PLEASE HELP,
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:16 pm
Hi all,
Very long story, so I will apologise in advance!
My son was in a relationship which lasted for 8 years and produced two gorgeous children. When the youngest, my grandson was 5 months old, his mother began an affair and I ended up with my son moving back home and devastated. The mother had chosen the local bad boy, so we had concerns from the beginning. Approximately 5 months later, it was reported to social care that there was DV within their relationship. The following day, I was called by the sw asking for me to join her and my ex daughter in law, at her request. Mother was informed that she could not have him in the home, if the children were present. She stated that she had ended their relationship that day but that he and his family had already been to the house, being abusive. A safety plan for was implemented,where mum would stay out of town with a relative for the weekend and then bring the children to our house for the following week, to allow her to rid herself of him and his belongings. The family were known to services and had a notorious reputation. On the Sunday evening, I received a message from the mother stating that they had reconciled. I contacted CSC first thing on the Monday morning and spoke with the same sw who had held the meeting three days earlier. I had a number of conversations with her and her team manager over the Monday and Tuesday. I have found one of the call logs on my personal mobile account. Unfortunately, any calls received were on my work phone, so cannot retrieve the logs. On the Tuesday evening, my grandson was rushed into hospital. It took two days to receive a diagnosis, which was a NAHI, otherwise known as shaken baby syndrome. He was in high dependency for days, his injuries were deemed as life threatening. Due to the timings of the injuries, the only people within the pool of perpetrators, were the mother, her partner and the maternal grandmother. My son was told by CSC team manager to appoint a solicitor and apply for an interim residence order and a prohibitive steps order. We did, as we continued to do, follow all advice given by CSC. However, we had no idea how much this would cost both financially and emotionally. CSC did not request an initial child protection case conference, in fact we were only made aware that the children were subject to CIN plans, some 7 months later. I should add at this point, that CSC held a discharge meeting early December and the next meeting wasn't held until the following July, over 7 months later. My son and his family, were left to deal with this without an awful lot of support. Our local children's centre was the only support worth mentioning. There were lots of issues around finances. He could not even afford to take his daughter to school, (10.00 per day bus fares), take his son to the numerous hospital appointments, sometimes 3/4 per week, (10.00 per day bus fares). This was due mainly to him and the children having to move in with his girlfriend, as following my grandson's discharge from hospital, we did not have enough room. My son had never claimed any benefits and as this was a new joint claim, it took over three months to get them in place. CSC gave him a total of £315.00 for that period of time. The children's centre kindly helped with food parcels and the support of a benefits worker.
My son was successful in his application for the court orders but the whole process took 26 months. The Judge made several requests for CSC to reconsider taking it through care proceedings, but they refused at every turn. My son was granted legal aid the following April but they would not backdate the claim, so the thousands of pounds spent, could not be recouped. To rub salt in the wounds, the mother and her partner, were both denied legal aid, so the Judge ordered the court would pay for all of their legal expenditures!
The following August, my granddaughter disclosed to her DVAP worker and her sw, that she had been physically assaulted by the same male. Sw instigated a S47 enquiry. This was on Friday 1st August. Coincidentally, there was a review of the residence order the following Monday. The sw was of the opinion that the mother was either implicated or was aware as she spoke with the Judge who made an order that mothers contact "is to be supervised by ERYC, until...... (granddaughter), had been interviewed by the Police, following which contact could return to being supervised by members of the maternal family who had previously been agreed ". The Police had to cancel a number of dates for her interview. Two weeks after disclosure, CSC made the decision that contact could return to being supervised by maternal family members. They did not go back to court to have this amended. CSC explaination for this, is that they made a 'best interest decision', on my granddaughter's behalf, as they state in their response to my sons Stage 2 complaint. They do not even acknowledge that there was a court order in place. In fact, they reword this point in their response, they state that there is a case note stating the 'contact CAN be supervised by ERYC. This has a completely different connotation to the actual wording of the court order, which reads 'IS TO BE SUPERVISED". The point of this point of complaint, was that when she was eventually interviewed by the Police, some three weeks after disclosure, she stated that she "could not remember", as she didn't want to get mummy into trouble. We can only guess what might or might not have been said to her, during the intervening week. They partially uphold this point but only acknowledging the timescales, not the fact they failed to adhere to a court order.
