CS fail my son again and again and again.....

[DupedDad]

A lot has happened since my last post viewtopic.php?f=22&t=566&start=20#p5202 so apologies for the length of this post.

Most significantly my son is having to come to terms with his mum's death after she succumbed to her alcoholism in July. Just four days after his mum died my son contacted me for the first time in over a year and we met a few days later. Although it was a supervised contact and despite the circumstances it turned out to be a joyful, happy and loving reconciliation. It was as if we had never been apart. Sadly my son's change of heart towards our contact was short lived. Although CS acknowledged concerns that his maternal grandparents (MGP) might be manipulating him, CS still allowed my son to spend a weekend with his MGP at their home. He returned saying he didn't want to see me any more. After accepting and acknowledging that his MGF had emotionally abused my son and caused this change in my son's feelings about our contact, CS belatedly stopped his MGP from having any more unsupervised contact with him.

My son's MGM was then diagnosed as terminally ill and only given a matter of weeks to live. My son had to come to terms with this revelation and the refusal of his MGP to see him in the following weeks. Although he did not have any face to face contact with his MGP my son has a mobile and I was worried (I still am) that this gave his MGF the opportunity to further manipulate and emotionally abuse him. I feel this concern is more than justified following a supervised visit last weekend when my son saw his MGM for the first time since her diagnosis. On the way back his MGF told him "in a not particularly nice way" that I was living in our home and this has had another adverse affect on my son's feelings towards me (the care home manager had intended to tell my son I had moved back home but I accept the right opportunity did not arise).

Once again I feel CS have shown poor judgement in handling my son's case and in effect continue to turn a blind eye to the emotional abuse and manipulation that the maternal family continue to subject my son to. Previously CS took 6 months to release the notes from a December 2014 supervised contact. These confirmed my son disclosed his mum was trying to manipulate and turn him against me but CS refused to act on his disclosure because CS deemed it too old to be considered. I was allowed 2 unsupervised visits with my son in late December 2104 before he went on holiday with his maternal family for ten day over Christmas and New Year. The maternal family did not comply with CS working agreement (they did not let my son speak to me) and he returned saying he didn't want to see me.

Despite my son saying he didn't want to see me, his Team Manager and Social Worker were so confident I could not have caused or influenced his change of heart that they arranged for us to have another unsupervised contact in January 2015 (it was a great success). In February 2015 a new TM and SW disagreed with the response of the previous TM & SW and stopped all face to face contact between us after they decided my son's comments that he didn't want to see me were due to our final unsupervised contact in Dec 2014. CS still refuse to explain why the response of the previous TM & SW was overturned, discarded and abandoned.

Despite CS restrictions I re-established supervised contact with my son in May / June 2015 and his new SW wrote that supervising our contacts perplexed her (although my son was still saying he didn't want to see me, in these contacts he would initiate contact, told me he loved me and missed me, was confident, loving and happy). CS returned my son to his mothers care in June 2015 and he immediately refused to see me again, only changing his mind after his mum passed away over a year later. In November 2015 my son made allegations against his mum which led to care proceedings. I now know that CS were told by a close friend of my wife in December 2015 that my wife emotionally abused and manipulated our son so that he would tell his SW and advocate what she wanted them to hear. I consider the anecdotal evidence above completely discredits CS belief that my son says he does not want to see me because of our final unsupervised contact in Dec 2014. CS steadfastly refuse to explain or justify their belief and continue to promote this lie (it was prominent in the SW statement to the family court, which omitted to mention any of the other points above).

Despite all the concerns around CS (mis)handling of my son's case and the circumstances leading up to my wife's death, CS refuse to reassess my son's case. It seems CS would rather my son continue to suffer the pain and emotional abuse he is suffering than countenance the fact that they might have made a mistake with my son's case and potentially have to concede that their plan, whatever that maybe, is contributing to the pain and emotional abuse he has and is suffering. The evidence suggests my son's welfare is not even close to being CS primary consideration.

Immediately prior to the latest incident of emotional abuse I spoke to the head of CS but he seemed more concerned about the MGF situation (the bereavements in his family) than the harm the MGF has caused my son and the negative, detrimental impact he is having on my son's relationship with his paternal family. While the MGF has lost two daughters this year and is about to lose his wife, I do not believe this provides him with any justification for his actions or mitigates the damage and harm he has done my son. I cannot comprehend how the head of CS could hold let alone express such an opinion.

CS have stated that the MGF blames me for my wife's death and it does feel like the MGF is trying to exploit his situation and manipulate CS stance in an attempt to hurt me by damaging my relationship with my son (with no thought to the consequences for my son). Perhaps CS would be less sympathetic towards the MGF if they considered the complaints my wife frequently made about her parents (not just to me but to other members of her family and her friends) about how she felt unloved by her parents and of their lack of support for us and our son. It seems insidious that my father in law should try to capitalise on the death of his other daughter when he (and the rest of the maternal family) disowned her and did not speak to her in the 19 years before her death because of her drug addiction and alcoholism (I cannot understand why CS have not questioned the contents of their own case notes that document the MGF callous, uncaring and unsympathetic treatment of his daughter in the final months of her life).

The head of CS did reiterate several times though that I was responsible for my son's refusal to see me because of my behaviour in the family home. I fully appreciate I have a conviction for domestic abuse but comments such as this hardly convince me that CS are sincere when they tell me my conviction has no bearing on CS attempts to reconcile my son and I. Rather it amplifies the distrust and scepticism I have of CS borne from CS refusal to engage with me and the prejudged and prejudiced way CS have handled my son's case.

