concerns about the I.A and CA.

5.185

Mr Markham said that he was aware of the complaints from the first letter and confirmed that this response as delayed. However, he said that he could not recall a good reason for the delay, other than priority issues. He said that when DH responded to his letter, he sent him the CA. Mr Markham said that he could not recall if he passed the complaint to Ms Brookson or if DH wrote to her directly.

5.186

Ms Brookson said that she responded to the second complaint and Mr Markham dealt with the complaint about the social worker. She accepted that she was slow in responding. Ms Brookson said that she responded to DH's further complaint. She said that she kept her response deliberately brief.

Conclusion

5.187

DH's complaint was not responded to within the statutory timescale, and there appears to be no justifiable reason for this other that work priorities. However, the Investigator finds that, this is a statutory requirement and SCS managers should have responded to DH's complaint with a higher degree of urgency. The purpose of the timescale in recognition of the distress that complaints can cause on service users, and in this case, the level of DHs' anxieties was exacerbated, by the failure to respond to his complaints.

This complaint is upheld.

Desired Outcome

As an outcome to his complaints, DH states:

The Children's Services Directorate in Biston are clearly 'not fit for purpose'. At some point, this matter will have to be responsibly addressed. The family have suffered serious consequences as a result of the torrent of abuse perpetrated by the Children's Services and corrective action must be initiated.

The Investigator has found that there were problems with the ICS system and poor recording, resulting in sections on the form not being completed. However, there is no evidence that DH and his family has suffered a 'torrent of abuse perpetrated by Children Services.'

This is no longer only about the specific case, but must be investigated with respect to the general mode of operation of the Children's Services in Biston.

The investigator has found that the issues with the ICS are across SCS, because all staff used the same system. However, there is no evidence of a widespread failing across Children's Services in Biston.

DH would like a full investigation into his complaints and a meeting with a senior manager following the outcome of the investigation.

The Investigator has carried out as full an investigation as possible. It would have been better getting Ms Mahjong's views, but unfortunately, she has since left the Department.

6	Recommendations

6.1

The Investigator recommends:

•	that SCS give consideration to a manger meeting with DH to discuss the failing outlined in this Report. SCS should provide DH with a written apology for the failings identified, especially the missing information on the form and the failure to deal with his complaints, in line with the Complaints Procedure.
•	SCS review the ICS database and social work practice, given the issues raised in the Report about the ICS.
•	when staff fail to get access to a property, that, wherever possible, they call the service user's telephone to ensure that occupants are out and not that they simply did not hear the bell or knocking.
•	that all I.A and CA's being sent to service users are signed and authorised by the relevant manger, or, at a minimum, that the covering letter confirms when the assessment was completed.

Mark Hughes

Independent Investigator

Previous Document

Main Index

Next Document