This is a post by Sarah Phillimore
The fact that this is number seven in a series of posts about the dangerous debasement of public discussion about the family justice system and issues of child protection, should be a clue that I think we are in a very parlous state indeed.
What makes this particular post different from the other six however is the response of the author whose views I criticised – Barbara Hewson. That response – in the space of about 12 hours – was to make a complaint to my Chambers, threaten to complain about me to the Bar Standards Board and send me numerous aggressive tweets in the small hours of Friday morning.
EDIT 30th May – apparently Ms Hewson is now contemplating action for defamation and has requested that anyone who retweeted this post ‘unretweet it’. Given that my explicit assertion – she talks dangerous nonsense – is true in my honest opinion, it will not be merely my duty but my pleasure to defend this post in open court.
This is worrying on a number of levels, not simply because Ms Hewson feels it is appropriate to deal with dissent in such an aggressive way, all the while proclaiming her status as ‘victim’ in the face of my vicious harassment i.e. my refusal to accept everything she said as true. The delicious irony of that will not be lost on anyone familiar with Ms Hewson’s work in debunking false allegations of sexual abuse and pouring scorn on those who would play the ‘victim card’.
But it is more worrying than simply being annoying for me, because it confirms and underscores what I have long suspected – those with the loudest voices in the ‘debate’ about the Evil Secret Corrupt Family Court have no real interest in promoting reform and change. They gain their validation and some excitement from being those who ‘expose’ the corruption and who ‘speak truth to power’. To sit down and calmly discuss what we could actually do to make the system work better is of no interest to them at all – because its not remotely sexy or exciting, just extremely necessary.
The family courts make a mockery of justice?
Anyway. Assuming my website isn’t suddenly taken down after further complaints from Ms Hewson, here is my discussion of her recent post ‘the family courts make a mockery of justice’ which appeared in Spiked On-line on May 25th 2016.
We are off to a blistering start in the first paragraph:
The UK Department for Education last week published research into rates of reporting child abuse. Feminists claimed that the fact that a third of those interviewed said they would not report suspicions of abuse amounted to ‘victim-blaming’.
The Department of Education does NOT cover the ‘UK’ and Ms Hewson is unable to identify the myraid ‘feminists’ who spoke of victim blaming but it seems that she is actually referring to Isabelle Trowler – who may well be a feminist (I have no idea and can’t see the relevance either way) but who is more usefully identified as the Chief Social Worker for England.
Maybe it gets better. Let’s read on.
A ruling from the Court of Appeal on 19 May in a family case shows just how skewed the system has become when dealing with accusations of abuse. The case is called Re E (a child) and it makes depressing reading.
First lets be clear. She is absolutely right that E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473 makes for extremely depressing reading. There is no doubt that the case was extremely poorly managed and crucial principles ignored or misunderstood. The police interviews of the children were badly handled and the court did not give sufficient thought to whether or not the children should be cross examined. The allegations of abuse they had made and which were found proved at first instance were overturned by the Court of Appeal.
The reasons for the appeal succeeding were summarised at para 98 of the judgment:
- The judgment wholly fails to acknowledge and then analyse the numerous and substantial deviations from good or acceptable practice which are evident at every stage of the police interaction with the three complainant children, both during the ABE interviews and by undertaking the ‘fast-track’ interviews thereafter.
- The application for the police officer to be called to give oral evidence should not have been refused (unless, on investigation, it was impossible to call the officer at any stage and on any basis during the hearing).
- The judge’s analysis of the children’s evidence is open to the valid criticisms made in support of the appeal. In particular the judge’s approach to, and use of, the inconsistencies within the evidence of the three children fell well short of what was required.
- The judicial analysis of the formal and properly presented Re W application made by the appellant was so wholly inadequate and, in effect, simply was not undertaken. This, of itself, is an error of sufficient materiality to justify setting the fact finding decision aside.
- A’s right under ECHR, Article 6 to a fair trial and his right to the protection of legal professional privilege were breached to a substantial degree.
- The judge’s analysis of the evidence of what A had said, together with his presentation, when being invited to address sexual matters was both confused and inadequate. There is a real risk that every aspect of what is recorded by the social worker, guardian and key worker in October, November and December 2015 relates entirely to his complaint of abuse by two uncles five years earlier. The potential for that to be the case was not taken into account by the judge and, in any event, the judge wrongly conflated evidence about that past abuse with the entirely separate recent allegations at a number of stages in her judgment.
So no doubt that case was FUBAR. I have written myself about other instances of similar woeful failings. It’s not – sadly – a unique case.
But is Ms Hewson right to extrapolate from that and conclude that because one case was royally screwed, the entire system must therefore be rotten and that family courts routinely pay no regard to the law? She says
This approach ignored a Supreme Court ruling from 2010, Re W, where the Supreme Court said that the question of whether a child should give evidence should be approached on a case-by-case basis. A blanket prohibition on children giving evidence was incompatible with the right to a fair trial. Baroness Hale stressed that focused questions, which put forward a different explanation for certain events, ‘may help the court to do justice between the parties’. That ruling went unheeded by the family courts.
This is remarkable, suggesting that the family courts operate a separate system of legal rules unaffected by fundamental legal principles, such as the right to a fair trial and the supremacy of judgements of the Supreme Court (the doctrine of legal precedent). It is perhaps not surprising that many ordinary people view the family courts as inherently unfair.
It was gently suggested to Ms Hewson on Twitter by those of us who do have experience in the family courts and are able to point to examples of good practice, that it is just not true to say that the entire family court system simply turns it back on the Supreme Court and ignores legal principles wholesale.
Ms Hewson’s response was to rely upon her 12 years of experience (which later expanded to 31 years) as all the evidence she needed that the system was rotten to the core and the fault was the ‘corruption and collusion’ of family lawyers.
This is clearly nonsense. As Napoleon said – never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. That some cases go wrong does not mean one is entitled to conclude that the entire system is rotten and all the lawyers in it just collusive stooges.
And this nonsense matters, not merely because it is a barrister saying it. This nonsense takes root, infects people’s ability to understand and engage with the court process and provides a vicious cycle of withdrawal, lack of trust and disastrous consequences for the proper management of family cases.
