A Cautionary Tale

In light of two recent high profile cases; one in the US, and one in the UK, I would like to share a story from social work, which I feel has some parallels to both stories.

The case in the US involved a young white man called Brock Turner. Turner was a young man from a privileged background and was described in the press as an “All American Swimmer”. He was at Stanford College, where one evening during a Fraternity party, he was discovered by two other students on top of an unconscious young woman. He was sexually assaulting her. He ran from the scene, but was tackled by the two young men who had discovered him and held until the police arrived.

The maximum sentence for Turner’s crime was 14 years; he got 6 months and is due for release in 3. His father commented that this was “a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action”. The case sparked widespread outrage and debate, none of which I am going to enter into here. The point I would like to make is that in ALL societies, there is a huge imbalance when it comes to dealing with people from a different economic class. 

The newspapers were quick to bring to the public’s attention several rape and sexual assault cases where the perpetrators had been from a different economic background, different ethnic group and class – all had received the maximum sentence. Not one had been handed such a lenient sentence as Turner.

The details of the Brock Turner case can be found by following this link;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Turner

The case in the UK tragically involved the death of a six year old girl called Ellie Butler. Ellie was killed by her father who had fought to have her returned to his care after he was released from prison where he had been serving a sentence for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Ellie, when she was only a few weeks old. Ellie had suffered severe brain injuries, but Butler began a media campaign to have Ellie returned to his care.

Astonishingly he won.

He won due to the judge, Mrs Justice Hogg finding in his favour and expressing her “joy” at this “happy ending”. It was not a happy ending for Ellie. She is dead.

Social workers in Ellie’s case did NOT fail her but were thwarted in their attempts to protect her. 

You can read an account of this case by following the link below;

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/ellie-butler-judge-took-unwarranted-steps-to-reunite-her-with-violent-parents

The case I would like to share, thankfully does not involve the tragic death of a child, neither does it involve rape or sexual assault. It does however involve a young mother, who like Turner, came from a privileged background. This mother, like Butler, had her two children returned to her care, despite the recommendations of their social worker to the contrary. I was the social worker for these children and this is my account of a frustrating case, which in my opinion was handled differently to other similar cases due to the mother’s perceived “status”.

I will call her *Natalie Smith.

Natalie Smith was a young mother of 28. She had twin sons, *Aaron and *Jake, aged three at the time of my involvement. Natalie came from a wealthy background; she had attended private school and was expected to do well for herself. However, Natalie had developed a problem with alcohol at the age of 16, and had been in and out of private clinics several times – paid for by her parents.

At the age of 24, Natalie had an affair with a TV celebrity, which resulted in her pregnancy with the twins. The father (who was married) wanted nothing to do with her once he discovered she was pregnant, but he offered to support the boys financially. The family declined his offer.

Natalie did not come to the attention of Children’s Services until the twins were six months old. She was discovered passed out in her car on a country lane. She had apparently been on her way to the off licence to buy more alcohol. The children were at home alone and when the police found them, they used their powers to place them in Local Authority foster care and the case was referred to Children’s Services.

The social worker who picked up the case was inexperienced and later stated that she had been somewhat daunted at having a case involving someone “posh”. She was not used to dealing with people of Natalie’s class and had felt intimidated by Natalie and by her formidable parents. Natalie’s family closed ranks, gathered around her and offered support, telling Children’s Services that they would not be needed. They refused to co-operate and in an overworked, understaffed department, the decision was made that Natalie and the boys could be adequately supported by her family. The drunken incident was described as unfortunate, but accepted as a one off. The twins were returned to her care and the case was quickly closed with a note of No Further Action on the file.

Eighteen months later, Natalie was once again found to be intoxicated while caring for the now two-year old boys. The police had to step in again and place the boys in foster care. This time, a Core Assessment was undertaken, which suggested (unsurprisingly) that Natalie needed input from the alcohol team and support from the local Family Centre.

