From The TimesOctober 19, 2006
Blind justice without a name
If social workers really are manufacturing evidence in child
abuse cases, their anonymity is assured
Camilla Cavendish
THIS WEEK Tim and Gina Williams, a Welsh couple, were
reunited with their three children. Social workers had whisked them into care
two years ago in the wholly erroneous belief that Mr Williams was a paedophile.
He had made the fatal mistake of calling social services about an 11-year-old
boy he had found half-naked with his daughter. But the tables quickly turned. A
doctor claimed to have found evidence of sexual abuse, social workers jumped to
conclusions, and the Williamses were prevented from seeing their children
except for an hour and a half twice a week. They said that their children never
understood what was happening. They thought their parents did not want them.
Imagine it, and weep.
The Williamses were saved because an American doctor
testified that there was not a shred of evidence of abuse. In a searing
judgment, Judge Crispin Masterman has ruled that the children should never have
been removed. He criticised social workers for failing to follow the most basic
procedures. Yet the doctor and the social workers remain anonymous.
Newport City Council, named as the local authority, has
promised a review. This is unusual. In many such cases, even local councillors
do not know when their own staff perpetrate miscarriages of justice. In March
Mr Justice McFarlane publicly castigated social workers who had removed a
nine-year-old girl from her parents for 14 months on the absolutely false
pretext that her mother might be suffering from Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy
(MSbP). The judge found that every one of the 13 assertions made by the social
services team leader was “misleading or incomplete or wrong”.
But guess what? We will never know who the team leader is.
The Tory MP and ex-council leader Sir Paul Beresford, who has called for those
involved to be named, has been unable even to find out which local authority
was involved. I have a good idea which one it is. But I am willing to bet that
even the leader of that council does not know. I am also willing to bet that
none of the people involved has even been disciplined.
This is a racket. All other public servants are held
accountable for their mistakes. John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP, puts it
this way: “In a criminal case, where someone can be given a life sentence,
police officers are quoted by name as they give evidence. There is no
justification for professionals being anonymous when a parent is given an
effective life sentence [by losing their child].”
Related Links
Family 'torn apart' by claims of child abuse
If we do not know their identities, we also cannot tell
whether the same people have given misleading evidence in other cases. If the
McFarlane case social workers thought they saw MSbP in a woman whose only crime
was to have taken her daughter to hospital for stomach pain (I kid you not),
how many other times were they visited by similarly delusional visions?
Did Gordon Oliver, the social worker recently jailed for
sexually assaulting children over a period of 20 years, ever give evidence in
court? What about Martin Thei, the Essex County Council worker who killed himself
five years ago after being arrested by police for downloading child porn? One
campaign group claims that Thei made many reports that resulted in children
being taken into care and/or adopted. The council says that is unlikely but it
is not absolutely sure. I have talked to one family in whose case Thei’s report
was crucial. This has never been reviewed.
The number of calls I receive from parents, some who have
lost their children for ever and some who have got them back after dreadful
battles, makes me increasingly concerned that social workers and experts are
manufacturing evidence; that they are concentrated in certain parts of the
country; and that they cover up for each other, because they are convinced that
they are right. We are living in a hell of good intentions. We can only root
out the bad apples if we can see how they infect the picture.
Anonymity clouds every attempt at justice. Two years ago,
after Angela Cannings was cleared of killing her babies, Margaret Hodge, then
Children’s Minister, announced a review of certain cases where children had
been taken into care. But her “review” consisted of asking the same old people
in the same old local authorities to question their own original judgments.
Only one case was subsequently overturned. That tells us nothing, because Hodge
failed utterly to grasp the opportunity to monitor specific councils and
witnesses and to see whether there were patterns to their behaviour.
Today, once again, we are in danger of missing an
opportunity. For the Government’s otherwise excellent consultation on opening
up the family courts barely touches on this issue. It concentrates on the
anonymity of children and families, and says virtually nothing about the
anonymity of professionals. Making more judgments public, as the Government
proposes, would clearly be a great step forward. But if we simply get
anonymised judgments, such as that of McFarlane, we are not much farther
forward in holding fraudsters to account.
Judges currently decide whether to make their judgments
public, and whether to name professionals. Very few do, despite guidance from
the Court of Appeal (in the McFarlane case, the court even kept secret the
identity of the defence counsel). I have no desire to perpetrate witch-hunts:
each witness could be given an identity code, if that was felt absolutely
necessary to protect their identities, but that would at least enable those of
us who want to see justice done track their record.
The debate about child protection and anonymity is always
couched in terms of the interests of the child. Those who work in this field
have come to believe that a child’s privacy is somehow synonymous with their
own. But if some people do not understand what real evidence is, should they
not be accountable? The oldest law of bureaucracies is “first protect
ourselves”. How many more cases do there have to be before someone finally
kicks down their hiding place?
Have your say
if there is to be justice for these vulnurable little
angles, family courts has to be made public so that each one { the victim,
defence, prosecution and court } are to account for each of their every move.
Children are suffering so much in the hands of so called professsionals as they
are the ones trained to protect them as much as the parents also have a duty,
but power lies with "pros". 'So if they are badly trained to protect
children they will abuse them as they have done and continue doing'. I am a
victim of both police and social services accusation, instutions which are
vastly corupt and arrogant thinking they posses every power in this planet
earth and can do anything without a care of duty. It is time these
professionals are brought to books otherwise they will continue damaging this
society. Judges are as guilty as them as they are the ones that protect social
services and the prosecution, i have been a victim of this huge arrogance both
in the family and crown court.
Obiero, ilford, essex
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article605554.ece