This whole episode has been sad for me. I did at one time admire Ms Hewson, I thought her often brave and funny. She has said things that needed to be said. She is right to be wholly critical of what went wrong in the case of E (A Child). But her reaction to even the gentlest of criticism has demonstrated again and horribly clearly just how debased our current discussion about the family justice system really is.
And if she wants to keep on tweeting me in the early hours of the morning, she needs to realise that I also know how to take a screen shot.
And thus the ever more woeful 'debate' about family justice system lurches on. We all deserve better than this. pic.twitter.com/wHABEGhfpt
— Sarah Phillimore (@SVPhillimore) May 26, 2016
Hi Sarah,
I say this as someone who has the utmost respect for your views and what you are trying to achieve. You were writing just a few weeks ago about the need for empathy. You certainly gave me hope with your stated aims and objectives regarding your forthcoming conference. I thought what you said was worth hearing, even though you kept slagging off someone who’d helped me (Ian Josephs) And yet all the while on twitter you carry on with your flaming of Hemming etc which is highly provocative. From the look of your tweets, you let yourself get provoked, but you really provoke others as well. You work in a highly adversarial environment – it may be normal for you to trade insults with others in this way. I don’t know the extent to which this is a game to you – or if not a game then a contest in which you thrive on sparring – but not everyone reading your tweets is a fellow “player in the game of child protection”. You’ve got to remember that it’s not just going to be members of your profession or social workers who will read your tweets. I’m sorry, but I don’t like to see you gloating over a John Hemming “meltdown”. It might be entertaining to people who share your worldview, but it sure as hell will lose you supporters, and if you alienate them, you alienate them from listening to what you’ve got to say.
Rather than just condemning papers like the Daily Mail etc, why don’t you do an interview with them? Can’t you see how frightened people are? Why don’t you start demonstrating your empathy, and start showing more awareness that people who don’t agree with you about the reasons for failures in the system are not necessarily bad people? Twitter is a populist disaster, and while shredding the less legally able with your logic and your “being right” may give you a feeling of victory, I can’t see how it’s going to help you make the child protection system fit for purpose.
And now, for the FIRST TIME EVER on my blog I have just deleted two comments that I wrote.
I feel sick and disgusted with myself. I swore I would never do that.
But you have commented under the post about this malignant idiot who is planning on suing me and I suddenly doubted the courage of my own convictions about whether I should let my original comments stand.
I find your comments deeply enraging and upsetting, not least because you have chosen to comment here.
You may view my activities on social media with distaste – but the way I conduct myself on social media is something that I am privileged to be FREE TO DO AS LONG AS I DONT BREAK THE LAW.
Freedom of speech is a fundamentally important human right for a reason. And you chose to make your criticisms here. Well, well, well.
I could rant on for paragraphs about what I do unpaid and unrecognised – well, I just did and I deleted it. But its never enough is it? I am only of value if I never challenge your own shibboleths – that Ian Josephs is a good kind man who helped you.
Open your eyes. Just open your eyes and your mind. You cannot possibly believe that, knowing what he does and who he hurts. If you do believe it, I can’t help you. Given that you appear to be seriously suggesting I partake in an interview with the Daily Mail I suspect that the gulf between you and I may be too wide to ever bridge. You appear to be an intelligent and educated man – can you seriously look at what the Mail does and think they would EVER be interested in responsible, accurate reporting about the CP system?
What I will certainly NOT do NOT EVER – for you or the fragrant Ms Hewson – is change the way I chose to exercise my freedom of speech.
If you find my activities unhelpful you are very welcome not to engage with me. I would particularly ask you NOT to come onto my site, particularly under THIS post and start criticising how I chose to conduct myself on social media.
Look Sarah, I’m very sorry. I definitely didn’t mean to cause offence. I haven’t been on here for quite a while, but when I looked up a previous thread you were telling people it was closed and on no account should anyone write on it – so I didn’t. It’s not always clear when you expect there to be a debate and when you don’t. Apologies again.
Its entirely clear when I expect there to be a debate. Which is pretty much always. That was the one time I closed down a comments thread because it was simply making me tired.
It had ceased being a ‘debate’ after about 200 comments in. There is only so much going round and round in circles I can take.
And that I can fully appreciate. I hope you can accept it is insensitivity rather than malice on my part.
Hi Sarah,
I certainly wasn’t suggesting you should change anything to make me feel better, and I’m sorry if that’s how you interpreted what I was saying. Of course no one is forcing me to engage or read. I’m surprised that you want to let off steam on social media, and I can’t see what good it could possibly do you.
When you say the Daily Mail is “shockingly dishonest” it disturbs me that you are willing to be so categorical, you, a person who claims that in however many years of your work you have never known a social worker to deliberately lie in court. Yet you are happy to call a paper dishonest in a global way. I’m not remotely standing up for the paper that I barely ever read, but millions of people do read it, and you surely see that you need to move your dialogue out of a quite small clique of people who have your worldview and speak your language. I was using the DM as an example that’s all.
Would I rather you pretended not to be angry and frustrated? If other people get angry or frustrated you would tell them to step away, wouldn’t you? I appreciate that these people really wind you up and provoke you, but seriously can you imagine what would happen to parents who talked about social workers the way people like you and this B Hewson talk about each other?
Sigh. I am ‘categorical’ about the Daily Mail because I have evidence gathered over years and years about their dishonesty. I have made formal complaints about the journalist Sue Reid – to no avail. I am entitled to be ‘categorical’ when the evidence is so overwhelming.
What would you have me do? blush prettily and say ‘gosh! I just can’t make up my mind about the Daily Mail!’
If people get angry and frustrated, yes I tell them to step away. That’s healthy. But sadly for me I don’t just get to ‘step away’ from being sued.
But again – what would you have me do? Cry? Hide? Never engage on social media again? Why on earth should I? I enjoy my time on social media, its introduced me to many people I would never have met, people who are actually interested in constructive change not simply promoting their own agenda and getting what appears to be a massively inflated sense of self importance that simply cannot bear ridicule or challenge.
I find your comment about parents talking about social workers the way I talk to Barbara Hewson really odd. I read every day very many comments from parents using the vilest language against social workers and threatening to harm them. On a few occasions I have had to contact the administrators of various Facebook groups to say that if they didn’t take down certain posts I would have to call the police.
Where do you say I have descended to that in any of my on line engagements? I don’t threaten to rape or kill people. I don’t attack people for their appearance, religion or sexuality. I do however say in the loudest and strongest terms when I think their opinions are dangerous and stupid.
And I will continue to do so, unless and until a rather higher authority than either you or Hewson tells me to stop.
Fair enough.
I don’t read any comments from parents against social workers, so I wouldn’t know. I guess I was just basing it on the fact that I’d never personally verbally attack a social worker – it was a pretty silly conflation of things on my part.
I certainly didn’t mean that you descended to threatening people. Comments like “malignant idiot” do surprise me though. If someone had it in for me the extent to which this person appears to have it in for you, I don’t think I’d want to diss them online. You’re far too fair a person to descend to the type of abuse you thought I was meaning.
‘malignant idiot’ is diplomatic.
I am not trying to make out I am some noble crusader for freedom – I appreciate that this is no more than a ‘spat’.
But she emailed everyone who retweeted that post and threatened them with legal costs if they didn’t ‘unretweet it’. o and btw she refused to explain exactly what was defamatory about it.
That is pretty malignant in my book.
Interestingly she has not contacted ME and asked me to take this blog post down – which you would think, if you genuinely felt you were being defamed, would be your first port of call.
this is how we lose our freedoms – little by little, bit by bit they chisel away. You tell me to tone it down, don’t provoke, don’t upset… you can see where that ends up can’t you? Its a dangerous path that slopes o so gently into Hell.
Malignant idiot is diplomatic; I’m trying to imagine you when you’re not diplomatic. (Although this sounds like your sense of humour speaking.)
She’s probably too scared to contact you herself.
http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/01/twitter-shock-barristers-triple-c-bomb/
I’m sure you’ve seen this, but amusing nevertheless.
Indeed. I indulged in a little light googling myself about Ms Hewson’s on line presence. I can see over the years that the kindest things she has been called are ‘psychopath’ and ‘rape apologist’. I note those articles are still available and their authors go unsued.
And yet I tell her she is talking nonsense (which she is) and she runs crying to her ‘media lawyer’ ?
Most odd and strange. For an avowed proponent of freedom of speech to be acting in this way is revolting.
I don’t like bullies and I especially don’t like hypocrites. It would seem she is both.
And why I am making such a fuss? Because, as anyone with half a brain cell who spent more than 5 seconds on this site would see, I happen to think that the family justice system is very important; far too important to allow discussion about it to be hijacked by idiots with an agenda.
These exchanges on twitter are sometimes online shouting matches and fights ,aren’t they?
Personally , i don’t go on twitter because it seems some use it without thinking what they are saying. They are just instant responses. Not helpful and i’m sure many people instantly regret some of the things they say.
I would think terms like ‘anyone with half a brain cell’ could be written as awhabc by twitter users. It is so well-used. I ration my use of words like ‘hypocryte’ and ‘idiot’ the latter of which will particularly upset the Irish,in my experience.
If a think a word necessary, however, i will use it without any qualms. E.g. many SW’s are no better than cretins by human standards. Apologies to good ones .
That’s why I wish to take the ‘dialogue’ off twitter and into longer more reasoned argument. Of course it is impossible to debate anything seriously in 140 characters and of course it often degenerates into a shouting match.
I clearly am not posting anything here as an ‘instant response’ , save of course to my angry comments to Jason which I did regret and did delete.
I would have welcomed attempts by Ms Hewson to explain to me why she thinks this blog post is defamatory. I would certainly consider reasonable amendments or offer her a right to reply if she was genuinely upset by what I have written.
Rather than contact me directly, she has sent threatening emails to a number of people who simply retweeted a blog post that they did not consider defamatory; she has not even the courtesy to explain why she thinks it is. But I suspect from her chunterings on line she takes issue with my use of the word ‘numerous’ to describe the aggressive tweets she sent me in the early hours of Friday morning.
I am quite happy to clarify here that she sent me five tweets between 20 past midnight and 2am. I considered them to be unpleasant, threatening and aggressive. And I have screen shots – I suspect she has now deleted them as this appears to be how she operates.
I retract my earlier comment that I agreed this was just a ‘spat’. I consider this a serious attack on my freedom of speech, being conducted in an underhand and malicious way, which requires my firmest response.
You could sue her then Sarah. Or at least publish all of the screenshots and ask her to clarify.
Angelo – I’ve never written a tweet – but if I did, it would be about certain social workers, not about lawyers. Twitter is the very reverse of what I’d want anyhow, because successful tweets end up publicising the author more than the subject.
OF COURSE I won’t sue her. But if she ever tries the tweeting at 2am option again I would be very tempted to consider some action regarding harassment.
She has an absolute right – as do I – to express an opinion which is honestly held.
I am quite sure she honestly believes the absolute tosh she sometimes speaks.
But if she puts it out there, she has to expect comment and challenge. To try to shut me up in this way, without the courage or decency to communicate with me directly like a reasonable human being is pretty pitiful.
Jason, Looking at what i think is a ‘screen-shot’. it says that the Family Court makes a mockery of Justice. It then says this happens because of collusion/incompetence of Family Lawyers.The comment appears to be credited to one Barbara Hewson.
Am i an idiot to agree with her except possibly with the word ‘collusion’ ? Family lawyers unashamedly admit to a conflict of interests between their duties to a client, the child and to the court ( one which is difficult to balance).
This does not mean ,by any stretch, that i agree with the woman generally or that i agree with her agenda, her tweets ( i don’t follow twitter).
The Family Court certainly makes a mockery ( a travesty) of justice, in my opinion it is not a real court in the conventional sense , a view i tried to open up to discussion on the CPR Human Rights thread.
I think Ms Hewson should make her claims not on twitter but in a more suitable way.If she is not a Family lawyer herself then parents will finf her opinion on Family Courts interesting.
Hi Angelo: yes I do think the care system in general makes a mockery of justice. I don’t think it’s because of the incompetence or collusion of family lawyers. It is predominantly because there is generally limited accountability for local authority social workers. I don’t follow twitter either – that way madness lies.
