Will this ever end?!

[Sadmolerat1]

Del due to high number of views and minor paranoia about who is reading!

[nessie]

Hi, I read your post and can sympathise with you. It seems as though you are being punished for being honest. I can totally relate to that. I do hope the next psychologist's report goes in your favour. Keep fighting x

[Sadmolerat1]

Thank you, Nessie. We are still waiting so I don't see much progress happening til after xmas. We have always got the impression that this was about us rather than my child. The managers are running the show and making decisions ignoring the positive evidence from their own Social Worker.

Would be greatful if a FRG could offer an insight if possible. -

[Suzie, FRG Adviser]

Dear Sadmolerat1

Thank you for detailing your experiences over the last two years. You have highlighted some of the difficulties that are experienced around risk assessments and around sharing of information between professionals.
I want to say at the beginning, that you have worked very well with the social worker, cooperating at every level in difficult circumstances which, I think, accounts for why no child protection plan was made.

I am glad that you have highlighted some of the bad practice that you experienced.

Children services have a legal duty to safeguard children in their area and can carry out a holistic assessment of your family, taking into account reports from probation and other organisations such as the police, schools and health. As you have said, probation do not have this role.
At the very beginning of your relationship, I am surprised that probation did not automatically make a referral to children services as would have happened if he lived in your area. Assessments could have been completed earlier in your relationship, before you were considering living together and maybe before you had introduced your son to your partner.

You should certainly not have been asked to agree to recommendations of a report that you had not had sight of.
The social worker should have explained why she was changing from a forensic to clinical psychologist and explained what was being assessed.

I am not sure why the clinical psychologists report was not disclosed at the child protection conference. If it had, the conference may have decided on a child protection plan. It would be interesting to know how the decision about this was made

The issue that is still outstanding is around the clinical psychologist report and whether or not is can be used in any way without your consent.
You are quite entitled to disagree with the report being shared and children’s services would then have to decide, with reference to the Data Protection Act, whether or not to share it anyway.
However, children services would need grounds to do so, such as there being child protection risks.

Have a look at our advice sheet about access to records .


Here is guidance for professionals about making a decision to breach someone’s confidentiality. You can see that there is a process that should be followed.

On the information in your post, I am surprised that the matter went up to the pre- proceedings stage, given that you are cooperating with a child in need plan. If they wanted to share the report due to child protection concerns, surely they can do this without the need to threaten the removal of your son.

Matters are complicated further by the wrong law being quoted. Releasing a psychologist report is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act.
As the Information Commissioner has advised, the Data Protection Act is the law that should be used.

Normally, I would have expected your solicitor to have taken up these legal errors with the local authority legal department.
Can you speak to a partner at your solicitors firm about the errors made and ask for a new solicitor to be allocated?

In the meantime, while this is also being looked at by stage 2 of children services complaints, keep cooperating with any child in need plan and children services.

Just as a point of law, it is my view that your son can be considered to be a child in need and receive no support from children services. This might be when his needs are considered to be met by you along with universal services such as health and education.

Best wishes,

Suzie

[Sadmolerat1]

del

[Sadmolerat1]

del

[Suzie, FRG Adviser]

Dear Sadmolerat1

Thank you for your further post.

I am so sorry to see that there has been no resolution in respect of this matter.

I will respond to the specific questions in your posts.

• Since you are in the PLO process and have a solicitor he/she should have been informed that a psychologist was being instructed and given sight of the letter of instruction. Often this letter is prepared by the local authority’s lawyer deal who deals with public law matters. The letter of instruction should have been sent to the solicitor so they could comment on it and the questions being asked and your solicitor would usually let you see the letter. Of course, it may be that your local authority area has a different policy in these matters.
• If children services have concerns about parenting then it is quite normal for a parenting assessment to be carried out. There is no hard and fast rule about when but logically the sooner it is done the better. This is what will inform the social worker of what support might be needed in respect of parenting.
• The letter of instruction should ask the psychologist to address specific issues of concern and should be within the psychologist’s area expertise
• Your final question is not an unusual one since the expert is being asked to express a professional opinion as part of the assessment as to whether there is a risk and if the other person is able to protect in light of that risk. This, I think, is what is being requested and unless it is not in the expert’s expertise they should be able to express a professional opinion on the basis of the information they have.

