Social worker anger over top family judge's scathing attack

Social worker groups are to seek an urgent meeting with the new President of the Family Division after his caustic criticisms in a Court of Appeal case where a local authority had sought to retain a care order.

In EH v London Borough of Greenwich & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 344, a three-year-old girl and her five-year-old brother were taken into care after the girl suffered a broken arm. An earlier hearing had suggested that the injury was likely to have been caused by her father.

A judge had confirmed the care order, but that ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal. The mother was asking for help to break free from an abusive relationship, Lord Justice Wall said, but “was denied that help abruptly and without explanation”. The judge argued that was very poor social work practice.

The President of the Family Division said: “What social workers do not appear to understand is that the public perception of their role in care proceedings is not a happy one. They are perceived by many as the arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system, and as trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process.”

The judge said the Greenwich case would “do little to dispel that perception”, although he added that he was “very conscious of the criticism that social workers are damned if they do and damned if they do not”.

Lord Justice Wall nevertheless strongly criticised the social workers in the case, insisting that their duties under Parts III and IV of the Children Act in care proceedings are plain. “Their aim should be to unite families rather than to separate them,” he said.

The chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, Hilton Dawson, said that “generalising comments about ‘authoritarian’ social workers are just plain wrong”.

He added: “At a time when the profession is under huge media pressure to protect children from abuse, comments like these are inappropriate – they have a direct and significant impact on social work morale, recruitment and retention and therefore on the people that social work serves.”

The BASW said it would write to Lord Justice Wall to seen an urgent meeting with him. The judge was sworn in as President of the Family Division earlier this month, taking over from Sir Mark Potter.

A spokesman for Greenwich said: “Our priority was, and always will be, to protect children from being violently abused. In this case there was overwhelming evidence that a baby had been physically abused and we developed a care plan to provide safety and security for the baby and another young sibling.”

However, he added that the council accepted the court’s concerns about the lack of support provided to the mother, and that its policies were to treat cases of domestic violence extremely seriously and with great sensitivity.

The spokesman said the council was arranging an independent review of the case “so that we have the best plan to ensure the welfare of these very young children”.

Lord Justice Wall’s comments in the Greenwich case were followed shortly after by criticism from Lord Justice Aikens of Devon County Council over its attempts to remove a baby from his young mother and have him adopted.

The local authority had brought the action even though there was no evidence that she had mistreated the baby or that the violent father of her first child would have any involvement with his care. It claimed that the mother had a propensity to form relationships with dangerous individuals.

Lord Justice Aikens said Devon’s actions were likely to be seen as “more like Stalin’s Russia….than the west of England”. Lord Justice Wall added that local authorities “don’t seem to understand that the public perceive them as prejudging cases of this nature.”

The council subsequently dropped its appeal against an earlier ruling that gave the mother last chance.

A spokesman for Devon told the BBC it was reviewing its position. They added: “This is a difficult and complex case in which the county council’s first priority had to be for the welfare and protection of a vulnerable child. It was the view….that a care order was the most effective way of providing an appropriate level of protection for the child concerned.”