I think you are right about that. I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that it is the lack of transparency and lack of accountability that is so corrosive.
You are also – sadly – right about Twitter.
You cannot get away from the fact that the final decisions are taken in Court and when miscarriages of justice occur then the justice system , the Family Court and its protocol are ultimately responsible.
Lawyers are too prone to turn a blind eye to LA transgressions .It is the Court which should bring the LA to account not parents. It’s obvious that none of the SW’s are able to bring the LA to account;they have to do as they are told.
Transparency is crucial. It would enable robust research into the system and make sure families can have confidence in either order, both are important. I want people to see what is going on, we all should be able to see that, without it being a public court (as some people have mentioned mainly not here). It is perfectly possible to do so without breaching anyone’s confidentiality and there must be relatively few cases where jigsaw ID prevents publication of judgement?
I’m locked on Twitter, there were awful threats and abuse when I wasn’t. I should’ve sued someone. Mainly I was just worried I would respond in a way that would make things worse for me. People who abuse SW aren’t likely to respect my anonymity! It isn’t ideal, if you don’t follow me you can’t see my tweets so I am twittering into a void at times. But it has enabled me to ‘meet’ a huge number of people I would not have otherwise. I think all online forums are absolutely rubbish about taking anything down or taking action, & I don’t mean curtailing free speech. It took CEOPs years to get a button on FB.
I am sorry that you had to lock your Twitter account – but I can quite understand why!
I agree that the arguments against transparency do not seem particularly well thought through and are more a knee jerk response. I agree there MUST be a middle ground between secrecy and absolute openness and this is necessary to prevent children routinely being identified (as possibly victims of really serious and harmful behaviour).
Sarah, In my opinion ( as a parent) when discussing transparency, we have to discuss the basics.
It is wrong that ‘the best interests of children’ is cited as the reason why complete transparency and family court hearings totally open to the Public is not allowed.
Parents should have the right to identify themselves and their children if they so choose ,indeed the law should be altered to make the identification of children and all involved compulsory and all hearings should be open to full Public scrutiny ( including documentary evidence).
I
I agree with you SAVE THAT I profoundly disagree that children should be routinely identified. Some of these cases involve really serious and distressing allegations – such as sexual abuse.
It is simply wrong to have these details published on line or in newspapers for all to read and to link them to an actual child. It isn’t necessary and it certainly isn’t fair to that child. I think children’s identities should only be revealed if those children have sufficient understanding to request it.
Hi Sarah, transparency and accountability are indeed laudable, and it is a responsible combination of the two that is surely a big part of the solution to failings in the CP system?
I don’t think children should be identified – and on the whole identifying parents would identify children so I don’t think that should usually happen, either. If children want to speak out then they should be permitted, but I would like to think that they could be legally advised before they did so; they may suffer later from the publicity.
Professionals at work in the CP system should be accountable, and there should be no restrictions on naming anyone who has committed acts of misconduct in public office. The depressing blanket of tax-payer-funded security that guarantees virtually all morally corrupt or criminal employees a smooth passage out of their LA and into pensionhood should end.
Angelo, you are right about a lot but it sounds as if you are putting too much of the blame on faulty management; there are those on the frontline who abuse their power too, and they too should be held accountable. The risible excuse that a social worker cannot be named because it would identify a child must no longer be used.
Helen, locking twitter is an excellent compromise. I appreciate that from your point of view greater transparency would give you the opportunity to show you have nothing to hide. It is incredibly frustrating when discretion forbids you from displaying your own personal integrity, and that I do know. However, at one stage you mention “the illusion that there is something to hide”. I am hoping that you mean that it is an illusion in your particular case. I can assure you that in some LA’s there is PLENTY to hide; in one instance I have depressing first hand familiarity with this, but it is apparent to anyone who follows the news that authorities often do have something to hide.
Jason, I think we have to accept Helen’s honest view that not all SW’s are dysfunctional and dishonest. I accept it completely.
Most of their problems are down to bad management and bad training and that is often reported by Ofsted as the cause of mistakes.
Concerning transparency, we have to consider that historically when serious human rights contraventions occur ( and miscarriages of justice) that it is best for the perpetrators that hearings are held in secrecy. That is how inhumanity is helped along. Thus , the point about identifying children,whilst it has some sense because it protects them against bullying etc, may be more harmful in the long run than naming them.
Do the Authorities just use it as an excuse? If i had been abused as a child by either my parents or by care professionals ,i would not be averse to my name being used if that would facilitate justice. Also, if i had not been abused , i would like an open and fully public hearing.
We have to choose between the best of two evils,in my opinion in the respect of identification.
At the time when proceedings are ongoing, all members of the Public and all professionals involved with the child ought to be able to know about it ,go to court if they wish and be allowed to put testament forward.
I am talking about serious cases not private law or minor cases.
Hi Angelo,
I do accept Helen’s honest view. Why would you think I don’t? I fully accept that there are local authorities that are getting things right and doing things properly. Sadly my local authority is not one of these though, and the misconduct is definitely not just at the managerial level. Also one form of management misconduct is covering up for front line misconduct, as well as covering up for cock-ups at higher levels. Yes, managers are ultimately responsible and i guess they are paid to “carry the can” but there are individuals operating in the system (maybe only a few but they do shedloads of damage) who are able to capitalise on the lack of transparency and lack of individual accountability. I am not talking about forgetting to do a visit or forgetting to sign a document etc. I am talking about deliberate misconduct. So I think we’re talking about slightly different types of things – although yes, there is sometimes bad management and poor or insufficient training.
When it comes to children being named – I couldn’t disagree with you more! I’m not reassured by your (hopefully hypothetical) assertion that you would be willing to sacrifice your anonymity if you had been abused as a child. I most certainly would not. It’s just plain wrong – we’ve seen adults crack online when they’re trying to discuss a wrongful case that was made against them.
Can you imagine what it could do to a child to be named in public? The effects are entirely unknown, and the risk most definitely one not worth taking. There have got to be far more responsible ways of improving transparency than that.
