Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
"Haringey council tried to crush our family"
THIS morning's Telegraph newspaper carries an article – three quarters of page 21 – titled Haringey council tried to crush our family, about the circumstances behind last month's unprecedented High Court case, the judgement for which is attached.
Tags for Forum Posts: 47, CYPS, Children, Council, Haringey, Section, Services
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I SEE the above Telegraph article was picked up by Mum's Net in the UK and Fathers & Families in the United States.
-
-
"Admit you illegally harassed us, couple tell Baby P council"
Here is today's London Evening Standard article on the AB & CD case.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
People who've been following the AB CD case may want to view part of the webcast of the Children & Young People's Scrutiny Panel 16 July 2013, which had an update on Haringey Council's action following the case. Here's the linkThe relevant section of the meeting is one hour 32 minutes into the webcast (Move the slider bar to 01:32). This agenda item continues until 01:58. I suggest you may want to pay particular attention to the comments of Ms Libby Blake, Director of Children & Young People's Services; and towards the end, Cllr David Browne's questions and the answers he got.I viewed the webcast several times - in case I'd misheard. Because it couldn't quite believe what I was hearing. Afterwards, to check whether I'd misremembered the High Court judgement, I read it again. It's downloadable here.Personally I found viewing the webcast quite disturbing. I may be mistaken but Ms Blake appeared to be at least partly saying that it was the High Court judge - not Haringey - who had got it wrong. You can make up your own mind by viewing this portion of the webcast; and comparing it with the Court judgement.(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Thank you for posting this link Alan, it is extremely helpful.
I was flabbergasted to hear some of the answers provided by Children's Service Officers to councillors on the CYPS Scrutiny Panel.
I was particularly impressed with the questions of former Mayor David Browne; the questions of Cllr. Bull, significantly less impressed with.
The view of CYPS officers Blake and Wheeler are at least consistent: the CYPS intended to Appeal against the judge's decision; they didn't agree with the High Court judge then, or now, despite a letter of apology; the intention is to minimise the judgement in all respects (unlawfulness is now recast as mere "criticism"); the judge's decision is held at a discount to the interpreted opinion of the CYPS's Queens Counsel, for whose opinion in turn, of course, the CYPS pays money out of taxes.The lawlessness continues, unabated and unashamed. It is shocking that this vital, sensitive service appears in certain important respects, to be out of control.
-
Permalink Reply by doug on
-
So the Council receive 600 referrals a month of which between 10 and 15 a week start a section 47 investigation. So I make it that about 10% of referrals start a section 47.
The section 47 investigation regarding AB CD was instigated because they 'shouted at their child, and were allegedly seen to drag him/her by the arm' - an act that I am pretty sure just about every parent in Haringey will admit to at some point. I am confused as to what the nature of the 90% of the referrals that don't start a section 47 could consist of - seen giving a strange sideways glance to a child?
The fact that people involved in this case at the highest level fail to see any wrong doing should be a very major concern for every parent in this borough. How these people can still turn up for work every day is beyond me.
-
-
At 1:34:30 on the video tape of the meeting, which is of the childrens and young people's scrutiny panel, from 16th July produced by Haringey Council Webcasting, which Cllr Stanton linked to on his twitter account yesterday: a lady says this:
" I would want to assert the right of head of services to quality assure work in teams in the way that this head of services did".
Cllr Stanton: are you saying that the above quote implies something; and if so what does it imply?
At 1:50 on the tape someone says: "judges are judges aren't they". I am unsure what this implies.
-
-
If you want me to take you seriously as someone trying to understand and come to grips with a complex issue, then you're welcome to email me and say who you are and what issues you're concerned with.
Otherwise I'll continue to assume you're a person - or perhaps a small group of people - playing games.
-
-
Doug: yes, that 10% figure came up in Court as evidence of how rare it is to go to a Section 47 investigation. And yet, the CYPS jumped to this very serious level, on the strength of an anonymous letter, alleging arm-pulling and shouting.
If this kind of evidence were truly the agency's threshold for enquiry (which I actually don't believe, see below), then practically every parent in the country would be eligible for a Section 47 Investigation, a fact they would have to declare for some job applications.
Why then, did CYPS leap to a Section 47, in spite of the evidence they had obtained from GP and school that wholly contradicted the anonymous letter? (and this evidence itself, obtained unlawfully, as was decided by the Court).
Casual observers might wonder, why on earth did they do this and sense there is missing information.