Please see our A-Z of terms relating to adult psychological assessment here

I hope this is helpful but should you wish to speak to an adviser, feel free to telephone our advice line on 0808 801 0366. The advice line is open Monday to Friday (except Bank Holidays) from 9.30 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.

Best wishes

Suzie

[Sadmolerat1]

del

[Sadmolerat1]

Just one last (I hope) set of questions.....

We have now got the new psychologist's report back. In summary there is a low risk of harm to my child from my partner (the psych clarified that she could never say there is 'no risk' in relation to any subject ) pertaining to any forms of harm - contradicting the 'clear unknown risk' my partner allegedly posed in the opinion of the original psychologist. In her opinion, I do not have a learning difficulty that will negatively affect my parenting (which the original psychologist insisted I suffered from) and I have clearly shown my protective ability and appropriate parenting skills towards my son.

The new psych recommended that I be allowed to supervise contact between my partner and son and that a phased plan of supervised to unsupervised contact is made with the ultimate ending of my partner being able to move in.

Whilst this is positive, we are still incredulous that it has taken so long to get to this point and that a clearly flawed psych report formed the basis of CIN plans and superseded the view of the later dated Child Protection Conference despite not being shared at the CPC and despite the CPC finding no evidence or likelihood of harm.

I am still under PLO proceedings but do not have Legal Representation as my original representative used up all the funding (dubiously) and we parted company. I have a solicitor on a pro bono basis who does not think it will be worth him attending the 2nd PLO meeting -date tba based on the new psych recommendations. He did say he could look over any written plans for a fee but I am loathe to spend vast sums of money on this when I don't believe a PLO was justified in the first place.

The SW has confirmed I can now supervise contact and asked me to contact her manager. I then got a message from said manager asking me to contact her. I was told by the LA solicitor at the first PLO to only contact said manager through my Legal Rep and a message I left her on the instruction of my Legal Rep was ignored- hence I am not really keen on running towards her with open arms!!

My questions:

My son is a Child in Need but the LA have offered him NO services- universal services are being met by me and other services without intervention by the LA. His SW who was not involved in the PLO proceedings has questioned this herself in CIN meetings and stated that he shouldn't be a CIN! Now a psych has deemed my son to be at low risk of harm from my partner which supports Probation view- can the LA justify keeping the case open if we refuse to operate with any plans (we are perfectly capable of introducing the concept of my partner moving in at a suitable pace for my child)?

Would it be unreasonable of the LA to withhold their 'approval' of my partner moving in based on the fact that there now a concluded low level of risk to my child which is the same low level of risk that Probation referred to them in Jul 2015 and no evidence or concerns of actual harm have ever been reported to them (we need the LA to approve the move as it is dictated by Probation policies)?

[Sadmolerat1]

Ok so that was not the last question!
I had a voicemail left on 12/6 by the LA manager asking me to call her to "to discuss my responsibilities'" regarding my supervision of contact between my child and partner and a date to make a new safety plan

I emailed her back saying I was going to seek legal advice and would get back to her in due course. I then emailed my pro bono solicitor who technically is not representing me but he is out of office.
My partner saw his Probation Officer on 14/06 and she seemed under the impression that the case would be closed at the next CIN based on her discussions with the LA.
At about 6.45pm, today, two letters were hand posted through my door addressed to myself and my partner. We each had identical letters dated 07/06 inviting us to a PLO review meeting and stating to bring a solicitor (enclosing list of local solicitors and stating entitlement to legal aid). The review is apparently to discuss new safety plans

1. The date and time they have given clashes with my son's sports day
2. At the first PLO my partner (and alleged clear unknown risk) was NOT Party to Proceedings. Does this invitation ( it is not a Letter of Instruction) now make him Party to Proceedings? Or is this yet another error on the LAs part and a breech in Data Protection by sending him information he is not entitled to?!