Head of the General Social Care Council sacked - catalogue of failings by the watchdog.

[EldonAve]

Social workers governing body allowed SWs to carry on working despite serious complaints

Heroin-addicted social worker struck off over cover-up of own child's abuse

I am not arguing that parents involved in care proceedings should be able to consult their MPs - I don't have strong feelings either way - I am pointing out that on the one hand JH and others say that parents are threatened with contempt of court if they consult MPs and on the other hand he claims to run a support group for parents caught up in care proceedings and who are according to him subject to a miscarriage of justice. He can't have it both ways - IF it is the case that parents can't consult MPs, how is it that he is involved in so many cases of parents consulting him over miscarriage of justice. Has that clarified the issue?

I am however arguing that MPs should not be given direct access to confidential documentation concerning children at the heart of care proceedings. It is wholly right that these proceedings are confidential and MPs are ordinary mortals and should be treated as such.

Parents involved in care proceedings are "party to the proceedings" and as such will receive all the documentation concerned with the case of their child. This documentation is confidential as they are court documents and should not be disclosed to anyone. All other parties to the proceedings (those connected to the case) will also receive all the documentation. All these papers are put together and referred to as the court bundle and used in court in the proceedings.

Can I ask what you and others think is the purpose of MPs (or indeed anyone else not connected with the case) having access to all of these documents when they are not able to intervene in the court proceedings? Again and at the risk of repeating myself, parents have LAWYERS who obviously have access to the documentation and can use the reports in their defence of parents, and believe me they "fight the corner" of the parents with great vigour and determination. Anyone professional who presents a report to court in care proceedings can expect to be cross examined by the solicitor for the parents for 3/4 hours sometimes. I am NOT arguing that this is wrong - it is wholly right because the parents must be given a fair chance to defend themselves and question those (via their lawyer) who have made allegations against them.

I don't honestly know why I keep bothering with these explanation because some of you on here have more invested in believing you are right than learning about how the system works in reality.

MPs may be ordinary mortals but they have a job to do, and that job is to assist their constituents as much as represent them in parliament. The privileges accorded to MPs under the law are for us the constituents, not for the MPs who would no doubt be profoundly grateful in some ways if their case work was lessened.

That's why it was so shocking that that firm of bolshy solicitors tried to prevent reporting of an Early Day Motion about their client dumping toxic waste on a developing nation. The people affected were using the MP and parliamentary privilege to have their plight made public. There was a legal case going on, but clearly a multinational corporation can afford the most expensive lawyers and endless amounts of time from those lawyers, unlike a few hundred sick or bereaved people in a developing country.

My local MP, for instance, took up the case of that poor baby who was denied formula milk for 36 hours at a notorious immigration detention centre. Even though it wasn't his constituency. Because it bothered me, his constituent (something I came across on MN, as it happens). He didn't just write to the Home Office, he took up my objections when I pointed out their account was untruthful. Plenty of other people contacted their MPs and the immigration service were forced to apologise and promise to allow other babies milk (although who knows whether it has actually made a difference for other families).

Preventing MPs from having access to the details of a constituent's complaint would stop them doing their job - it's essentially an attack on our democratic rights, not the MPs'.

NanaNina Mon 30-Nov-09 21:07:59
"I am pointing out that on the one hand JH and others say that parents are threatened with contempt of court if they consult MPs and on the other hand he claims to run a support group for parents caught up in care proceedings and who are according to him subject to a miscarriage of justice. He can't have it both ways - IF it is the case that parents can't consult MPs, how is it that he is involved in so many cases of parents consulting him over miscarriage of justice. Has that clarified the issue?"

Could be two possible explanations, couldn't there? Either that those particular parents have not been threatened with contempt of court, or that they are taking the risk of committing contempt of court?

"Again and at the risk of repeating myself, parents have LAWYERS who obviously have access to the documentation and can use the reports in their defence of parents, and believe me they "fight the corner" of the parents with great vigour and determination."

But wasn't Edam's point about parents not being allowed to change solicitor if the one they have is not doing his job properly? Surely we are not arguing thatall solicitors (unlike all doctors, or all SWs) are perfect? (I've met some naff ones in my day).

Firstly, parents are often told things that are not true. Prior to 2005 it was a complex issue relating to the law of parliament as to whether a parent could talk to an MP. The law changed in 2005.

Even after that Jim Dobbin MP had a constituent who was told by a judge not to talk to him.

Since April 2009 it has been very clear in law that parents can talk to MPs.

The problem in changing solicitor is normally to do with the Legal Service Commission who resist transferring the legal aid certificate.