I agree with Sarah except that I don’t think children should ever be identified or their parents, and jigsaw ID is a complex area. I’d not agree with children giving consent, even adult victims have regretted the way they can be re-traumatised by waiving anonymity in rape cases, once the information is out, there is no control over the way it is used, abused or covered in the media.
I don’t think any family court should be public, and whilst you can view that as someone in SW trying to conceal if you want to, my personal view is based on exposing very sensitive issues to the public gaze. I wouldn’t want that if it was me and I don’t want it for the families I work with who are generally very vulnerable.
Transparency is possible without show and tell.
Jason, i agree with a lot of what Sarah and your goodself say about the identification of children.
If someone could come up with a workable compromise ,i would hope i can agree to it. However, something radical needs to be changed which is why i have reverted to basics.
Regarding parents cracking up on this forum during discussions; that is as much due to their being unable to name themselves and enlist the support of friends and professionals who matter during and after proceedings as anything else.Due to their being forbidden to show false documentation etc. to others and inability to prove it false. Also to the massive inhumanity ( stress,torture and degradation) to which they are victim. They want matters to be in the open.
Impression probably would have been a better word Jason, in so far as it gives the impression that there is something to hide whether there is or not.
In my opinion , when discussing transparency,readers should consider carefully that harm done to a helpless child if a court decides wrongly ( or rightly) to remove him or her from natural family for life far exceeds any which can potentially be suffered by the child as a result of identification in the press or online.
In my opinion, that is an inescapable fact!
Three other points:
1.The younger the child, the less likely is damage by identification.
2.If a child is persecuted,victimised ( bullied) by others then it will be possible to protect him or her by evasive and preventative measures.
3. How can any interested member of the Public , interested professional involved with the child or any other potential witness go to court and follow proceedings,offer testament etc. if they don’t know the names of the children involved or the reasons why? No-one is likely to go to a court to watch a case which is not only anonymous but is not publicised. That,i suppose is why the press rarely bother attending now despite the right having been granted a couple of years ago.
Let us be absolutely realistic and discuss the real problems of secrecy! Think more radically.
A SW’s view.
QUOTE: I don’t think any family court should be public, and whilst you can view that as someone in SW trying to conceal if you want to, my personal view is based on exposing very sensitive issues to the public gaze. I wouldn’t want that if it was me and I don’t want it for the families I work with who are generally very vulnerable : UNQUOTE
A parent’s view.
The only SENSITIVE ones involved in these cases are the Authorities whose sole interest is to conceal their own malpractice. It is a pretence they are humane and worried about sensitive families and children.
If we were to worry about the sensitivity of the accused and victims,why would we not make all court proceedings ( criminal and civil) private ones? Because on principle they must be in public and justice must be seen to be done.
Please return to fundamentals,lawyers!
Please note Angelo that was my PERSONAL view. Just as human being.
Helen,thanks for your comment. As a human being,i understand completely how damaging it can be for children to have names out in Public and i, too, want it to be avoided . However nothing can be allowed to compromise justice ,for which reason i think lawyers ( who set court protocol) should return to the basics. They should look at what is the norm in respect of criminal cases ( totally open) and work from that as a starting point. Rather than look at the flawed model which we have in the Family Court at present and work backwards.
At #CPcon2016 , many of the participants ( including the learned Judge who attended and spoke) were quite clear they wanted transparency but very concerned that the project had become ‘stuck’.
A fresh approach is required and perhaps the new one i have suggested here might work better is all i am saying.
The Judge’s final sentence was ‘Not only must justice be done,it must be seen to be done’.
As a SW however Angelo, I know a lot of children whose history is very abusive in both sexual & physical ways, and for whom it is bad enough that the many professionals involved in their lives have that much information about them. Public courts would expose them which is a painful thought, there is non reason for anyone to know anything about them unless they choose to share it. Those children would like people to talk to them without knowing that stuff.
It is all very well your points of view , Helen , other reasonable SW’s and even Sarah but the one thing none of you appear to accept or address is the point made by Jason very well in his last comment and which so many other parents and children testify to and that is the need to cut out open abuse of the system. Deliberate dishonesty ,inhumanity to families ,cruelty to children etc.etc. Cases sent into cloud-cuckoo land by false evidence. False statements made under oath knowingly is one of the worst crimes and it occurs regularly,i’m afraid.
It is too easy for well-meaning SW’s and lawyers to fall into the trap over over-familiarity and ‘cosy relationships’ with moderate professionals and when aligning themselves with making plans for progress and improving the system, establishing support systems and so on ,they tend to forget the biggest and most important problem of all. So do some parents; it is easy to forget this fundamental problem. These miscarriages of justice do not happen by mistake and hearings completely open to the Public should be the norm if possible. It is up to the Court to stop the abuses and call the offenders to book.
Some LA’s have illegitimate aims and actively work against helping families.For whatever reason, they prefer to part families permanently. Most of you appear to turn your backs on those who allege it. The offenders won’t even go to a CPR conference and the LA’s might even tell them not to.
Hence,i think the protocol should allow for Public hearings. No-one is charged with anything when all said and done. Perhaps any details of a case which might be harmful to a child if revealed in the papers could be made subject to ad hoc orders as the case proceeds but the names of children,parents and all the professionals should be publicised and cases should be heard in Public as in a Crown Court .
“the names of children,parents and all the professionals should be publicised and cases should be heard in Public as in a Crown Court .”
I think that would not be the answer – obviously. It isn’t that Jason’s point isn’t addressed, just that I don’t think this is the way to do it.
I presume you mean Dr Lauren Devine’s research, which I am aware of. I also understand the assessment process, it is a strengths/risk assessment which determines where a family/case sits. It could be child protection, child in need, nothing, or indeed determine if there is a need to issue proceedings.
Following that assessment, children may be placed in a CP plan, CiN plan, or the case could be in court. But, children don’t stay on plans for ever and they also don’t go to court, so what do you think it is that enables families to come off a plan and for care proceedings not to be issued?
My response would be referrals to various forms of support in the community, as well as universal services, and sometimes specialist services. So pretty much exactly what you are saying. There are services which don’t require LA funding, and SW use those, there just aren’t many services full stop now.