My sons response to the Stage 1 complaint, was sent 3 days shy of 6 months, was sent to the incorrect address and did not address the complaints, it seemed 'fudged'. We questioned whether it may have been altered, the first paragraph refers to feeling sorry for the upset and distress caused to you and your family, also lessons have been learned which will inform future practice, to then 'can find no evidence to support your complaint, with all but one point being 'not upheld'!
My son then made a Subject Access Request. When received, it was incomplete, pages were missing and contained confidential information regarding another family! It had been printed completely out of chronological order, with some pages containing case notes from 2014 and 2015!
We were horrified to note, that there appeared to be no case notes, no case records, no supervision notes, in fact nothing relating to any calls or conversations regarding either the Monday or Tuesday, following the meeting with CSC. The Stage 2 response, stated that both the sw and the manager at the time, had both been interviewed. Neither could 'recall' any conversations, messages or knowledge regarding the mother reconciling with her partner. With regards to the one call I could prove, they stated that 'we have to question whether a 3 second call, was a long enough period of time in which to leave a message!
They go one step further, they 'would like to understand our family's actions at that time ', stating that as we didn't contact CSC on either the Monday or Tuesday, and as we had stated, and that we felt the children were at risk of harm, why we did not call EDT, The Police or remove the children ourselves! So not only are they denying all knowledge of their reconciliation, they are now pointing the finger of blame at my son and myself! This has had a massive impact on my son. He had a period of time on anti depressants, due to the misplaced feelings of guilt he endured, this has reopened those horrific wounds.
Despite their many comments regarding no evidence of any calls being made on either the Monday or Tuesday, they make two separate comments further in the document, stating that they could not understand why we waited until the Monday to inform them!!! There is also a supervision note, dated Monday 25th, written by the team manager, which states that the children are safe with paternal grandmother (me), and ******(redacted), is staying in hospital overnight for tests. This entry does not make any sense! Firstly, they state there is no evidence of any calls/conversations on that date and secondly, no one was in hospital then, my grandson wasn't injured until the following day, Tuesday 26th! Also, this page was printed out numbered 226, the pages containing the case notes from the previous week, when sw met with the mother and myself, were numbered 29, 30 and 31!
They do uphold several points of the complaint, namely, those they could not deny! These include; breach of data - sending someone's confidential information to my son, data breach by sending my sons confidential information to the incorrect address, I should mention, that he following sending in the Stage 2 complaint, which made reference to the wrong address, he later requested a further copy sent to him. Guess where they sent it? Yes, believe it or not, it went to the same incorrect address for a second time. They uphold the delay in responding to the Stage 1 complaint, the fact that there were 7 different social workers, that one of the sw did not once visit my son, nor did she see the children whilst in his presence for over 3 months, that no DVAP referral was made, I actually had to self refer, that no mam meeting was held for over 7 months, we were given incorrect advice re: the SAR application process, which resulted in them exceeding the 40 timescale.
The whole 41 page response, is littered with inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions. They spell workers names incorrectly, give another a different job title, argue against dates which they stated were correct in the first response, I could go on and on!
The Independent Officers report, which states he agrees with the investigators Stage 2investigation and response, was signed more then a month before the response was signed!
I really do believe that if a solicitor or barrister read through this, they would pick it to pieces. Unfortunately, I am unable to raise the necessary finances to appoint one. I have had to remortgage my home, due to cost of the private proceedings.
We have asked for this to be taken to Stage 3, we have also made a further SAR request, this time, without my details being redacted. I hate to say the word but it feels like a coverup.
If ANYBODY can offer any advice or suggestions, I would be extremely grateful.
Thank you for staying with me to the end!