Many solicitors are also subject to a conflict of interest because the parents are introduced to them by the local authority.

Underlying all of this there is a problem in law evidenced by this recent judgment:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1210.html

Para 10 says in essence that the case is about deciding what is best for the child and parents have no right to have an independent assessment of their ability to care for a child.

In essence this mother has a case where the only opinion that counts since 2008 is that of the local authority and its employees. I have seen some of the assessments which are frankly laughable.

Now that is quoting from a court of appeal judgment demonstrating that the system is inherently unfair to parents. The deck is stacked against them.

the whole issue of confidentiality is a difficult one though isn't it?

As a lawyer, I must admit that it goes against the grain that the family courts are sealed. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

And yet...at the heart of these cases are children. And surely their suffering ought not to enter the public domain? Surely they have a right to privacy beyond the small confines of the court?

I'm torn...if you haven't guessed.

But Litchick, in what way is a constituent consulting their MP in confidence (too many Cs there) breaching the child's confidentiality?

Parents must be able to talk to their MPs and in order for their MPs to help, they must have access to the papers and full details of the case.

Otherwise we are saying that once SS become involved, you lose all your democratic rights. Would be very strange indeed if parents are the one group in society who are not allowed to talk to their own MPs.

And parents must be able to act on behalf of their own children. Anything else has echoes of authoritarian regimes such as East Germany.

that's what happens under Jack Straw's new system, Stewie - the judge can control what is and isn't reported.

And the courts and media manage perfectly well in rape cases. Don't see why it's suddenly impossible when it comes to child protection.

But the current rules don't allow the media to name the parents or give an address or do anything that would identify the child. Seems to be working OK so far (although of course we don't know about any cases that haven't been reported).

The point is that there is actually not really so much a need to identify anyone as to explain what the decision-making process is.

Tim Yeo in his speech was not prevented from naming the family concerned. However, he decided not to name them.

Cases where the authorities say "mum needs therapy, but it will take too long for the child" don't raise any real challenges for the children.

I accept that if a child is a victim of sexual abuse that the child's interests would warrant keeping the child's identity secret. HOwever, that is only a minority of the cases.

The secrecy protects the practitioners more than the children (I include the lawyers in this).

JH I'm just not sure about that.

Where a Mum is say a drug addict and has been prostituting herself and needs to go into rehab, I would still say the child has a right for that part of their life to be kept confidential.
Do we really want the media poring over the details?
As a young adult, would you really want to read about those details of your life in the Daily Mail, or hear discussions about it on Five Live?

And as for the lawyers, well I know in JH's world they're all part of some pro-social services conspiracy to steal children, but between me you and the gate post, they'd woud actually benefit from the publicity .

Message withdrawn

litchick my argument is that there are some cases where no anonymity is needed. Obviously there are also some where anonymity is needed. The main concern is not to identify people in such cases.

OH NO Dilemma - of course social workers aren't ordinary mortals. Everyone knows that they are incompetent amateurs who love nothing better than either leaving children to be murdered by their parents, just for the hell of it, OR snatching children from decent parents and getting them adopted, just to meet adoption targets. Nothing ordinary about that is there.

I know what you're saying JH but my concern would not only be for others to recognise the child but also the child itself. Imagine a young person hearing discussions with Nicky Cambell et al and thinking 'that's me they're talking about.'
It makes me shudder.

But maybe you guys are right and it should happen for the sake of openess. My own discomfort is irrelevent here, as it should be.

I also do trully believe that if proceedings were open, it would show once and for all that the decisions taken are well thought out and tha judges certainly do not rubber stamp what the LA want ( except in those cases where the parents don't even show up, which is not as rare as you might think.

The average care case takes twice as long and costs twice as much as a murder trial. There are on average four lawyers present, often more.

I can hand on heart say that in all my years my main concern was not that social services were wrongly seeking to remove children but that they had not taken steps sooner.
That's not to say I agreed always with the care plan. I didn't. And vociferously so.
But the two issues are seperate.

Glad to hear it Litchick, but then no-one has any idea how many cases are potential miscarriages of justice. Hopefully it is very rare, so rare that there might be many lawyers who never see such a case. (Akin to most GPs never seeing a patient with MS or meningitis.)

Doesn't mean it never happens - given human beings are not perfect, no system run by us will ever be perfect. That's why there are avenues of appeal in the criminal and civil courts.

Sadly in the family courts, where miscarriages of justice have been identified, it is always ruled that it is too late for any redress as the children have been adopted. I don't know what can be done about that. Maybe we should look at how other countries handle it?