There are also a number of services which rely on the LA to make a contribution to their running costs to be sustained, this includes large national charities which run local projects/programmes. I can’t access a service from a particular charity at the moment because my LA isn’t funding it or commissioning their service.
It absolutely is the role of SW to support families and to help them access services, as well as build strengths, rather than remove children. I am also absolutely sure I don’t inhabit the only LA where this happens. If it doesn’t happen, it is absolutely right an proper that a lawyer should be asking a SW what they have done to help a family. I’d expect that to happen before reaching a court and I’d expect it to be my solicitor asking me.
That should say on a plan & don’t all go to court – the all being important.
“SW’s are able to bring the LA to account;they have to do as they are told.”
They do as they are told by whom?
A quick answer. Management!
The same authority which sacks whistle-blowers. The same people who restrict the free-speech of SW’s and expects their views to be presented by the BASW . The same bureaucrats who deter SW’s and foster-carers from taking part in public conferences.
Also the same ,invisible bureaucrats who are able to inject untruth and libel into computer databases and train unwary SW’s to use the computer as an oracle to form the basis of an evidential base to be relied on in Court. The same management which pleads austerity and prevents SW’s from performiong their support functions properly in accordance with the law.
Not being able to speak publicly without representation is something I personally find unhelpful because it adds to the illusion that there is something to hide. That the government didn’t support the evolution of a College that might have been more representative of SW was frustrating.
Databases themselves are not unreliable sources of information, more information got lost on paper files. & as I have said endlessly, it just gives family history/background, it is shared with families so it is checked with them. I accept that mistakes are made but that is because humans are involved and they are fallible.
Austerity and cuts mean are not being pleaded, they are real, statutory responsibilities are about all an LA can touch.
Helen, In my humble opinion,following on from recent publicity and discussion about the film which won an award last week, the false concept of austerity is being put forward by the Government and the LA’s as an excuse to contravene the Human Rights of citizens ( not only in this country). Not enough Courts and not enough funds to provide support etc.
They plead ‘austerity ‘ as a ‘pressing social need ‘ in the ‘Public interest’ when it is not. It is being used to withdraw our rights.
‘Pressing social need ‘ in the ‘Public interest’ was used by the IRON LADY in the eighties when she dishonestly referred to trades unions as ‘the enemy within’. She overrode consensual politics and instituted many changes to the law very hastily by the use of ’emergency ‘ procedures as though there were a war on.
Similarly, Mr.Blair stands accused by some as being dishonest when he took us into war claiming that it was in the ‘Public interest’ owing to Saddam’s nuclear capabilities. I am no expert, but some do say that.
In 30 years time,will we be looking back and saying the same about Mr. Cameron and his austerity?
Services are cut to the bone Angelo and that means there is v little support for families except what is statutory. Austerity measures and cuts to public services are government policy. This is a government that does not like public servants as much as Thatcher didn’t like the unions. Your notion that is false is incorrect; it is very deliberate and leads us towards the privatization of children’s services including child protection.
“That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.”
Noam Chomsky
Helen, I agree that austerity policies affect all ,that isn’t a false concept but i think the whole idea that enforced austerity is necessary in the Public interest is wrong and one that is imposed on us for ulterior motives. As it is not refined to this country, it is possible that our politicians don’t really believe it either. Is it being forced upon us all by international bankers etc? I don’t know much about world politics. We just don’t know. However, i believe that nothing ( not even so-called austerity) should be given a higher priority than human rights and justice.
It was absolutely clear at #CPCon 2016 that the participants ( particularly the SW’s attending) share your concerns about funding support etc.
All appeared to ask the lawyers present quite near the end ” What can be done to stop the Government imposing the continual cuts?
As i have said before, the buck stops with the lawyers and i believe they do have the power to make orders which oppose the Government’s ideas of what is p.c. if the policies flout children’s human rights.
“All appeared to ask the lawyers present quite near the end ” What can be done to stop the Government imposing the continual cuts?” I was there and didn’t hear this?
Of course,appearances aren’t everything so ,naturally, i bow to you and your impressions, Helen.
No bowing necessary Angelo, just interested to know what made you think you had heard that. If you did I missed it.
He was talking about this year’s conference I thought – which you didn’t attend? I certainly recall a lot of comments along the lines Angelo suggests.
Ok, I was assuming last year’s as thought Angelo said he wasn’t attending this year. Interested to know what lawyers can do about cuts then?
Helen, the question was asked near the end and when it was , there was a rising murmour of interest and ‘hear,hear,’ attitude amongst all those present. All wanted an answer to the question which was ‘What can we do?’. Not ‘what can lawyers do’ but ‘what can we all do’ meaning CP professionals as a group.
As it was at the end ,the question was not discussed fully but the Doctor of Law put a suggestion forward which may interest you. (Earlier on she had presented her own research statistics which proved that risk assessments and safety assessments were not a valid indicator of the likelihood of future abuse).
The Doctor pointed out that when there is a referral,that SW’s are expected to conduct a ‘risk assessment’ in relation to establishing whether or not the family qualify for the requested support . Unless a child is thought by the SW to be at risk, then the LA will not finance support.
The risk and safety assessment IS NOT one which is meant to establish ‘facts’ on which court proceedings are to be brought. Such assessments are not facts at all to be put into a factual matrix just an assessment of the risks. The implications are that SW’s should change their attitudes , that if a child is at risk, it is within their own gift to look at support available and help provide it not to waste resources on Court proceedings etc.
The point was also made that there are forms of community support which do not rely on LA funding which SW’s should make it their task to consider.
It is the task of SW’s to dig families out of potential difficulties not to make things worse.
Hope this helps.
Helen,
QUOTE: Following that assessment, children may be placed in a CP plan, CiN plan, or the case could be in court: UNQUOTE
According to the Doctor of Law, a risk assessment is not to be used as an assessment of whether a case should be in court. It is an unreliable indicator . Risk and the potential for future significant harm is to be considered to qualify a family to support services only.Maybe ,just maybe you misunderstand.
Indeed ,there were other suggestions made earlier. One was that the CS should review its whole ‘raison d’etre’ and rename itself ( possibly regrouped under new management) as Family Support Services or something similar. Less emphasis on child-protection and more on family support as a way of rescuing children from harm.
Social Workers, to be helpful at all, should not condemn parents and pull the child alone out of a hole. Nor should they simply tell them there is a rope available to pull themselves out.
They have to jump down into a hole with families( if they are in one) and work with them.
Something has gone wrong here.Helen’s reply to my last but one comment seems to be in a ‘different place’ and i am not quite sure where.
“It could be child protection, child in need, nothing, or indeed determine if there is a need to issue proceedings.” You missed out nothing, following that assessment there could be no involvement.
I also used the term strengths/risk assessment, it is an assessment of risks and protective factors, strengths and worries so to speak.
Most LAs have family support teams as well as child protection teams, the child protection teams tend to be those who have higher risk cases so take them to court if they need to, but they also move them to support teams. For example, my LA has 2 tiers of support teams for every 1 child protection team. I would agree that it would be a good idea to rename child protection to a safety planning type team, because this what it does, plan safety until there either is enough or not enough.
I agree that SW should jump in the hole, but there is a limit to that when a decision needs to be made about whether this family can effect change that is ‘good enough’ for those children. I can’t give you a case example but there are cases of long term neglect that we see coming back to CP repeatedly and the impact of that upon children is profoundly damaging.
The emphasis on this blog is CP that reaches court, not all families do, in fact most don’t. So my question to you was how do you think that is happening? My response was that it was in exactly the way Lauren discusses. I’ve been in touch with Dr Devine since last year’s conference on an off and hope to attend her symposium.
Thank you very much for your comment,Helen, which is interesting as usual.
Well, when and if families request support from the C.S. or if school or a doctor makes a referral, I don’t think it helpful to turn the family down on account of there being no risk to a child assessed. Matters may get worse and the family will be deterred from requesting CS involvement a second time.
Helen, I reiterate risk assessments and safety assessments are not a reliable indicator of the possibility of future abuse or neglect. SW’s should make their judgments following an impartial investigation of the facts not on an ‘assessment’ of risks and protective factors. It is a flawed policy. If there are cases of long-term neglect then they should be dealt with on facts too, not suspicions, risk factors and the SW’s desire to protect children. Primarily ,the SW is there to provide support to a family.
The emphasis is to keep children at home with their natural parents because it is best for children. If the immediate safety of a child or if child abuse is very dire and beyond the pale, only then should parting families be considered. When it is ,in my opinion, it should only be temporary with an eye on rehabilitation home eventually ( but that’s a different argument).
You ask how I think this is happening. Helen, I’m sorry to be contrary, but I know for a fact it is happening all the time (but not in your area, I trust). Only this morning I am in touch with a Mum who has several times requested support for her child who is suspected of having ASD.
Behavioural difficulties are causing the child to have ‘meltdowns’ and to self-harm which leads to bruises. It has been reported to the GP who made a referral to a specialist which is in July. The child was registered as a child-in-need but no support was offered by the CS. Last Friday, all of a sudden ,the CS turned up on the doorstep and ‘forced’ the parents to sign an S20. Both were arrested on ‘suspicion’ of a.b.h. and bailed pending ‘ further enquiries. It is claimed that there is no explanation for the bruises by the SW. Apparently, someone is alleging that the child (with learning difficulties) has accused her Mum and Dad. No expert opinion has been sought and the facts indicate that the parents have been doing their level best to stop the self-abusive behaviour. Lots of witnesses have seen it .
Now I know you will say you will not comment on cases without knowing everything but perhaps you will comment generally. The family are not inventing a narrative BTW.
Also , this episode follows a long history of malpractice on the part of the CS department concerned.i
Angelo, I can’t possibly comment. I have no idea what information there is about the family. The police don’t generally arrest anyone unless they have some evidence and children with learning difficulties can communicate, neither means the parents did commit a crime but they are not good reasons to say they didn’t.
Do you think the only families supported by CS are those where there are a risk? Child in need plans are not about risk, they are about services and support, sometimes that does mean signposting to other agencies or making referrals. Families are assessed on current circumstances and you do know that an assessment is about more than risk? It is also about need. Neglect was an example I mentioned because it tends to improve when CS are involved and then deteriorate when they are not involved, if you would like on-going involvement to make life ok for those children, you don’t need a SW you need a home help.
My LA do not offer support to woman , as far as they are concerned not matter how intense your child’s needs are it’s woman’s work. Nor do they offer short breaks AT ALL. However if you are male they will support you so you can go out to work. I am not making this up.
I have told you the facts , Helen, but despite them the SW clearly thinks that the ‘risk’ to the children involved pending a full investigation is too great to allow them to remain home. Therefore the decision has been made on risk assessment not after a full and impartial investigation of the facts.
As a result , the parents were ‘pressurised’ to sign an S20 and the children ‘s lives interfered with out of all proportion to the circumstances of the case. The children have had their world turned upside down and will both suffer tremendous emotional disturbance because of the over-zealous , unlawful actions of a social worker who does not know her job and who has exceeded her powers.Also the parents will suffer mental torture.
Not only that, if as threatened, family court proceedings are brought against the family , it faces a travesty of justice in a court not open to the Public ,they won’t be able to tell anyone or request supporting evidence from other professionals. The LA will be able to present any ‘assessments’ and ‘evidence’ it wishes without having necessarily followed the guidelines for making the assessments and achieving evidence correctly. I am sure i have no need to tell readers that the parents were not present when the special needs child was ‘interviewed’.
British Justice,eh? Doesn’t it make us all so proud?
Parents being arrested for assaulting a child would be a S47 enquiry, not quite sure how you work out this is the SW not knowing their role.
The screen shots are on my iPad and I am too much of a luddite/can’t be arsed to work out how to post them here.
But here is the type of thing she was saying at 2am:
@SVPhillimore – if you haven’t learned some manners by the weekend, I am happy for enlightened others to educate you
Why is Bristol barrister @SVPhillimore making this bitchy commentary on summat she has nowt to do with? @legalcheek
She then sent 2 further screenshots to @legalcheek.
Here is what she was saying at 12.22am
Sarah, if you don’t stop I will ask your professional colleagues to become involved and review your Twiiter ‘strategy’ OK
Bizarrely she had already carried out that threat much earlier in the day, so I am not sure what she thought the impact of this would be.
