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 Alan Stanton on
-
Here's the link to the article. In case anyone thinks the Daily Telegraph is not going to be fair to Haringey, please read the Court's judgement here.
The case is a disgrace. It raises very serious questions and is a key test for Council Leader Claire Kober and for Cllr Ann Waters ("cabinet" councillor for Children's Services) about how they now respond. Do they make anodyne comments and hope it will all go away? Or will they be as open as possible? (Given confidentiality limitations imposed by the Court.) Crucially are they able to, and will they learn from what happened?
So far it appears their response has not been encouraging. Not least information has not been properly shared with councillors - even among Labour councillors - who have mainly learned about the case through an email from Clive Carter or by reading the Ham & High and national media. (Assuming councillors read either. In some cases, a dubious assumption.)
I think I might be the only councillor who's worked as a local authority social worker, including dealing with child protection cases. It was decades ago so I'm not claiming current expertise. But I do remember the agonising feelings about whether the decisions are soundly based or not; judged both on the evidence gathered and what is in the best interest of the children.
What I sincerely hope will not happen is for this case to be a political football between the parties in the run-up to the May 2014 council election.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Thanks for posting the link Alan; I hadn't realized there was a web version of the story.
I agree the case is a disgrace. Any objective person – such as the High Court Judge – is likely to come to the same conclusion.
From correspondence with the new Chief Executive, Nick Walkley, I understand that the family has received an apology and that the council will not now Appeal.
(LBH were seeking to Appeal right up to the last minutes of the Judgement hand down. The Judge declined permission then, although that wouldn't necessarily have precluded any further attempt at an Appeal).
The council has also self-reported to Ofsted and to the Information Commissioner's Office.
IMO, these things represents a start, but as you suggest, there is some way to go. Many questions remain unanswered. Any attempt at platitudes ("learning lessons" etc. as has happened in the past) wouldn't be good enough.
-
-
THE Standard seems to have partly picked up the Telegraph's story, here.
.
-
Permalink Reply by doug on
-
As a parent of a young child (and someone who voted Labour at the last local elections) I find this unbelievable. With Haringey's recent history of services to child care, every effort should have been made to ensure that procedures are followed to the book. Instead, what we get is Haringey councils belief that they are above the law and can do as they wish.
I find it very frustrating at a time that many departments within the council are showing signs of improvement, that there are still departments (parking and child care) that believe they can make up their own rules and no-one dare contest them.
I really feel for the family involved, what they must have been through is incomprehensible. Quite rightly they have had compensation and their costs reimbursed. I would be very interested to know where exactly Haringey Council receive the funding to reimburse the mistakes the council have made. Maybe one of the regular Labour Councillors would care to comment?
-
-
Doug, yes, it was the failure to follow Statutory guidelines that were at the heart of this case. National guidelines, that were re-written after Haringey's experience with the Victoria Climbié and Peter Connelly tragedies. In view of Children's Services history, it is hard to understand the extent of the unlawful practice, some of which may even continue today (data protection infringement). The Service appears to be beyond elected, political control.
AB and CD have been brave and fought this partly to clear their own good name and partly on behalf of other families in this Borough who lack the expertise to take on this overweening organisation.
Like you, I find it remarkable that the council found the resources to fight this (probably more than the £22K cited so far), let alone to defend bad and unlawful practices.
We are yet to know the true cost of fighting this case. On this question, the new Chief Executive has given the estimate for the whole of the defence. I was surprised at the claimed modest size. I've since posed the following questions (amongst others) for Mr Walkley:
- When I asked, how much money has been spent on the whole of the council’s defence (Q.18) ‘whole’ meant more than just external costs. You’ve said the estimated cost was £21,980.
- This seems a remarkably low figure, even as an estimate of the council’s barrister’s costs alone. Do you suggest that, if Haringey had won this case, that a sum only in the order of £22K would have been demanded from the other party?
- Permission for a JR was granted by a judge on 15 March 2012 and presumably a letter-before-action was sent weeks before then. Although I did not attend the Permission Hearing, I imagine your department was represented at that point and was externally advised before and after the Permissions stage.
- Since March 2012, the council resisted the claim every step of the way during October and November (including a separate Mediation in between) and up to the last minutes of Judgment day on 13 March 2013 when, even then, the council still sought permission to Appeal.