I know it is irrelevant at the moment but I have always maintained my innocence (even when I understood I was giving the judge little option but to impose a custodial sentence) and I have repeatedly told the head of CS I am working on an appeal based on new evidence. My appeal is partly supported by a number of CS case notes were only disclosed to me after CS applied to the family court for a care order. These case notes clearly show that my wife fabricated and embellished her allegations against me in a series of meetings and interviews with "professionals". These case notes discredited my wife's allegations four to one and yet CS seemingly chose to disregard and suppress the evidence contained in four case notes with just the one (contradictory) case note that supported my wife finding its way to the CPS and used as evidence against me in my criminal trial.

It is heartbreaking that CS refuse to reassess all their own evidence in light of the events after my criminal trial, my wife's death and instead continue to insist on mishandling my sons case based on biased, prejudiced, selective and questionable segments of evidence. It is heartbreaking because CS have and continue to allow my son to suffer and CS approach (whatever that may be) has abjectly failed to reestablish contact between my son and I. This is hardly surprising as all I can cite in the 8 months since the final family court hearing is a half hearted effort to secure therapy for my son (he was eventually allocated art therapy with PALMS but this fizzled out when the therapist left but no attempt was made to provide any sort of family therapy for us) and CS failure to protect and build upon my son's wish to see me after his mum passed away.

It seems that CS would rather obfuscate and mask these concerns than address them. The head of CS even suggested that the failure to make any progress with our relationship was actually due to my son grieving for his mum. Although her death has undoubtedly had an enormous effect on my son, this suggestion fails to explain the lack of any change in the preceding 18 months and nor does it account for the fact that my son called me just four days after his mum died. This suggestion certainly does not address the suspicion I cannot help but feel that CS allowed (wanted) this one positive change in my sons attitude towards me to be thwarted and squandered.

On a positive note my son's latest IRO does appear to be more questioning and less accepting of CS handling of my son's case and seems to agree with my concerns (for the first time I had a positive meeting with an IRO who actually came to my house and rather than having to say what I was concerned about I was asked if CS had or had not done specific actions which prompted the IRO to raise these concerns herself). I've stated all along that I do not want to stop my son seeing his MGP (my son loves them and it would not be fair on him and I would not want anybody, even his MGP, to suffer the pain that separation causes) but I do want him to be safe and unharmed when he sees them. The IRO accepted this at face value and was blunt in her assessment when she stated that the maternal family do not offer my son any future at all and CS should work to reconcile my son and I.

Which finally leads me to my questions:

When I asked HCPC if I could raise a complaint against a number of TM and SW I gave them two examples of the concerns I had that I wanted to discuss with HCPC. HCPC simply went ahead and raised these as complaints with the council and as a consequence my son's SW will not talk to me. The head of CS has had enough of me constantly highlighting problems with CS handling of my son's case with him (he told me to move on with my life). I appreciate he is not there to handle individual cases but just how disingenuous was he to claim that CS have little involvement in my son's life and even if my son's SW was talking to me my focal point of contact should now be the IRO and care home manager???

My son's latest IRO could not believe that family therapy had not been provided for my son and I. The care home manager has spoken about the therapy she is trying to source for my son. When I asked the head of CS, he seemed more concerned that I should know just how hard it is to source suitable therapy than the lack of support my son has received. He also claimed this wasn't something for CS to arrange but a job for the care home manager to resolve. Is he correct???

Edit: Forgot to ask, I am deluded for asking CS to reassess their handling of my son's case before I even submit my appeal?

[Suzie, FRG Adviser]

Dear DupedDad

Welcome back to the parents’ discussion forum.

I can see from your post that you continue to be frustrated by the way children services has dealt with your son’s case.

It might help if you read our advice sheet about the duties that children services has when a child is in care. The local authority has a care order and the final care plan for your son would have been agreed by the court and should have indicated what support would be offered to your son. The local authority has the role of corporate parent and whilst you retain parental responsibility for your son, children services are able to exercise their parental responsibility over and above yours. The director of children services whilst not responsible for individual cases has a responsibility to ensure that the service being provided to children and parents is a good one.

The independent reviewing officer (IRO) is the person responsible to ensure that the care plan for your son is implemented and to ensure his welfare and best interests is being appropriately served by the services and support he is being offered. A link to the handbook relating to IRO’s duties and responsibilities is here for your information.

There has clearly been issues between you and the maternal family in relation to your son and it might help if you were to ask children services to set up mediation to help you all reach an amicable agreement regarding your son. Children services is responsible in relation to persons with whom your son has contact, contact is for the benefit of the child and if contact is not in his best interest then consideration should be given as to whether contact can go ahead. Also, the child’s wishes and feelings has to be taken into account dependant on the child’s age and understanding. A copy of our advice sheet relating to contact with a child in care is here for your information.

Regarding the therapy that should be provided for your son, it is difficult to say who is responsible for the day to day arrangement. This will depend on the contract between children services and the children’s home as to what the home will provide. Having said that, under the care order children services do have overall responsibility to ensure that adequate provision is made for your son taking account of his specific needs.

It is a little unfortunate that HCPC went ahead and treated your enquiry as a complaint. Despite this, the social worker should be professional in her behaviour towards you and concerns you have about your son. You retain parental responsibility and should be consulted about decisions relating to your son.

You have a complaint ongoing through HCPC at the moment which I assume relates to the professional aspect of the social worker’s handling of your son’s case. Have you considered making a formal complaint to children services about their decision making and handling of your son’s care package? Please see our advice sheet about making a complaint.

Should you wish to speak to an adviser, please telephone our advice line on 0808 801 0366. The advice line is open from 9.30 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. Monday to Friday.

I hope this is helpful.

Best wishes

Suzie