Once again, her parents came forward and stated that Children’s Services were not required, and that this time, they would ensure “round the clock support” for Natalie and the boys. There was no Case Conference, and no application for an Interim Care Order. The boys remained in foster care under S20 of The Children Act, with Natalie’s agreement. The Local Authority did not have parental responsibility for the children, and once again, they went home to Natalie. This time there was some follow up, with home visits and phone calls. Social workers found that there were indeed people at Natalie’s home when they called, but noted that they seemed to do little but drink tea with her. Natalie did not appear to be assuming much responsibility for the boys, leaving them to her friends and family to care for. She did not engage with the alcohol team, but assured the social worker that she had now stopped drinking and was doing much better. Her friends and family all confirmed this, and some even wrote letters of support stating how well Natalie was doing.

The case was closed four weeks after the completion of the Core Assessment, with a note on file that Children’s Services were “Satisfied” that Natalie had appropriate support.

Unbeknown to Children’s Services, the novelty of offering support to Natalie soon wore thin for her friends and family who had better things to do. They stopped visiting, though no one in Children’s Services was aware of this as the case had been closed. In desperation, Natalie’s mother employed a Nanny for the boys, but she quickly left when she discovered that she was expected to assume 100% care for the children until late at night, and that their mother had a serious alcohol problem. A string of Nannies came and went – with Children’s Services still unaware of the growing problem in the home.

When the boys were two and a half, they were discovered in a park running around on their own. The police were called yet again and eventually discovered Natalie under a tree surrounded by four empty bottles of wine. The boys went back into foster care – their third period of time in care in less than two years. For Natalie, nothing had changed. Her parents had now washed their hands of her, and her well to do friends had abandoned her. She was a single mother with a significant alcohol problem, and she was on her own.

At this point, I would like to pause and say that I have known several cases similar to this one, and in every single one, an Initial Child Protection Case Conference was convened to consider the risk to the children. On the second time of mother being intoxicated while caring for the children, an Interim Care Order was sought, and in no case, did the children return to mother’s care if significant changes had not taken place. However, in ALL of the previous cases I had worked, the mother’s came from what would be considered an underprivileged background, were in receipt of benefits and lived a very different kind of life to the one Natalie should have been enjoying.

I became involved as I had been employed by this Local Authority as an agency worker.  My line manager was also an agency worker and a woman of great experience and knowledge. She advised me on my first day that she had a difficult case to allocate to me, and one with a significant history. I was told that Natalie had now engaged with an alcohol programme and was determined to get the twins back again. Natalie was described to me as highly intelligent and incredibly manipulative.

I was told that the current social worker had just been dismissed, as she had been visiting Natalie in the evenings for coffee and had apparently told her, “Don’t you worry Nat, I’ll get your kids back”.

I was the latest in a succession of social workers who had yet to engage with Natalie in any meaningful way.

I reviewed the case from old files, and completed a chronology, which had never been done. What was of startling note was that no one had, at any point, contacted the children’s father. When I made enquiries about why this was, I was told by other social workers that knew about the case, that it was due to his celebrity status! I was also told by other social workers in the team that Natalie “Knew people” and was “Well connected” in the area. I failed to see what this had to do with the wellbeing of the children and commented that this was not 1960’s London under the control of the Krays. However, I did take note of the worrying attitudes surrounding this case, which to me indicated a culture of “Laissez Faire” or leave well alone.

I wrote to Natalie by email in the first instance to introduce myself, and to suggest an office meeting. She wrote back to me almost immediately. Her email was enthusiastic and friendly. She welcomed me as the children’s new social worker and agreed to the meeting. She shortened my name, addressing me as if by nickname. She signed herself Nat.

I wrote again thanking her for responding so quickly. I addressed the email to Ms Smith and signed my full professional name.

The meeting did not go well.

Natalie seemed upset that I did not see things her way, and failed to understand why I would not agree to the children being returned to her care the following day. When I explained to her that I would be undertaking a comprehensive parenting assessment, which would take many weeks of observation and engagement, she became angry. The friendly persona of the email disappeared, and Natalie actually repeated what my colleagues had told me, saying, she “Knew people” and would make sure I lost my job. 

Really?

I had hardly stepped back into the building when my manager called me into her office. Apparently Natalie’s solicitor had sent a tersely worded email to say that Natalie wanted a new social worker as the relationship between us had “broken down”. My manager sensibly wrote back and said that there was no relationship established as yet, and so nothing to “break down”. No replacement social worker would be allocated. The solicitor then wrote again and suggested that I was not qualified to undertake a parenting assessment; he demanded that someone else do the assessment. Again, my manager told him politely that I was more than qualified to undertake a parenting assessment as it was basically what I did for a living.

Natalie then avoided me with avengeance. She refused to attend any meetings with me, and would not allow me to visit the home. I saw the children in foster care on a regular basis, and had no choice, but to write an assessment based on past history, and current issues with input from the foster carers, nursery and a few of Natalie’s friends who agreed to see me. What emerged was a very different picture to the one Children’s Services had been presented with. Natalie had managed very well to hide the reality of her alcoholism, shunning everyone, and relying on paid Nannies to care for the boys. As far as I could make out, she had never in her life had full time care of the children for more than a day or two, before someone had stepped in to offer support.

Natalie was NOT engaged with the alcohol team as she had led us to believe, and as far as I was able to assess, absolutely nothing had changed. I had managed to track down the father, who advised me that he wanted nothing to do with the children or Natalie, so he was out of the picture. Her family had also disowned her, and she had no friends left to rely on.  In light of Natalie’s refusal to work with Children’s Services, I was of the opinion that if the children were to return to her care, history would repeat itself, and they would be at risk of ongoing harm. After several weeks of gathering information, I wrote my recommendations, which were that the children remain in foster care, with a plan to free them for adoption. My manager agreed.

Early the following morning, I had just arrived at work, when I had a phone call from my manager. She was upset, and told me that she had been fired and would not be returning to work. I was stunned and asked why. She said that it was because she had criticised a decision regarding the twins, which I would hear about very soon. She warned me that I could expect some opposition and advised me to be vigilant and “Watch my back”. It was as cryptic a phone call as I had ever received in social work. Mystified, I went about my business, until I was called into the office of the Operations Manager. 

He told me that he had read my report and advised me that I would have to change my recommendations. Puzzled, I asked what I was expected to change. He shuffled about in his seat and looked uncomfortable. He told me that he had been in discussions with very senior management and with other individuals, and that the twins would be returning home to the care of their mother. In light of these discussions, I would need to “Adjust” my report accordingly to reflect this decision. I sat open mouthed, but managed to ask why. He rambled on for a while about Natalie not being given a fair attempt at parenting the children and that this time, she would have an army of support. He then said that Natalie had “strong ties” with certain people in the area who had pledged to assist her. I reminded him, that we had been down this road with her in the past, with round the clock support, and it had not worked, and as such nothing had changed. I asked who these people were and why he thought it would it work this time.

He would not be drawn into a discussion, but told me that an emergency review meeting had been convened, which I was expected to attend in precisely 30 minutes. I would hand out copies of my amended report and recommend that the children return to Natalie’s care forthwith.

It was his turn to be stunned when I refused.

I told him that I had no intention of changing my recommendations as I believed that my assessment was accurate, and my manager had agreed with me. He then told me what I already knew – my manager no longer worked for this department.  I then told him that if he wanted the report changing, he had better find himself another social worker, as I would not do it. I refused to put my name on a document, which would mean placing these children back in a home where I believed they would be at significant risk of ongoing harm.

I then did something I have never done in my career as a social worker, no matter how difficult things had been.

I resigned, right there and then, I resigned.

Before I left, I made an official complaint to the Director of Children’s Services, in regard to the twin’s case and I was subsequently invited to see him. He listened carefully to what I had to say and then told me they were sorry to lose me.  

I do not know what became of Natalie or her children after I left. I sincerely hope that she did succeed in being a parent, but I seriously doubt it.

I have told this story as a cautionary tale; no one, not a social worker, a manager or a Director can afford to be manipulated or swayed simply because of someone’s status, perceived or otherwise. I was horrified at the way Natalie seemed to be able to manipulate the people around her. I never did find out who she “knew” but it smacked of corruption. For me as a professional social worker, I felt bullied and under pressure to change a decision, simply because someone somewhere seemed to be intimidated by Natalie’s contacts. Whatever or whoever it was, it got in the way of the safety of those children, which to me was totally unacceptable.

*All names have been changed

For more information on me and my writing, please visit my website;

www.freyabarrington.com 

Freya