- Are you being fully informed by officers? I appreciate that you have been given an estimate, but this appears so unrealistic as to be untrue or misleading. I would be grateful if you would find out and report the total actual costs, broken down under these five headings:
- Total costs for Haringey Council Legal Services of this case, from the beginning. I believe their charging is on the basis of each quarter-hour spent and presumably, this was billed to Children’s Services (and money diverted from front-line child protection in the field);
- The total cost to employ the services of barrister Bryan McGuire QC (instructed by LBH Legal Services);
- The cost of the attempt at Mediation that was directed by the Judge in October. To include the time spent in preparation and any de-briefs (was this all re-billed to our Children’s Services?);
- Miscellaneous costs for all social care and data protection officer’s time and meetings (if possible; an estimate would suffice);
- Also, the total costs of the Claimant, awarded against the council due to their conduct (the public already knows of the award of damages – in a case like this, unprecedented).
-
-
Clive Carter has taken up the costs issue, Doug. If you have specific additional questions on this, I suggest you could also write to Mr Walkley, the Chief Executive, asking for specific 'hard' information.
Clive has detailed knowledge of the case, having attended some of the Court hearings. I don't yet know enough to make confident comments about what went wrong and needs changing.
I've often deplored the culture of secrecy of Claire Kober's leadership. But for cases involving children's safeguarding and especially legal proceedings, it makes sound sense that most councillors are kept "out of the loop". One reason this is so, is the need to protect children by not disclosing a family's identity.
At the same time, it's quite clear from the Victoria Climbié Inquiry that this does not lift responsibility from councillors for raising concerns we become aware of. (Though doing so carefully and sensitively.) It also places a greater responsibility on "Lead" or "cabinet" councillors to ask questions and insist on answers. It is not enough simply to listen to and then defend senior officers .
From the little we know of this particular case, it also seems to pose the question about where a councillor can go for independent professional advice if and when they want a "second opinion".
Can I add that while following procedures is vital, I don't accept it's necessarily the "heart" or sole solution. The Court said that Haringey officers had failed "to follow detailed decision-making procedures that must be followed save in exceptional circumstances". Which begs the question: "why not?". And specifically poses it for those officers in that team and the senior staff in that department.
And of course, whether or not the key politicians asked "Why not?" And the answers they got.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Many thanks Clive and Alan for your replies.
I too find it hard to believe the costs to the council were no more than £22k. Whatever the costs were, would I be right in assuming that it is us as council tax payers that are footing the bill for the council's incompetence?
Surprised this case hasn't prompted more discussion.
-
-
Doug on the "estimate" for the whole costs of the defence (i.e. £22k), I await with interest an update from the new Chief Executive. All of the council's costs were borne by taxpayers.
In the case of the "internal" costs (first bullet point) these will be re-billed to our Borough's Children's Services Department.
Even if the council's defence – for its own unlawful practices, still not acknowledged – were a six-figure sum, perhaps the most worrying aspect is that this case is unlikely to be the only one of its kind. Possibly the most depressing phrase of all in the CEO's letter to me was:
this judgment is the only existing finding that [the Council have] acted unlawfully in relation to concerns about a child.
This boast is almost frightening.
The sole reason why this malpractice came to light and was challenged in court, was because the person concerned is an expert professional in the field and both her and her husband felt confident enough to go all the way: Judicial Review in the High Court.
Indeed, they felt they had no choice, as Haringey's actions (apart from the conclusion that the letter was malicious) were hard to distinguish from an intention to crush them, because they dared to answer back.
As a result of this case, we now know what has been standard (bad and unlawful) practice.
There are surely residents of Borough, of unknown number, who have suffered at the hands of the council's CYPS, including unlawful investigations and no one before has ever been in a position of means or expertise to mount such a challenge.
Nobody at the council seems to have got a grip yet and the CYPS department appears to be beyond the control of elected politicians.
-
-
but how many other parents have gone through this before ?
Yes, Thérèse, this is now the biggest question for the Council, if elected councillors retain control over the Children & Young Persons Service (CYPS).
Interesting you mention totalitarian regime. A friend who lives overseas in a democracy, suggested that here in Haringey, we may have aspects of a totalitarian regime: right under our noses.
Some Councillors (on both sides of the political divide) who read the Telegraph article were shocked and most will have known nothing about this case at all. The family was encouraged by their court win and I believe that, thank goodness, we have an independent judiciary. But few families have the means or knowledge to hold to account this CYPS department, with unlimited money to defend itself and its bad and unlawful practices.
The JR was resisted to the hilt by CYPS: they wanted to Appeal.
It was an unusual case in many ways: a Section 47 has not been challenged for 20 years; the award of damages is unprecedented. As a Judicial Review, the hearing was held in the open (with the family anonymous) and so it was part-private and part-public.
It is by these means that the lid will now slowly be prised open on the dealings of this department whose actions and inactions have on occasion brought shame to this Borough for some 13 years.
The suffering of the family and the ordeal of the court case may yet bring some relief to the unknown families who have in the past, been treated unlawfully by Haringey's CYPS - and would continue to be, but for this case.
