In an article written for the Mail Online in November 2015 a "Judge blasts Social Workers for LYING under oath and doctoring a report". This is an article which could have literally been taken from my brothers' life and the lives of his children.
- Original report of parents' assessment provided 'positives' and 'negatives'
- Judge Mark Horton said there was a 'deliberate and calculated' change
- He said changes improved the case for removing children from family
- Workers at Hampshire council wanted the children to stay in foster care
Social
workers lied on under oath and doctored a report as part of an attempted
'cover-up' which favoured five children being taken away from their
parents.
Judge
Mark Horton said there had been a 'deliberate and calculated'
alteration to the dossier and changes had been made by a social worker
and a team manager.
Alterations
of the report, which was an assessment of the children's parents, had
completely changed its tenor and improved the case for removing the
children from their parents.
In
a family court hearing in Portsmouth, Judge Horton said: 'It is
exceptional to find a case in which there has been deliberate and
calculated alteration of a report prepared by one social worker in order
to make that assessment seem less favourable, by another social worker
and the team manager; the withholding of the original report when it was
ordered to be disclosed and the parties to the alterations lying on
oath one of them twice, in order to try to cover up the existence of the
original report.'
The
original report of the parents, who cannot be named for legal reasons,
had contained 'positives and negatives' and had been balanced.
Proceedings
started more than two years ago and the children, aged between three
and 16, are currently living with foster parents as part of an interim
agreement.
Social
workers for Hampshire County Council wanted them to stay in foster care
but their parents wanted them returned to their care.
But despite
Judge Horton saying the children should stay within the care of the
council and approving fostering plans put forward by staff, he was
critical of the way the case had been handled.
He said: 'A final decision is long overdue,' said Judge Horton.
'The reasons for the delay have been almost exclusively, the actions of employees of the applicant local authority.'
He went on to say that he had never came across a case like this before.
He said
given the 'enormity' of what staff had done and the fact 'they still
work as social workers' it was right that they should be named so that
members of the public were aware of 'their shortcomings in this case'.
The
judge indicated that some staff had left Hampshire council and moved on
to other jobs since the case involving the five children had started.
Social worker Sarah Walker Smart had 'lied twice to me on oath', said the judge.
He said he had been told that she had been promoted to a 'team manager' in Hampshire council.
Kim
Goode had been Sarah Walker Smart's manager and 'was the person who
initiated the wholesale alteration of the original report and who
attempted to keep the truth from the parties and me', said the judge.
He said she had gone on to become 'district manager for the Isle of Wight'.
Lisa Humphreys had been Kim Goode's manager, said the judge.
'Her evidence was deeply unimpressive,' he added.
'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.'
He said she had gone on to become assistant director of children's social care with Lambeth Borough Council.
Judge
Horton said he had concluded that at one stage the children had been
illegally removed from their parents' care - and that a 'fair parenting
assessment' had not been carried out.
He said a number of concerns had been raised about the way the children were being looked after by their parents.
The judge said the parents loved their children - and their children loved them.
But
despite the quality of those relationships, the parents had 'difficulty
parenting the children to the required minimum standard', he said.
The
court heard that both parents had experienced 'very difficult
childhoods', had an underlying 'chronic' mistrust of professionals and
did not want to 'inflict on their children the experiences they
themselves had as children', which had led them to failing to provide
effective boundaries for the children, according to the judge.
He
said this then led to appalling neglect of the older children's
educational, emotional and social development and neglect of all of the
children's health needs.
___________________________________
So why weren't the Social Workers reprimanded? Suspended? Stripped of their qualification and registration? Why were they not jailed?
Name Kim Julie Goode
Registration number SW72283
Location Gosport
Status Registered
Registered from 01/12/2014
Registered until 01/12/2016
Name Lisa Jane Humphreys
Registration number SW79215
Location London
Status Registered
Registered from 01/12/2014
Registered until 01/12/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment