Evidence - noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or
proposition is true or valid : the study finds little evidence of overt
discrimination. Law information given personally, drawn from a document, or in
the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal
investigation or admissible as testimony in court: without evidence, they can't
bring a charge.
One would assume, from the definition above, that the term evidence had a
universal application. That evidence would require, as it were, bringing forth
the material and other facts that support the allegation. It is a basic
principle of British Law that an individual is accorded 'due process' by which
is meant that laws and regulations must be related to a legitimate government
interest (as crime prevention) and may not contain provisions that result in the
unfair or arbitrary treatment of an individual.
It is also well accepted that British Law is based on the adversarial
principle that a person accused of a crime is 'innocent till proven guilty'.
Proof is established by way of evidence to support or discount the truth of the
allegation and is presented in Court where there is ample chance for both sides
(defence and prosecution) to state their case and argue against each other's and
for the matter to be decided impartially. All well and good in principle but
there are areas of 'investigation' that fall far outside the protections we
citizens presume to be our basic legal rights.
Much is being made in the media recently about the number of young people the
state 'looks after' on behalf of their parent(s) or in place of their parent(s).
Statistics, in themselves quite meaningless as Disraeli observed; remember the
tired adage: 'There are lies, damned lies and statistics'. It is as if the fact
that local authorities are accommodating young people in ever increasing numbers
somehow supports the mechanisms by which those young people are accommodated.
Indeed, without much apparent insight or knowledge into the actual
application of social services investigations journalists are pronouncing, quite
evocatively, that these young people are abused or neglected and presenting with
every increasing behavioural issues. Perhaps the first enlightenment we need is
to consider to the two basic categories for a child to enter the purview of the
social services department: either a child and their family self-refer (ask for
help) from social services; or, they are referred by another agency because of
'concern'.
In the former category one would expect social services to at least
acknowledge that the family understand they are having difficulties and that
they have approached the agency they feel will best assist them. Nothing is
further from the truth as social services are renowned for deterring families
that self-refer and attempt to divert them to other agencies or just state their
own disinterest. Funnily enough the Children Act, 1989 specifically states that
the local authority have a duty to at least keep a register of all 'children in
need' in their area and to provide, where appropriate, information, support and
services.
In the latter category, those referred by other agencies due to concerns,
then again social services seem adept at 'dodging responsibility' unless there
is 'evidence' of abuse or neglect it is interesting that their 'demanded'
threshold far outstrips their own internal threshold in terms of evidence but
this will be argued later. Where social services deem that their threshold has
been met then they will provide an initial assessment and if after this they
still feel the family are within their remit then they will conduct a core
assessment.
One can assume, quite reasonably, that no parent refers themselves because
they are abusing or neglecting their child, though they do refer when their
child is or has been abused by another. Eligibility for services, again, is seen
as quite arbitrary, if the perpetrator has been convicted or has moved out of
the area then social services often see that they have 'no role'. So how, or
when, do social services get involved?
If the initial assessment, if it happens, raises issues that pique the
curiosity of one or more of the social services then a core assessment is
completed. This is an intrusive, secret and often hollow assessment of the
family and childıs social, emotional and educational circumstances. Quite an
unwieldy document it is often seen as too complex to be understood or so full of
information that it becomes overkill. However, there are trigger points where
social services 'concern' may increase to a point that they decide, without any
negotiation with the family, that a conference is required.
Here we arrive at the point where most families are transported into a
twilight world of innuendo, belief (prejudice), suspicion, risk and opinion.
Once the unfettered and unchecked psyche of the social worker is unleashed upon
their world then a family can only do one thing fight for dear life and
liberty. Every aspect of a familyıs disclosure in their core assessment is now
used as a tool to support the 'suspicions' of the social services, prior mental
health history, lack of finances, alcohol and drugs: all of these factors count
as important as each other in determining the 'risk' posed to the child.
Families are routinely threatened with criminal proceedings and removal of
any/all children from the family. Once a child or children are removed and
accommodated family members face the prospect of their child enduring multiple
moves and even out of area placement where they have to travel to see their own
child. Such 'contact' arrangements are also subject to control by the social
services department who can, without notice, withhold visitation rights.
Children's poor behaviour in placement is rarely seen as a consequence of
wanting to go home but more the disruptive influence of family members visiting.
Vital information about medical treatment is withheld from parents and cases of
suspected or actual abuse in a foster or childrenıs home is again rarely shared
with parents.
Any family that bulks against the actions of the social services department
are considered 'high risk' parents as they are unable to cooperate or work in
partnership with social services. Physical, mental, emotional and educational
factors are reinterpreted as supporting the notion that ³this parent/these
parents cannot possibly cope with their child/children² and this further
supports the social services angle.
Here again we need to be very specific there are two forms of inclusion of
children on a 'child protection register', there can be ³abuseı where
adult(s) are engaging in a form of behaviour with a child which is directly
intended to harm the child (either physical, emotional or sexual); but there is
also 'neglect' where adults may not act intentionally but nonetheless are
risking their child (this is primarily emotional and physical). Examples of the
difference: physical abuse could include beatings or other physical chastisement
which in all events is unreasonable (breaking bones etc); physical neglect would
be not taking adequate care over nutrition and need not be intentional it may
just be the parentıs poor understanding of dietary health needs of a child.
The ability for a family to negotiate the child protection process is not
easy, in fact often obtaining the help of a legal advisor is no help at all.
Many solicitors know what they are up against and try their best to help clients
keep control of the conflicting emotions they are going through whilst
themselves knowing that the system isn't under any formal legal control. Social
services are at liberty to pursue any line of enquiry they feel is supporting
their allegations but do not have to examine any evidence that would dispute
their point-of-view. Social services come at parents with the view that they are
³guilty until proven innocent² which without recourse to the Court is impossible
to realise for many parents.
Children can be held in 'limbo' on 'voluntary care orders' where parents are
told, 'either sign this form to allow us to take your child/children or we will
go to Court and get an Order.' Parents believe social services and they have
good reason to, after all who can forget the Orkney debacle or Cleveland
travesty where whole groups of children were taken from their homes. Once social
services have a child in their 'care' then a different set of objectives unfolds
is there a possibility this child could be adopted? We will not travel too far
down this road but it is an essential requirement for social services to look at
whether reunification of a child is possible at all and where this isn't
possible to look for 'permanency' for the child.
A voluntary care agreement allows, in law, for the parent(s) to retrieve
their child from local authority care whenever they feel that this is right for
them, however, most parents who try or express a desire to attempt this are told
that this will be met with social services going to Court for an Order and that
visitation to their child may be at risk if they try this. Indeed, this will
then be minuted in the notes which parents don't have access to as them
being hostile or uncooperative and a whole set of aspersions being cast on them.
Behind the scenes social services will be working hard on a case to bring to
Court, whether they intend to seek full custody of a child or not. Every
conversation, letter, complaint, piece of personal or family history will be
being woven into a tapestry that paints the picture social services want told.
What evidence to they have to produce to Court none! By judicious inclusion of
material provided by the parents and especially including out-of-context but
verbatim quotes social services has the power to put forward a pretty convincing
case. At Court social workers are considered 'expert witnesses' and their
'opinion' matters more than the facts of the case.
Many cases succeed not because the evidence was so strong but because the
social worker was a good orator and the file presented to the Court appeared so
'circumstantially' strong. This is how learning disabled parents can loose child
after child, not because they have ever been found guilty of child neglect or
abuse but because social services felt there was a risk of neglect or abuse
the though of providing services to these parents to counter such risks doesnıt
occur to them. This is how parents who seek help for a child that is 'out of
control' but who they desperately love and want at home ends up in care for
being at risk of 'emotional neglect' and then that child ends up creating havoc
in the foster home(s) not a surprise I would have thought. Again, all
this/these parent/s want is support at home.
By Fassit's Social Affairs Correspondent