Kind regards,
A disheartened grandmother.
Very long story, so I will apologise in advance!
My son was in a relationship which lasted for 8 years and produced two gorgeous children. When the youngest, my grandson was 5 months old, his mother began an affair and I ended up with my son moving back home and devastated. The mother had chosen the local bad boy, so we had concerns from the beginning. Approximately 5 months later, it was reported to social care that there was DV within their relationship. The following day, I was called by the sw asking for me to join her and my ex daughter in law, at her request. Mother was informed that she could not have him in the home, if the children were present. She stated that she had ended their relationship that day but that he and his family had already been to the house, being abusive. A safety plan for was implemented,where mum would stay out of town with a relative for the weekend and then bring the children to our house for the following week, to allow her to rid herself of him and his belongings. The family were known to services and had a notorious reputation. On the Sunday evening, I received a message from the mother stating that they had reconciled. I contacted CSC first thing on the Monday morning and spoke with the same sw who had held the meeting three days earlier. I had a number of conversations with her and her team manager over the Monday and Tuesday. I have found one of the call logs on my personal mobile account. Unfortunately, any calls received were on my work phone, so cannot retrieve the logs. On the Tuesday evening, my grandson was rushed into hospital. It took two days to receive a diagnosis, which was a NAHI, otherwise known as shaken baby syndrome. He was in high dependency for days, his injuries were deemed as life threatening. Due to the timings of the injuries, the only people within the pool of perpetrators, were the mother, her partner and the maternal grandmother. My son was told by CSC team manager to appoint a solicitor and apply for an interim residence order and a prohibitive steps order. We did, as we continued to do, follow all advice given by CSC. However, we had no idea how much this would cost both financially and emotionally. CSC did not request an initial child protection case conference, in fact we were only made aware that the children were subject to CIN plans, some 7 months later. I should add at this point, that CSC held a discharge meeting early December and the next meeting wasn't held until the following July, over 7 months later. My son and his family, were left to deal with this without an awful lot of support. Our local children's centre was the only support worth mentioning. There were lots of issues around finances. He could not even afford to take his daughter to school, (10.00 per day bus fares), take his son to the numerous hospital appointments, sometimes 3/4 per week, (10.00 per day bus fares). This was due mainly to him and the children having to move in with his girlfriend, as following my grandson's discharge from hospital, we did not have enough room. My son had never claimed any benefits and as this was a new joint claim, it took over three months to get them in place. CSC gave him a total of £315.00 for that period of time. The children's centre kindly helped with food parcels and the support of a benefits worker.
My son was successful in his application for the court orders but the whole process took 26 months. The Judge made several requests for CSC to reconsider taking it through care proceedings, but they refused at every turn. My son was granted legal aid the following April but they would not backdate the claim, so the thousands of pounds spent, could not be recouped. To rub salt in the wounds, the mother and her partner, were both denied legal aid, so the Judge ordered the court would pay for all of their legal expenditures!
The following August, my granddaughter disclosed to her DVAP worker and her sw, that she had been physically assaulted by the same male. Sw instigated a S47 enquiry. This was on Friday 1st August. Coincidentally, there was a review of the residence order the following Monday. The sw was of the opinion that the mother was either implicated or was aware as she spoke with the Judge who made an order that mothers contact "is to be supervised by ERYC, until...... (granddaughter), had been interviewed by the Police, following which contact could return to being supervised by members of the maternal family who had previously been agreed ". The Police had to cancel a number of dates for her interview. Two weeks after disclosure, CSC made the decision that contact could return to being supervised by maternal family members. They did not go back to court to have this amended. CSC explaination for this, is that they made a 'best interest decision', on my granddaughter's behalf, as they state in their response to my sons Stage 2 complaint. They do not even acknowledge that there was a court order in place. In fact, they reword this point in their response, they state that there is a case note stating the 'contact CAN be supervised by ERYC. This has a completely different connotation to the actual wording of the court order, which reads 'IS TO BE SUPERVISED". The point of this point of complaint, was that when she was eventually interviewed by the Police, some three weeks after disclosure, she stated that she "could not remember", as she didn't want to get mummy into trouble. We can only guess what might or might not have been said to her, during the intervening week. They partially uphold this point but only acknowledging the timescales, not the fact they failed to adhere to a court order.
