You are not BU to be shocked, oscar, but high profile cases (of which this is not one) that have served to shine a light on the inadequacies of some social workers, managers, and directors, have done nothing to stop the abuse of process which blights many Children's and Adult Services departments.
The judge in this particular case has taken the unusual step of making his judgement public on condition that "the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved" in order to draw attention to the lies and shortcomings of those three social workers who were originally involved in the case.
In the judge's words "Those people are referred to and named in my December judgment but given the enormity of what they did and the fact they still work as social workers it is right that I should name them again so that practitioners and members of the public coming across them are aware of their shortcomings in this case ".
"Sarah Walker Smart the children's Social Worker lied twice to me on oath. I was told during this hearing that she has been promoted to Team Manager within this authority"*.
"Kim Goode, Sarah Walker Smart's then Manager, was the person who initiated the wholesale alteration of the original report and who attempted to keep the truth from the parties and me. At the time of the last hearing she was District Manager for the Isle of Wight. I was told during this hearing that she is still in post".
"Lisa Humphreys was Kim Goode's Manager. Her evidence was deeply unimpressive. She made a 'hollow' apology to the parents during her evidence; she regarded a social worker lying on oath as "foolish" and she failed to accept any personal responsibility for what had gone on under her management. At the date of the last hearing she was Assistant Director of Children's Social Care with Lambeth Borough Council".
The judge made the observation that "The parents' view of events are highly coloured by their own perspectives and emotions and are not reliable" and it seems to me that he could have equally made the same observation of the social workers he has publicly named and shamed.
If the parents came to believe that they were being set up to fail by the dishonourable conduct of these three social work practitioners, their apparent mistrust and hostility towards subsequent practitioners appointed by the same local authority who have attempted to work with them over the past year becomes understandable.
It should be noted that the parents and children in this case have outstanding damages claims for breaches under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and it's to be hoped that they will obtain justice during these proceedings.
Judges in the Family Courts are frequently called on to exercise the wisdom of Solomon, but while these courts continue to be shrouded in secrecy abuses of process and of power will continue unabated.
*Hampshire County Council