-
-
On who picks up the bill, Doug, if you want to be sure then I'd make the same suggestion as before. Please ask the Chief Executive. Or you may prefer to express your views to Claire Kober the "Leader" or to Ann Waters now councillor for Children's Services. They are the elected politicians currently responsible. (Though my colleague Cllr Lorna Reith was the "cabinet member" at the relevant time.) Emails here.
But can I suggest a word of caution about focussing on the costs issue. With this case, reading the Judge's comments we can all have 20/20 hindsight. But for future cases I hope we can also agree that for the protection of children, potential legal costs should not be the sole - or even the most important - determining factor.
Which isn't to say we can ignore this. Lawyers are expensive. And legal costs are a major component in dealing properly with cases involving children. A couple of years ago you may have read that in some cases higher Court fees were said to be deterring local councils from taking cases to Court.
The AB and CD judgement has prompted discussion. Below I've copied an email from Libby Blake, the Director of Children and Young People's Services.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
----- Original Message -----From: Libby Blake, Director, Children and Young People ServiceTo: All Haringey councillorsCc: Nick Walkley Chief ExecutiveSent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 8:41 PMSubject: AB and CD JudgementDear Councillors,
I’m aware of a growing amount of correspondence, into which you have been copied, about the Judicial Review Judgement last month against the Children and Young People’s Services. I thought it would therefore be useful to brief you all on the actions I am putting into place to address the issues.
I have of course written personally to the family to apologise for the harm we have caused them by our misjudged intervention. We have also acted swiftly to ensure we are compliant with the terms of the judgement. The issues raised by the judgement will not be entirely unfamiliar to those of you who sit on any of our Committees where discussions relate to Children’s Services, and where we have been addressing the very high numbers of children looked after by this Council or issues to do with our current threshold to social care services. But this judgement does raise a new challenge to us about the way in which we practice children’s social care; and I am determined that we should learn from it and improve the service we offer resident families as a result.
I met with the Chief Executive today to review the numbers of enquiries we have recently received and we agreed that in order to act in a way that is transparent for yourselves and the Borough we will set in place a review of those cases where we undertook child protection enquiries between May 2011 and the judgement. This will provide the answer to the question of whether there are other families whose decision to begin a child protection investigation was made outside the regulatory procedures at the time. I intend to ask for a comparable London Borough with good or outstanding practice to undertake this review for us; and when I have identified them will negotiate a timescale with them. This review will report to the Children’s Trust chaired by Cllr Waters and to the Sector Lead Improvement Board chaired by the Leader. We will also be discussing the issues with the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board and have already briefed the Safeguarding Policy and Practice Committee on the Judgement and will continue to report there as requested.
In addition there is a question from the judgement for me on the way in which our Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) currently operates in screening referrals to assess whether a social work service is required. I want to be absolutely sure that we are currently operating within the law as this judgement defines it. I have therefore asked our Data Information Officer and our Internal Audit Team to test our procedures against regulations and propose any amendments necessary followed by a full audit of the MASH later in the year to assess our progress. We will also seek an external challenge from a QC with data protection expertise to confirm our compliance with statutory expectations.
Immediately the judgement was given I made contact with the Department of Education to bring it to their attention. I have today similarly made contact with our Regional Director at Ofsted to advise him of it and its consequences for us. I will also contact the Information Commissioner to brief them on the issues and our actions to resolve them.
Notwithstanding all these actions the Children and Young People’s Service continues to benefit from your role in holding us to account through the Committee structures, including Scrutiny. Your interest in our performance and informed questions about our service offer continue to support and challenge us to improve. The successful work we have undertaken over the last year and a half with your support to reduce the numbers of children we look after safely by developing an earlier offer of help is a tribute to the effectiveness of the Council’s work in this area. I know we have much more to do before we can all be fully satisfied that our residents are receiving the service they deserve and I remain committed to working alongside you all to deliver this outcome.
Regards,
Libby Blake
-
-
To clarify, Thérèse, the credit for battling on this case belongs to the couple (shown as AB and CD in the court report) and their various allies, legal and otherwise. These allies include Clive Carter who attended the public Court hearings. Although Clive and I have talked about the case, until recently he was permitted to say almost nothing, due to High Court restrictions - which he always respected.
Libby Blake the Director was until now unable to brief councillors for the same reason. As you'll realise some Court restrictions are still in place.
I know that several councillors have now written raising these issues.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Thérèse, Alan is right, the real heroine (and hero) are AB and CD, who risked much.
With the permission of AB & CD, I've attached below the council's letter of apology and AB & CD's reply.
Today's Guardian story on the matter is here.
.
- Attachments:
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