My sons response to the Stage 1 complaint, was sent 3 days shy of 6 months, was sent to the incorrect address and did not address the complaints, it seemed 'fudged'. We questioned whether it may have been altered, the first paragraph refers to feeling sorry for the upset and distress caused to you and your family, also lessons have been learned which will inform future practice, to then 'can find no evidence to support your complaint, with all but one point being 'not upheld'!
My son then made a Subject Access Request. When received, it was incomplete, pages were missing and contained confidential information regarding another family! It had been printed completely out of chronological order, with some pages containing case notes from 2014 and 2015!
We were horrified to note, that there appeared to be no case notes, no case records, no supervision notes, in fact nothing relating to any calls or conversations regarding either the Monday or Tuesday, following the meeting with CSC. The Stage 2 response, stated that both the sw and the manager at the time, had both been interviewed. Neither could 'recall' any conversations, messages or knowledge regarding the mother reconciling with her partner. With regards to the one call I could prove, they stated that 'we have to question whether a 3 second call, was a long enough period of time in which to leave a message!
They go one step further, they 'would like to understand our family's actions at that time ', stating that as we didn't contact CSC on either the Monday or Tuesday, and as we had stated, and that we felt the children were at risk of harm, why we did not call EDT, The Police or remove the children ourselves! So not only are they denying all knowledge of their reconciliation, they are now pointing the finger of blame at my son and myself! This has had a massive impact on my son. He had a period of time on anti depressants, due to the misplaced feelings of guilt he endured, this has reopened those horrific wounds.
Despite their many comments regarding no evidence of any calls being made on either the Monday or Tuesday, they make two separate comments further in the document, stating that they could not understand why we waited until the Monday to inform them!!! There is also a supervision note, dated Monday 25th, written by the team manager, which states that the children are safe with paternal grandmother (me), and ******(redacted), is staying in hospital overnight for tests. This entry does not make any sense! Firstly, they state there is no evidence of any calls/conversations on that date and secondly, no one was in hospital then, my grandson wasn't injured until the following day, Tuesday 26th! Also, this page was printed out numbered 226, the pages containing the case notes from the previous week, when sw met with the mother and myself, were numbered 29, 30 and 31!
They do uphold several points of the complaint, namely, those they could not deny! These include; breach of data - sending someone's confidential information to my son, data breach by sending my sons confidential information to the incorrect address, I should mention, that he following sending in the Stage 2 complaint, which made reference to the wrong address, he later requested a further copy sent to him. Guess where they sent it? Yes, believe it or not, it went to the same incorrect address for a second time. They uphold the delay in responding to the Stage 1 complaint, the fact that there were 7 different social workers, that one of the sw did not once visit my son, nor did she see the children whilst in his presence for over 3 months, that no DVAP referral was made, I actually had to self refer, that no mam meeting was held for over 7 months, we were given incorrect advice re: the SAR application process, which resulted in them exceeding the 40 timescale.
The whole 41 page response, is littered with inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions. They spell workers names incorrectly, give another a different job title, argue against dates which they stated were correct in the first response, I could go on and on!
The Independent Officers report, which states he agrees with the investigators Stage 2investigation and response, was signed more then a month before the response was signed!
I really do believe that if a solicitor or barrister read through this, they would pick it to pieces. Unfortunately, I am unable to raise the necessary finances to appoint one. I have had to remortgage my home, due to cost of the private proceedings.
We have asked for this to be taken to Stage 3, we have also made a further SAR request, this time, without my details being redacted. I hate to say the word but it feels like a coverup.
If ANYBODY can offer any advice or suggestions, I would be extremely grateful.
Thank you for staying with me to the end!
Kind regards,
A disheartened grandmother.