The president of the family courts division has praised and criticised social work contribution to an adoption case, saying it “exemplified everything that is best in the profession” but also showed “lamentable failings”.
The contrast was highlighted in a judgment on a case which involved a four-year-old child, referred to as D, and parents with learning disabilities. Sir James Munby ruled that, despite the parents being devoted to the child, he should be placed for adoption as they weren’t meeting his welfare needs.
Munby praised the child’s social workers who provided “compelling” work, and Swindon council for committing to a “courageous” plan to support the family to stay together for several years previously.
Serious failings
However, he identified “serious failings” in adults’ services, which did not provide the boy’s father with the level of support he needed, and said the father only had “inadequately fitful engagement” from his social worker. Counsel for the parents argued that this affected the father’s ability to care for his child.
Munby did not agree with that point, but said: “The very striking contrast between the level and quality of the services provided by the local authority’s children and adult services redounds as much to the credit of the one as to the discredit of the other.”
On the child’s social worker, Munby said: “She was a most impressive witness who had plainly gone out of her way to do everything possible to maintain D’s placement with his parents. D and his parents were lucky to have the assistance for so long of so dedicated a social worker who, if she will allow me to say so, exemplified everything that is best in the profession.”
‘Devoted’
Munby described the case as “wrenchingly” sad.
“D’s parents are devoted to him and have always wanted to do, and have done, their very best for him. They would never harm him, and have never done so. They are not in any way to blame. They are not to be criticised. It is not in any sense their fault. They have struggled against great odds to be, as they would want to be, the best possible parents for D. But ultimately it has proved too much for them. Their own difficulties are simply too great. My heart goes out to them,” Munby said.
A potential special guardianship placement for D, who had been in foster care since 2014, had fallen through in 2015.
Support for parents
Munby used the case to repeat the conclusions of a judgment issued in Northern Ireland in 2006, which made a case for new guidelines to help adults’ and children’s services work together.
This earlier judgment said parents must be “advised by social workers about their legal rights, where to obtain advice, how to find a solicitor and what help might be available to them once a decision has been taken to pursue a care application”.
It added: “Too narrow a focus must not be placed exclusively on the child’s welfare with an accompanying failure to address parents’ needs arising from their disability which might impact adversely on their parenting capacity. Parents with learning disabilities should be advised of the possibility of using an advocate during their case… and clear explanations and easy to understand information about the process and the roles of the different professionals involved must be disclosed to them periodically. Written information should be provided to such parents to enable them to consider these matters at leisure and with their advocate or advisers.”
It also said that careful consideration should be given to “providing child protection training to staff working in services for adults with learning disabilities. Similarly those in children’s services need training about adults with learning disabilities.”
A spokesperson for Swindon council said it is reviewing the way it works to ensure lessons are learned.
“However, the Judge said that he did not consider that the delays he identified made a difference to the final outcome of this complex and difficult case,” the spokesperson added.
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
Can we have a bit more details of failings from adult services.
Shocking case, cruel and unnecessary to remove the children.
These parents needed support & education to manage. From teh DM article on the story, “Social workers decided in 2012 that they would help the parents to bring up their child. But in the spring of 2014 they changed their minds” likely a money decision. If the claims are even true, despite the sensationalist headlines about cuddles. It’s not right to take their child. What’s worrying is this: “The mother was said to show ‘features of autistic thinking’ and has difficulties thinking flexibly.” When did that become a barrier to being a decent parent! “there were concerns over his slowness with speech and language.” and “hitting, throwing and shouting” so he might be LD or autistic too and they are putting this down to poor parenting. Blame culture by social services, instead of providing the right level of support, parenting classes and having the boy assessed for autism or learning difficulties causing his behaviour, they devastate peoples’ lives, including the child’s. Munby pretends to care about wrongful removal but keeps proving otherwise.
Maybe it’s best to read the ruling rather then the daily mail summery as tabloid like to put spin on the story to grab attention. The judge never blamed the parents for this, as you can see from the above article, he said they did the very best they could. It also does state in the case that the child has got extra needs, I can’t remember if it stated if these were physical,LD ect. And that social workers did everything they could to keep the little one with his/her parents.
@Leigh, the fact that social services took the child away means their parenting was blamed as being inadequate. It’s irrelevant if they deemed it deliberate or otherwise, they still blamed the parenting. Parenting would could have been vastly improved with the right support. That is what social services are there for, the clue is in their name. Do you have a link to the judgment? I doubt it will change my comments however.
Social workers did everything they could, until they didn’t.
There are no magic remedies or formulas for professionals in these sorts of circumstances. Well supported professionals able to deploy their empathy, pragmatism and thinking and working together with parents as part of a whole to weigh up risks and rights come to better decisions and can practice with a clearer line of sight on the needs of children and parents. This needs confidence, time and a strong alliance across the adult-children specialism.