I am clearly entitled to think she is an idiot, on this evidence alone.
Maybe London barristers don’t take well to criticism from their provincial colleagues. They feel superior. It doesn’t matter where a lawyer lives or practices they have an equal right to comment .They have the same qualifications,i think.
Bristol,Nottingham,Leeds, Winkley Square or Tiggy-Winky Square, all of them are just as good as London.
I was a London barrister for 20 years.
this is nothing to do with being in London.
I read this in the newspaper today.
A Labour MP has said ‘Twitter is dead’ after trolls sent her 600 messages about raping her in one night. The abuse against Jess Phillips appears to have started when she replied to a user who said: ‘I wouldn’t even rape you’.Ms Phillips tweeted on Monday: ‘To see the attack of a pack on here check out myu 600 notifications talking about my rape in one night.I think Twitter is dead.’ The MP for Birmingham ,Yardley told the BBC sahe thought the ‘ringleaders’ sahould face civil or legal action and added that unless Twitter can stop the abuse ‘ their business model is totally flawed’.
I think sadly that I agree with her after what I experienced last night. Such a shame. It’s been such a useful way of disseminating knowledge but as ever, those who want to bully and intimidate others take up all the air time.
Pingback: A bitter Twitter battle yields important lessons | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH
Hi Sarah,
The best of luck with the conference tomorrow. I hope it goes well.
Thanks Jason.
I know you don’t do Twitter – yet more evidence of your sagacity – but hopefully we will be putting up some recordings of discussions and other stuff online which I hope you will find interesting.
Phew – is this Ms Hewson REALLY a barrister. I suppose I have to believe that she is – but phrases like “on summat she has nowt to do with” raise doubts in my mind. Have you considered Sarah that the woman may be somewhat unhinged, because that’s how it looks to me. It isn’t the action of a sane, reasonable person.
Helen – Always good to read your posts that are spot on and the government’s intent on pushing the privatisation agenda with all public services. I suppose you’ve read that a Trust is going to take over Birmingham City Council’s Directorate for children, young people and their families. I have not heard any mention of who this Trust is but I haven’t heard the news for a few days, but saw nothing in Wednesday’s Guardian. It doesn’t really matter who it is does it, because what is lacking is experienced social workers and competent and experienced managers, both sadly lacking in BCC. I did some work for them 7 years ago on a freelance basis and service delivery was at rock bottom then, with social worker staggering under workloads of 30 cases.
Sorry I digress a little. Sarah it’s 2.35 a.m. but I’m not sending you nasty tweets. I can’t sleep but need to get away from this screen, but before I do so, can I say that this Hewson woman is no match for you – not at all. And I am in awe of your determination to expose the likes of Hemming and Josephs, over so many years, laudable, to say the least. So hope the conference goes well on Friday, and l look forward to reading about it in due course.
Thanks Kate, just returned from a post conference curry and it was an interesting day with a lot of things to think about. I will be writing a summary of the day soon and hopefully something a bit more in depth later on. It was interesting to hear about mediation in child protection work, which i had never encountered or thought of before.
THE ‘DEVIL’ IS IN THE DETAIL
QUOTE: can you seriously look at what the Mail does and think they would EVER be interested in responsible, accurate reporting about the CP system? UNQUOTE ———————————————————————— Ditto the CS about child-protection
QUOTE: I agree with you SAVE THAT I profoundly disagree that children should be routinely identified. Some of these cases involve really serious and distressing allegations – such as sexual abuse: UNQUOTE.
QUOTE : It is simply wrong to have these details published on line or in newspapers for all to read and to link them to an actual child. It isn’t necessary and it certainly isn’t fair to that child. I think children’s identities should only be revealed if those children have sufficient understanding to request it: UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: The depressing blanket of tax-payer-funded security that guarantees virtually all morally corrupt or criminal employees a smooth passage out of their LA and into pensionhood should end : UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: The risible excuse that a social worker cannot be named because it would identify a child must no longer be used: UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: I know a lot of children whose history is very abusive in both sexual & physical ways, and for whom it is bad enough that the many professionals involved in their lives have that much information about them. Public courts would expose them which is a painful thought, there is non reason for anyone to know anything about them unless they choose to share it. Those children would like people to talk to them without knowing that stuff: UNQUOTE—————————————————————————————————————— It only assists the perpetrators of abuse when the Public are not informed which children have been subjected to abuse .I guess it also helps if the children are not told they have been abused or allowed to identify themselves,the perpetrators and talk to people about it. They can’t do it without the people knowing about stuff. Especially in the case of institutional abuse.
QUOTE: Not being able to speak publicly without representation is something I personally find unhelpful because it adds to the illusion that there is something to hide: UNQUOTE—————————————————————————————————————————- Or the illusion that there is nothing to hide?
QUOTE: Databases themselves are not unreliable sources of information, more information got lost on paper files. & as I have said endlessly, it just gives family history/background; it is shared with families so it is checked with them. I accept that mistakes are made but that is because humans are involved and they are fallible: UNQUOTE. ——————————————————————————————————————— It is not shared with families or checked with them before presentation to decision-makers in many cases.
QUOTE: Most LAs have family support teams as well as child protection teams, the child protection teams tend to be those who have higher risk cases so take them to court if they need to, but they also move them to support teams. For example, my LA has 2 tiers of support teams for every 1 child protection team. I would agree that it would be a good idea to rename child protection to a safety planning type team, because this is what it does, plan safety until there either is enough or not enough: UNQUOTE
QUOTE: if you would like on-going involvement to make life ok for those children, you don’t need a SW you need a home help: UNQUOTE————————————————————————— This is a fundamental cause of misunderstanding and injustice. Often individuals and agencies should make their own safety assessments and refer families directly to support services. They believe wrongly that the CS refers them to support services which they do in some cases. As Sam once said, what do the CS actually do? Often they get their ‘risk’ assessment wrong and either don’t bother arranging support or jump straight into proceedings if the ‘risk’ seems to justify it. Yet the lawyer’s say risk is not a reliable of future abuse. Should we abolish the CS and re-employ the staff as support workers?
Correction: the lawyers say risk is not a reliable INDICATOR of future abuse