I believe the real reason was that AB – who is expert in this very field of child protection – had the audacity and temerity to spell out to CYPS officials, in terms, where they were going wrong. Answering back (as few people in her situation could do) was intolerable for the CYPS and she would therefore feel the full weight and power of these officials: a Section 47 Child Protection Enquiry, with potentially life-changing repercussions.
In my opinion, this was an abuse of power; in the vernacular, an action motivated by sheer bloody-mindedness.
AB's reaction – quoted in the Telegraph article – is that the council tried to crush her family.
CYPS officers heard in the video: Director (Libby Blake) and Assistant Director (Marion Wheeler) continue to defend this disgraceful position.
(the CYPS later accepted that the anonymous letter was malicious. There is more to come out about this case. The council's defence of AB's High Court action was not about maintaining fine legal principles: it was about the reputation of the managers.)
-
-
To be fair, Assistant Director Marion Wheeler had little opportunity to speak in this part of the meeting. But the brief comments she gave seemed reasonably helpful and clear to me.
What I missed from Ms Blake's answers - especially to Cllr David Browne's direct and pointed questions - was any indication that she had thought about her possible responses and made an effort to make them plain and transparent so councillors on the Scrutiny Panel got the maximum help in understanding the issues; and the actions the Department was taking.
In my view, bearing in mind that this was a public forum and broadcast on the web, it was also vital to consider families "out there" who had read or heard about the case and may be feeling worried and even frightened. I regret to say that watching this panel meeting, nothing I heard from Ms Blake seemed likely to allay such fears.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
It's not only about future unlawful conduct, which as you suggest, shows little sign of abating. The review of past cases – for possible unlawful conduct – will be limited to a sample that is a small fraction of Section 47 investigations.
Given that the CYPS doesn't agree with the judge anyway and appears to regard the judge's "criticism" as unfair, how much confidence can be had in any review for even this limited "sample"?
This is justice, CYPS-style.
-
-
Clive, for the record, I did not "suggest" any "future unlawful conduct". Please let's stick carefully to the facts and what we know, rather than speculate or predict the future.
Nor am I making sweeping judgements about the whole of Haringey Children and Young People's Service (CYPS).
What happened in the AB CD case is appalling. And I find it very disturbing that the Director of Children and Young People's Service (CYPS) - sitting at a public committee scrutiny with the "cabinet" councillor responsible - makes statements which appear to dispute or cast doubt on part of the Court's judgement. While appearing to show little insight into the significance of this particular case and the feelings and fears it may provoke in local families.
Based on the evidence, you are justified in pointing out the failings of particular staff. (And of particular councillors involved.) But please let's not use this to condemn an entire Department. As I've argued before, such blanket criticism produces a vicious circle - making it ever harder to retain and recruit high quality staff; and to build experienced and committed teams.
If you don't believe me, you know AB and CD, please ask them. What we need now is a virtuous circle.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Alan let us not mince words: this department has a bad reputation.
You can dismiss this as speculation but it makes no difference. I am as sure that this bad reputation is wide, even national, as I am sure that it is not justified over the whole department. I do not doubt there are good staff working in Haringey CYPS. I refer to current management, whose conduct has had further light shone on it in the AB & CD case.
Haringey's deeply misguided defence of that case was to try to defend manager reputations – and not fine principles of law as they would have you beleive.
You have done a service in drawing attention to the video. You are right in drawing attention to the difficulty in recruiting good staff to the department (this is often used by management as a reason for minimising problems, hushing things up and acting vindictively when there is criticism).
The unattractiveness of this Borough as a place to work is widely known in the social work industry. This needs to be fixed, not for next week, but for the long run.
There is nothing new about the dire reputation. I've attached Lord Laming's report into the death of Victoria Climbié. I don't ask you to read all 427 pages: but just a single paragraph near the beginning: Management Issues (1.23). I draw your attention to the date of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry: January 2003.
Despite enormous amounts of money lavished on transient individuals brought in to sort it out – and who leave announcing great success and politicians trumpeting a lasting turnaround – the hard truth is that in important respects, the department is unreformed and it continues to be poorly led.
However it is more than that: not only was it found in the High Court to be operating unlawfully in certain important respects, astonishingly, the management appears to be content that this continues. And that past unlawfulness is left unexamined. That is why I believe it is out of control.
Cllr. Browne's questions of Blake were excellent and to the point – but will anything change for the better? 10 years after Lord Laming's report, are we any closer to a virtuous circle that you rightly seek?
- Attachments:
-
-
Lord Laming Report.pdf, 1.7 MB
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
